[PASSED] Prohibition Of Unwarranted Digital Surveillance

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Obraztsova: Opposed on basis that it would hamper Lakan Internal Intelligence Ministry operations especially in wartime. Furthermore search engine limitation seem a bit too absurd...
*whispering* God, please, don’t let this pass, I don’t want to be disposed off...

"How does this limit search engine usage?"

Apologies for me using the wrong words, ambassador, we were talking about digital surveillance ops. Maybe I should get a translator... But meh, the idiots back home will never give me one.

[Greater Cesnica]

"How does this limit search engine usage?"

Apologies for me using the wrong words, ambassador, we were talking about digital surveillance ops. Maybe I should get a translator... But meh, the idiots back home will never give me one.

"Alright, Ambassador."

[Canasius]

Canasius is voting in favor of this proposal, which protects the civil liberties of human beings around the world. This formalization of the rights of all human beings will also make it easier act against dictatorships and tyrannical leadership.

[Greater Cesnica]

Canasius is voting in favor of this proposal, which protects the civil liberties of human beings around the world. This formalization of the rights of all human beings will also make it easier act against dictatorships and tyrannical leadership.

"We thank your delegation for your support."

[Trellania]

Dame Allania Trueblood sighs as she looks over the piece of legislation, before finally setting it down and rubbing her nose.

"While Trellania supports the idea of furthering the freedoms of people, as long as they do not disrupt our political system, we are forced to question how this proposal does that.

"In theory, this prevents digital spying beyond what is necessary. In practice, this has loopholes large enough to pilot a decently-sized galaxy through.

"For example, what do you mean by 'public sphere?' In Trellania, this means 'information that is publicly available.' Which, thanks to the gossipy nature of commoners and nobles alike, typically includes everything. Including the exploits they get up to in their bedrooms. Thank Duchess Omalia for why I no longer eat carrots unless they're diced.

"I'm sorry, but as worded, the only thing stopping Trellanian law enforcement from being able to break down Ambassador McCooley's bedroom door and film whatever he gets up to with his loved ones is the Diplomat Protection Act. And I will note most private citizens do not have even that protection.

"I must vote against simply because this proposal, as written, is completely unenforcible."

OOC: Spelling correction edit.

[Kenmoria]

Dame Allania Trueblood sighs as she looks over the piece of legislation, before finally setting it down and rubbing her nose.

"While Trellania supports the idea of furthering the freedoms of people, as long as they do not disrupt our political system, we are forced to question how this proposal does that.

"In theory, this prevents digital spying beyond what is necessary. In practice, this has loopholes large enough to pilot a decently-sized galaxy through.

"For example, what do you mean by 'public sphere?' In Trellania, this means 'information that is publicly available.' Which, thanks to the gossipy nature of commoners and nobles alike, typically includes everything. Including the exploits they get up to in their bedrooms. Thank Duchess Omalia for why I no longer eat carrots unless they're diced.

"I'm sorry, but as worded, the only thing stopping Trellanian law enforcement from being able to break down Ambassador McCooley's bedroom door and film whatever he gets up to with his loved ones is the Diplomat Protection Act. And I will note most private citizens do not have even that protection.

"I must vote against simply because this proposal, as written, is completely unenforcible."

OOC: Spelling correction edit.

“I strongly, strongly doubt that something occurring inside somebody’s bedroom will ever be considered part of the public sphere, unless Trellania has some incredibly strange customs. Breaking down somebody’s door is, broadly speaking, where the line is drawn. Of course, this isn’t extensible to the internet, but it is fairly easy to see how one might analogically create a comparison. If the police are required to actively bypass security measures, such as a door in your example, or encryption in the digital world, it is likely private; otherwise, it is likely public.

In any case, I will be voting, on behalf of the Kenmoria WA Mission, in favour of this proposal. The legislation expands the right to privacy while not impairing to an unreasonable extent the freedom of nations to take the measures necessary to ensure safety.”

[Greater Cesnica]

Dame Allania Trueblood sighs as she looks over the piece of legislation, before finally setting it down and rubbing her nose.

"While Trellania supports the idea of furthering the freedoms of people, as long as they do not disrupt our political system, we are forced to question how this proposal does that.

"In theory, this prevents digital spying beyond what is necessary. In practice, this has loopholes large enough to pilot a decently-sized galaxy through.

"For example, what do you mean by 'public sphere?' In Trellania, this means 'information that is publicly available.' Which, thanks to the gossipy nature of commoners and nobles alike, typically includes everything. Including the exploits they get up to in their bedrooms. Thank Duchess Omalia for why I no longer eat carrots unless they're diced.

