[PASSED] Data Protection Accord

[Kenmoria]

“I recommend removing the word ‘directly’ before ‘governments’ in your definition of organisation. Hardly any government corporations are run directly by the legislative assembly; there is usually a person in charge who answers to a clerk, or they are run by a devolved authority.”

[Marxist Germany]

“I recommend removing the word ‘directly’ before ‘governments’ in your definition of organisation. Hardly any government corporations are run directly by the legislative assembly; there is usually a person in charge who answers to a clerk, or they are run by a devolved authority.”

"Yes, that is a problem that should be fixed now."

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:Bumping this for more feedback, possibly looking st submission on 26 August.

[Araraukar]

OOC:Bumping this for more feedback, possibly looking st submission on 26 August.

OOC: Still needs a new title.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:Bumping this for more feedback, possibly looking st submission on 26 August.

OOC: Still needs a new title.

OOC:Convention on Data Protection has a nice rhyme to it.

[Maowi]

OOC: Still needs a new title.

OOC:Convention on Data Protection has a nice rhyme to it.

OOC: What about 'Protecting Personal Data'? Doesn't that sound nice?

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:Convention on Data Protection has a nice rhyme to it.

OOC: What about 'Protecting Personal Data'? Doesn't that sound nice?

OOC:You mean the now repealed GA#461?

[Maowi]

OOC: What about 'Protecting Personal Data'? Doesn't that sound nice?

OOC:You mean the now repealed GA#461?

I mean the potentially soon-to-be GA#469

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:You mean the now repealed GA#461?

I mean the potentially soon-to-be GA#469

OOC:That would hopefully be the repeal of GA#468
Sticking with CDP, Im too creative to use the same name twice

[Kenmoria]

“Your ‘noting’ clause needs at least one comma somewhere in there. Currently, it’s rather hard to parse.”

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:Submitting next friday.

[Youssath]

The Youssathian Ambassador reads the resolution and is somewhat surprised that it is almost the exact same resolution that he had seen months ago. While he recalled that the resolution was soundly defeated as a result, he notes the numerous corrections made by the German delegation to help address the technicalities within the resolution.

The ambassador makes his way towards the podium, and pulls out a familiar piece of paper before starting his speech:

Ambassador Klaus, I refer you to our previous discussion along with the final note issued to you on the subject of this resolution.

First of all, we are happy to know that most of our concerns have been addressed since the failed resolution months ago. While there remains the unnecessary bureaucratic work that will be created by this resolution, we feel that such burdens can be dealt with only with the full and compliant consent of the users.

We would, however, like to call for the amendment towards the preamble findings of this resolution, most notably the first preliminary statement that states that there is a "lack of legislation regarding the ability of organisations to collect data from their customers without consent". As GAR #213: Privacy Protection Act does exist within international law, we ask that you make the following adjustments as follows. My assistant has come up with a draft to replace the first statement:

"Calling for greater legislation to be introduced regarding the ability of organisations to collect data from their customers without consent;"

Other than that, most of our concerns on medical emergencies, definitions and the use of falsified data has been promptly addressed on. As such, we shall be voting for this resolution. We thank you for your time to make the following arrangements to help protect personal data in a world filled with menacing corporations.

OOC: Excellent proposal, Germany! You have my support on this for sure after addressing the concerns stated in your previous resolution. I hope to see this passed in the General Assembly!

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:Changes have been made to the preamble, submission hopefully tomorrow. I'd like to kindly ask three people to read the proposal and check for any issues before I submit.

[Kenmoria]

“In your first preamble clause, ‘GA#213’ would be better written as ‘GA #213’, with a space.”

(OOC: Try not to question how that works IC as a spoken remark. That was the only issue I found.)

[Araraukar]

OOC: If you absolutely for some reason need to refer to a previous resolution specifically, use its name in addition to its number, as the mere number won't say anything to the vast majority of voters. However, that statement would work perfectly well without specific resolution reference, as well.

I'd suggest adding the word "reasonable" to go with privacy, somewhere in the second preamble clause, because in the modern world no-one's life is completely private and you make the state functions (like taxes) exception.

And similarly making it "non-essential data" in the third, for the same reason.

The fourth preamble clause just looks off. I'd suggest re-wording as "Noting that most minors are not fully capable of comprehending the risks of the decisions made on matters of privacy". That doesn't make it sound like almost all minors were retarded, and does connect it to the privacy issue.

And it should likely be "non-governmental organizations" in the last preamble clause. Oh and preamble clauses should end with commas, not semicolons.

The definitions should likely have "a/an" instead of "any". Also, 1.a. should likely have "that systematically collects data", to go with the overall theme of the proposal. 1.c. means that 2.a.'s "non adolescent minor" can be shortened to "non-adolescent". Though since 2.a. is the only one using "adolescent", it looks a bit odd to have that exception (even though I understand that it is basically what COPPA does in RL) there and nowhere else. Maybe you could instead incorporate it into your definition of a user, since it looks like you're grouping adolescents into "users" anyway? On 1.d., I'm fairly sure each "not legally competent" person is required to have a legal guardian as per a previous resolution. Though I'm not entirely certain why it needs to be defined to begin with, since you're not using the word in a way that differs from the usual meaning. You could drop the definition and instead word the relevant part of 2.a. as "consent of their legal guardian except when they cannot be contacted". And the "sapient being" in definitions f. and g. can be replaced with "person", since only sapient beings are capable of being persons.

