[PASSED] Repeal "Right to Privacy"

[Frisbeeteria]

Submitted! Delegates click here to approve!

[OOC: This thread is about the repeal of GA #58, not the replacement. I have drafted a replacement, it has its own thread here. Even though the threads are closely related let's try to keep the conversation as focused on the draft at hand as possible.]

"Right to Privacy was a well intended resolution which has a couple short comings that need to be fixed. I've drafted a repeal so that I can propose my replacement once the old resolution is out of the way.

I'll take a moment to outline the problems I have with the original resolution.

There are 8 operative clauses, I'll take them one by one.

1. DEFINES 'privacy' as the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves and thereby reveal themselves selectively

I like my definition better, but fair enough.

2. ESTABLISHES that there are several different types of privacy, including:
(A) Physical Privacy: the right to prevent intrusions into ones property and personal articles
(B) Informational Privacy: the right to withhold information about oneself, including a persons race, sex, religious and sexual orientation, etc.
(C) Organizational Privacy: the right of governments or other organizations to withhold information regarding their activities and dealings in relation to other organizations and individuals

This could have been combined with the definition to make one complete clause explaining privacy, but again, fair enough. HOWEVER: Privacy was defined and categorized, but no where does it grant anyone the right to privacy. Defining freedom of speech in a resolution does not grant it to all of the people. A clause was needed to clearly state who was being granted the right (or the ability, by this definition).

3. FORBIDS trespassing within the property of another person without the consent of that person unless authorized by the clauses contained in Section 5

Trespass is a bad term. Its legal definition is different than what it is used for in day to day speech. http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2160 Granted, I don't necessarily think that the legal definition is better than the common one, but the common definition is usually thought of as entering a property. If that is all that is forbidden, someone can stand in the street in front of your house and watch you inside with infrared and possibly hear your conversations with hearing enhancers. So between those two things, the term trespass should not have been used without explaining what it means.

4. OUTLAWS the use of espionage or covert surveillance programs performed without the knowledge of the citizens with the intent of monitoring citizens or acquiring their personal information unless authorized by law; also outlaws invasive searching of citizens by law enforcement without reasonable cause for suspicion.

Assuming the author meant to grant people the privacy he defined, this wouldn't have been needed at all. Informational privacy was already explained. But while needlessly including it, the underlined text contradicts what I would assume the intent was. If a nation passes a law saying the government can secretly monitor and acquire your personal information, it can do so.

5. CONDONES limited infringements of personal privacy in the interest of serving the law under the following circumstances:
(A)The official researching the case has filed to the appropriate authorities for a warrant permitting him the right to violate the liberties in question
(B)The official appointed to acquire the information is limited to investigate only within areas and topics which are likely to contain the necessary evidence
(C)The persons(s) related to the acts are given the right to object, with the legality of the objection to be subject to the decision of a qualified judge

All fine, necessary evidence could have been defined but that mistake is less important than the oversights above.

6. URGES that member states implement programs to protect the right to privacy of persons who have been involved in high-profile crimes
7. SUGGESTS that member states include lessons on the important of privacy in the curriculum of their schools
8. ALLOWS member states to pass laws demanding that corporations or other business organizations reveal information related to financial performance and formal transactions in the interest of transparency and free competition

I have no idea why this was included at all.

So in short, the two requirements of the resolution, are that governments are forbidden from "trespassing" (whatever that means) unless it has "the necessary evidence" (whatever that means), and it was outlawed for member states to run covert programs to monitor citizens and gather information about them, unless the government wanted it to be legal to do so. This resolution fails to achieve much at all, by my analysis, and is due for a repeal at the minimum, and replacing in my opinion.

---

Repeal "Right to Privacy"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation

Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA #58
Proposed by: Weed

Description: The General Assembly,

Applauding the intent of General Assembly Resolution #58,

Regretting the resolution fails to account for certain aspects of the privacy issue,

Observing the text defines privacy, and establishes types of privacy, but does not specifically state that a person has a right to privacy, or that the government cannot infringe on all of those types of privacy,

Believing the text should clearly state that 'consent' to infringe on ones privacy can be considered given by seeking to enter a secure location or someone else's property, or by trying to use services like transportation or hospitals,

Realizing the resolution forbids secret espionage programs that monitor citizens or gathers their personal information, but then adds "unless authorized by law" which removes all protection for citizens from such programs,

Noticing the resolution creates no restrictions on when a government can make private information public which it finds in the course of an investigation,

Understanding a more effective resolution is needed to fully provide the protection of personal privacy,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #58 Right to Privacy.