"I'm sorry, but as worded, the only thing stopping Trellanian law enforcement from being able to break down Ambassador McCooley's bedroom door and film whatever he gets up to with his loved ones is the Diplomat Protection Act. And I will note most private citizens do not have even that protection.

"I must vote against simply because this proposal, as written, is completely unenforcible."

OOC: Spelling correction edit.

“I strongly, strongly doubt that something occurring inside somebody’s bedroom will ever be considered part of the public sphere, unless Trellania has some incredibly strange customs. Breaking down somebody’s door is, broadly speaking, where the line is drawn. Of course, this isn’t extensible to the internet, but it is fairly easy to see how one might analogically create a comparison. If the police are required to actively bypass security measures, such as a door in your example, or encryption in the digital world, it is likely private; otherwise, it is likely public.

In any case, I will be voting, on behalf of the Kenmoria WA Mission, in favour of this proposal. The legislation expands the right to privacy while not impairing to an unreasonable extent the freedom of nations to take the measures necessary to ensure safety.”

"I find that the argument posited by the Kenmoria WA Mission sufficiently represents our own position. I thank Ambassador Lewitt for his brevity."

[New Afghania]

"Agreed. Protecting and expanding the civil rights of our citizens is our main priority. Moreover, we can save the government budget by not installing digital surveillance in public places."

Nasr Adam, The President of New Afghania.

[Trellania]

“I strongly, strongly doubt that something occurring inside somebody’s bedroom will ever be considered part of the public sphere, unless Trellania has some incredibly strange customs. Breaking down somebody’s door is, broadly speaking, where the line is drawn. Of course, this isn’t extensible to the internet, but it is fairly easy to see how one might analogically create a comparison. If the police are required to actively bypass security measures, such as a door in your example, or encryption in the digital world, it is likely private; otherwise, it is likely public.

In any case, I will be voting, on behalf of the Kenmoria WA Mission, in favour of this proposal. The legislation expands the right to privacy while not impairing to an unreasonable extent the freedom of nations to take the measures necessary to ensure safety.”

"I think you have missed my point. While you may doubt it, that doesn't stop the term 'public sphere' being a problem. If I can define it in a way that allows surveillance of bedroom activities based upon the fact such are normally public knowledge due to the nature of gossip, how long until others are defining it in whatever way suits them?

"The proposal is too reliant upon terms it does not define to help set limits, when realistically those terms could have been defined to enforce the limits. But given it was already submitted before my nation even joined, it is too late to amend this with the obvious fixes.

"And if you wish to point out such terms are defined elsewhere, you would be arguing this proposal is illegal under Assembly rules; proposals muist be self-contained, after all."

[Greater Cesnica]

"I think you have missed my point. While you may doubt it, that doesn't stop the term 'public sphere' being a problem. If I can define it in a way that allows surveillance of bedroom activities based upon the fact such are normally public knowledge due to the nature of gossip, how long until others are defining it in whatever way suits them?

"Ambassador, please familiarize yourself with Reasonable Nation Theory. Then reconsider your line of attack here."

[Kenmoria]

"I think you have missed my point. While you may doubt it, that doesn't stop the term 'public sphere' being a problem. If I can define it in a way that allows surveillance of bedroom activities based upon the fact such are normally public knowledge due to the nature of gossip, how long until others are defining it in whatever way suits them?

"Ambassador, please familiarize yourself with Reasonable Nation Theory. Then reconsider your line of attack here."

“To add to McCooley’s point, if authors were required to define every relevant term to the proposal, legislation would quickly become a mass of recursive definitions, and likely many pages long. I do not believe that anyone here is paid enough for that. Fortunately, GA #002 mandates that member nations carry out their obligations in good-faith, resulting in a definition which counts the bedroom as being a public area quite evidently being a contradiction of other legislation.”

[Greater Cesnica]

"Ambassador, please familiarize yourself with Reasonable Nation Theory. Then reconsider your line of attack here."

“To add to McCooley’s point, if authors were required to define every relevant term to the proposal, legislation would quickly become a mass of recursive definitions, and likely many pages long. I do not believe that anyone here is paid enough for that. Fortunately, GA #002 mandates that member nations carry out their obligations in good-faith, resulting in a definition which counts the bedroom as being a public area quite evidently being a contradiction of other legislation.”

"Great points, Ambassador Lewitt."

[Trellania]

"Ambassador, please familiarize yourself with Reasonable Nation Theory. Then reconsider your line of attack here."