The first "user, or non-user" in 2.b. could probably just be replaced with "anyone" and the latter with "person", since there's no need to specify the two categories, given that together they encompass everyone. Though the journalistic exception there looks oddly out of place and should probably be removed to be its own clause or subclause, since it should come with the restrictions for sexual and medical privacy issues.

2.d. looks odd - in RL most data collection agreements (yes, I actually read the bloody things before clicking yes or no) specifically have a clause saying the data will be shared with authorities to comply with investigations and whatnot, upon request - I would suggest replacing the whole litany with "unless the user has consented to their data being shared with authorities as necessary, as a condition to use the services of the organization", and then adding the need for the organizations to both share the data as necessary and inform the user of that being the requirement to use their services. Since that's how it works in RL, it obviously works. I realize it may look like simply moving the list to the mandates, but that's because they should be mandates, not exceptions to data protection. Organizations should comply with relevant data requests for the reasons you've outlined.

3.b. again has the weird "users and non-users" thing. I again suggest using a more all-encompassing word, like "anyone" or "person". Though I'd change the wording into "privary or well-being of others", because why would someone's own well-being be affected by what data there is about them, and also since privacy is the whole point of the proposal, you shouldn't be able to gain access to someone else's data.

3.c. seems to read that any data that isn't processed but merely collected, can be stored indefinitely.

Why does 3.d. have the criminal record exception? Wouldn't criminal records be something for a governmental organization to deal with, rather than a private one? I would change that to "disciplinary records" since you mention disciplinary actions specifically. Also, "safety" doesn't usually refer to loans and sales, so maybe add "financial" in there? And I would suggest adding "denial of services" to the examples. I mean, I'm sure there's a list of information on people declared DOS somewhere in the Super Sekrit sections of the NS website, that's meant to be kept indefinitely and which the persons in question certainly wouldn't agree to being stored. (This issue applies to 3.c. too.)

3.e. would likely be better worded as "to ensure the data being stored by the orgnisation is not accessed by unauthorized persons", since it needs to be accessed to be leaked or stolen, and also because outsiders shouldn't get to even view it, nevermind do something to it.

[Youssath]

The first "user, or non-user" in 2.b. could probably just be replaced with "anyone" and the latter with "person", since there's no need to specify the two categories, given that together they encompass everyone. Though the journalistic exception there looks oddly out of place and should probably be removed to be its own clause or subclause, since it should come with the restrictions for sexual and medical privacy issues.

3.b. again has the weird "users and non-users" thing. I again suggest using a more all-encompassing word, like "anyone" or "person". Though I'd change the wording into "privary or well-being of others", because why would someone's own well-being be affected by what data there is about them, and also since privacy is the whole point of the proposal, you shouldn't be able to gain access to someone else's data.

I can't agree with you there, sadly. The issue of the definition of "user" or "non-user" in the previous resolution was what that caused Protecting Personal Privacy to fail in the first place, and many regional delegates (including The North Pacific, with a full explanation as to why they asked all of its members to vote against the proposal!) pressed on that matter which caused the bill to fail overall. Not to mention the other glaring issues that were stated previously, I say that Germany has finally addressed the issues within his resolution and is now finally ready to present in the General Assembly.

[Araraukar]

(including The North Pacific, with a full explanation as to why they asked all of its members to vote against the proposal!)

OOC: Please quote the text you're referring to, into here, or use your own words to recap it. Also, "user, or non-user" still encompasses everyone, so there's no reason to not use a single term instead of two (or a single word instead of three).

[Youssath]

OOC: Please quote the text you're referring to, into here, or use your own words to recap it. Also, "user, or non-user" still encompasses everyone, so there's no reason to not use a single term instead of two (or a single word instead of three).

The definition of 'user' is so specific that there is not an easily discernable definition to 'non-user' seeing that it is not defined. This error makes Clause 3, sections 2 and 4 difficult to enforce.

OOC: For your own reference, but feel free to read the entire argument since it does illustrate the whole point the author is trying to drive to entirely.

Aye, "user" or "non-user" still encompasses everyone, but it's still an issue brought about by the major regions in this world. This was explicitly stated, and hence this concern must be promptly addressed or else it will not garner international support.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: I agree with youssath on that issue, otherwise, changes will be made when I get home.

Edit: it also seems like the submission threat trick finally got some feedback through

[Araraukar]

Edit: it also seems like the submission threat trick finally got some feedback through

OOC: Pure coincidence, I assure you. I just finally had some "brain time" to waste on NS.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:I'll give this more time because I'd like to submit my other proposal before this. Feedback is still welcome. (I haven't forgotten Ara, give me a couple of minutes before I fix the problems you highlighted).

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:Submission on Sunday hopefully

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Submitting this next hour because I see no reason not to. Any complaints should be made now not at vote.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Call it something else but convention? That's almost as annoying as titles starting with "on". It's an act on data protection, so just go with Data Protection Act? Or just simply "Data Protection". It's supposed to be a title, not a description.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Submitting this next hour because I see no reason not to. Any complaints should be made now not at vote.

(OOC: I’m just about in the time limit; there should either: not be a comma after ‘user’ in clause 3d, or one after ‘non-user’ as well. Personally, I prefer the former option.)