"I'm familiar with it."

Dame Allania reaches down the top of her medieval-style dress, pulls out a cell phone, taps on the screen a few times, and then slides it over.

"This contains social media postings from a number of nations, in which people discuss their bedroom activities. Note these are from the internet, so according to both yourself and the ambassador from Kenmoria, as you both agreed, these discussions of bedroom activities are public sphere. My challenge stands."

OOC: The problem with 'reasonable nation theory' as a reply is the very fact that it is not uncommon for modern nations to have discussiong of certain activities that should be considered private be discussed on social media. The question of "what is public sphere and what is not" is something a reasonably-modern nation would reasonably struggle with.

“To add to McCooley’s point, if authors were required to define every relevant term to the proposal, legislation would quickly become a mass of recursive definitions, and likely many pages long. I do not believe that anyone here is paid enough for that. Fortunately, GA #002 mandates that member nations carry out their obligations in good-faith, resulting in a definition which counts the bedroom as being a public area quite evidently being a contradiction of other legislation.”

"I'm not asking them to. I'm asking for the most problematic to be defined.

"Also, need I remind you of the Assembly rules on proposals? That they must be self-contained and not reliant upon any other proposals or resolutions? In your attempt to defend this one, you are arguing it is dependent upon other proposals and thus, by Assembly rules, illegal. And, also, that definition of public sphere is not a reasonable expectation, given how often discussion of bedroom activities can happen in public."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"I think you have missed my point. While you may doubt it, that doesn't stop the term 'public sphere' being a problem. If I can define it in a way that allows surveillance of bedroom activities based upon the fact such are normally public knowledge due to the nature of gossip, how long until others are defining it in whatever way suits them?

"Ambassador, please familiarize yourself with Reasonable Nation Theory. Then reconsider your line of attack here."

A reasonable nation might surveil bedrooms to enforce some kind of sexual law: it would be a nation made of hyperconservative prudes. If the electorate has such people also, policymakers would have incentives to pander to them. This is eminently plausible. But regardless, see viewtopic.php?p=29812469#p29812469.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

“I strongly, strongly doubt that something occurring inside somebody’s bedroom will ever be considered part of the public sphere...”

Well, Ambassador, how do I put it... In Lakan culture, especially modern Lakan culture there is no “private space” by definition. Essentially even personal property is considered de jure public property...

[Kenmoria]

“I strongly, strongly doubt that something occurring inside somebody’s bedroom will ever be considered part of the public sphere...”

Well, Ambassador, how do I put it... In Lakan culture, especially modern Lakan culture there is no “private space” by definition. Essentially even personal property is considered de jure public property...

“That is certainly an odd state of affairs, but Laka is evidently not a typical nation. Given that accounting for every possible legal and cultural system is impossible within a reasonable length of legislation, this appears to be a problem without remedy. There is some extent legislation guaranteeing privacy, such as GA #383, of course, though that does not interact with this proposal.”

[Trellania]

“That is certainly an odd state of affairs, but Laka is evidently not a typical nation. Given that accounting for every possible legal and cultural system is impossible within a reasonable length of legislation, this appears to be a problem without remedy. There is some extent legislation guaranteeing privacy, such as GA #383, of course, though that does not interact with this proposal.”

"While I agree that Laka is... imminently unusual... I must also point out that you are misinterpreting GA #383. That resolution does not, at any point, actually guarantee privacy; in fact, it has provisions that allow for the criminalization of certain detestable acts even when performed in private. That alone suggests this assembly has agreed that no reasonable nation holds privacy as sacrosanct or acts committed in privacy as above public reproach."

[Kenmoria]

“That is certainly an odd state of affairs, but Laka is evidently not a typical nation. Given that accounting for every possible legal and cultural system is impossible within a reasonable length of legislation, this appears to be a problem without remedy. There is some extent legislation guaranteeing privacy, such as GA #383, of course, though that does not interact with this proposal.”

"While I agree that Laka is... imminently unusual... I must also point out that you are misinterpreting GA #383. That resolution does not, at any point, actually guarantee privacy; in fact, it has provisions that allow for the criminalization of certain detestable acts even when performed in private. That alone suggests this assembly has agreed that no reasonable nation holds privacy as sacrosanct or acts committed in privacy as above public reproach."

“You are correct, ambassador, that GA #383 does not hold the right to privacy as being absolute. This is indeed true of the majority of rights: the right to speech ends with defamation, the right to movement ends with prisons, the right to assembly ends with rioting. However, this is no argument against freedom of speech, movement and assembly. My point was simply that the principles of privacy have been previously enshrined in GA.”

[Trellania]

"While I agree that Laka is... imminently unusual... I must also point out that you are misinterpreting GA #383. That resolution does not, at any point, actually guarantee privacy; in fact, it has provisions that allow for the criminalization of certain detestable acts even when performed in private. That alone suggests this assembly has agreed that no reasonable nation holds privacy as sacrosanct or acts committed in privacy as above public reproach."

“You are correct, ambassador, that GA #383 does not hold the right to privacy as being absolute. This is indeed true of the majority of rights: the right to speech ends with defamation, the right to movement ends with prisons, the right to assembly ends with rioting. However, this is no argument against freedom of speech, movement and assembly. My point was simply that the principles of privacy have been previously enshrined in GA.”

"I am forced to disagree that the right was previously enshrined; the resolution in question provides no answer as to what is and is not private and instead seemed to trust to the nations to make their own judgements. Given the very question of what is reasonably private and what is not is currently up for debate, I don't think that resolution provides any basis for discussion that does not run afoul of the same issues already brought up."

[Scalizagasti]

The United Regions Alliance recommends nations to vote for this resolution. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1557251

[Reatilber Soclistice]

Reatilber Soclistice is in opposition to this proposal for the reason that our surveillance measures are critical to snuff out counter-revolutionary dissident activity.

[Dictatusfor]

It is sad that so many people are voting in favor, citizens are not able to take care of themselves, it is best to watch them closely.

[Araraukar]

Ehhhhh hang on a minute bub. The way this written it seems that it would prevent us from recording incoming telephone calls. Am I wrong? Phone calls certainly aren’t public.

"Phone calls in what context, exactly? Because if you're insinuating that warrantless wiretapping should somehow be legal broadly, this resolution was crafted specifically with that practice in mind and expanded out further from there."

OOC: I think Herby meant more that the person you are calling, is recording it (see underlined bit). Many service numbers - business customer service, state agencies, number you call to get a reservation at a hotel, or doc's appointment - record the calls they get, both because they get lot of trolls and may need them for evidence for later to prove misconduct, or because businesses use actual customer phonecalls to train their new employees. Haven't you ever gotten the "your call is/may be recorded" thing when you call somewhere? I think it's even a legal requirement (in many places) that calls to emergency number are to be recorded.

And then there's answering machines, digital or analog. Or you might have memory issues and record calls to have the recording to remind yourself about what you talked about.

[Greater Cesnica]

"Phone calls in what context, exactly? Because if you're insinuating that warrantless wiretapping should somehow be legal broadly, this resolution was crafted specifically with that practice in mind and expanded out further from there."

OOC: I think Herby meant more that the person you are calling, is recording it (see underlined bit). Many service numbers - business customer service, state agencies, number you call to get a reservation at a hotel, or doc's appointment - record the calls they get, both because they get lot of trolls and may need them for evidence for later to prove misconduct, or because businesses use actual customer phonecalls to train their new employees. Haven't you ever gotten the "your call is/may be recorded" thing when you call somewhere? I think it's even a legal requirement (in many places) that calls to emergency number are to be recorded.

And then there's answering machines, digital or analog. Or you might have memory issues and record calls to have the recording to remind yourself about what you talked about.

OOC: Private entities may freely record phone calls between themselves and another party under the terms of this resolution. State entities may also record such phone calls between their offices or representatives and other parties, but a warrant would be required to use such recordings for prosecutorial purposes.

In general, a person should expect that their call being recorded by the other party on the line is a possibility.

[Trellania]

OOC: I think Herby meant more that the person you are calling, is recording it (see underlined bit). Many service numbers - business customer service, state agencies, number you call to get a reservation at a hotel, or doc's appointment - record the calls they get, both because they get lot of trolls and may need them for evidence for later to prove misconduct, or because businesses use actual customer phonecalls to train their new employees. Haven't you ever gotten the "your call is/may be recorded" thing when you call somewhere? I think it's even a legal requirement (in many places) that calls to emergency number are to be recorded.

And then there's answering machines, digital or analog. Or you might have memory issues and record calls to have the recording to remind yourself about what you talked about.

OOC: Private entities may freely record phone calls between themselves and another party under the terms of this resolution. State entities may also record such phone calls between their offices or representatives and other parties, but a warrant would be required to use such recordings for prosecutorial purposes.

OOC: I must admit I don't think a case where you're calling a corporation is private, and nothing in it covers the acts of individuals for their own usage.