---

Please let me know what you think about the repeal and any way I could improve the repeal!

WA Ambassador from Weed,

Clinton Tew

[Weed]

[ooc: Final OOC note, I didn't know whether it was more appropriate to draft the two in the same thread or separate. I chose separate because I thought if they were together people would focus on the replacement and not check my work on the repeal as closely. Having said that, if this way is wrong please let me know. Ideally if we can draft this now and then go back to the replacement, that would be nice. The only reason I even posted the replacement now is because if the replacement isn't seen people would be skeptical that it existed, which is fair. ]

[Quelesh]

I would like to tentatively express my support for this proposal.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[ooc: Final OOC note, I didn't know whether it was more appropriate to draft the two in the same thread or separate. I chose separate because I thought if they were together people would focus on the replacement and not check my work on the repeal as closely. Having said that, if this way is wrong please let me know. Ideally if we can draft this now and then go back to the replacement, that would be nice. The only reason I even posted the replacement now is because if the replacement isn't seen people would be skeptical that it existed, which is fair. ]

OOC: In my experience repeals and replacements are best in two separate threads.

[Weed]

le bump [ooc]

[Lucian De Mundo]

Your Excellency,

The Federal Republic of Lucian De Mundo, gives full support to your proposal only if a replacement can be guaranteed. All points made all show significant loopholes.

Resectfully,

Lucian De Mundo

[Weed]

I thank both of the ambassadors for their support!

WA Ambassador from Weed,

Clinton Tew

[ooc: Last bump.. If no one has any comments I guess I'll submit this once my Cannibalism resolution has fai... finished voting. LOL, one proposal at a time.]

[Weed]

OOC: Seriously, last bump. Now or never.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Hold on, some of us are busy. But since nobody seems to have got round to giving you feedback, we'll have a go.

Believing the text should clearly state that 'consent' to infringe on ones privacy can be considered given by seeking to enter a secure location or someone else's property, or by trying to use services like transportation or hospitals,

Maybe we're just on another planet, but could you explain what you actually mean by this clause please?

Knowing the intent was to forbid entering property even when no damage is caused and to protect from other types of invasion of privacy such as using infrared without entering the property to learn all activities within the premises which are not covered by the term "trespass,"

We could ask whether you intend to ban the utilization of all forms of transmission of data from a place without prior informed consent to protect privacy; but to get the point across clearer, if we ban infra-red, by the same logic we should ban people from having windows, or looking into them; which effectively bans any police cameras which have the capacity to take pictures. In other words, could you please remove your reference to infra-red?

Realizing the resolution forbids secret espionage programs that monitor citizens or gathers their personal information, but then adds "unless authorized by law" which removes all protection for citizens from such programs,

What would you have us replace it with?

Noticing the resolution creates no restrictions on when a government can make private information pubic which it finds in the course of an investigation

Couldn't a totally separate one-liner resolution do that? Why do you need to repeal the Right to Privacy to fulfil this aim?

Anyway, we're also tentatively in support of the proposal, beside the various points we've noted above.

[Weed]

Hold on, some of us are busy. But since nobody seems to have got round to giving you feedback, we'll have a go.

Right, I realize this. But falling off the list of priority matters [ooc: first page of threads] three times seems to indicate posts simply won't come.

Maybe we're just on another planet, but could you explain what you actually mean by this clause please?

In other words, having the right to privacy doesn't mean you can't be searched when boarding a plane, or other cases like that. The resolution should make clear that your right to privacy ends when you try to use someone's property or a service.

We could ask whether you intend to ban the utilization of all forms of transmission of data from a place without prior informed consent to protect privacy; but to get the point across clearer, if we ban infra-red, by the same logic we should ban people from having windows, or looking into them; which effectively bans any police cameras which have the capacity to take pictures. In other words, could you please remove your reference to infra-red?

No, my reference stands. And it certainly won't ban cameras, because a repeal can do no such thing. A repeal only repeals.

What would you have us replace it with?

Well, as I said in the OP, the line wouldn't have been needed at all. If you say people have a right not to be monitored and have the personal information accessed, you do not need a line saying the government is forbidden from creating programs to monitor citizens and gather their personal information. So the line does not need to be replaced at all. But you can find the resolution I am planning to replace this one with by following the directions in the transcript of my first statement.

Couldn't a totally separate one-liner resolution do that? Why do you need to repeal the Right to Privacy to fulfil this aim?

Maybe. It would be very hard to make it without contradicting or duplicating this one, and thus rendering it illegal. But this is one small reason Right to Privacy needs to be repealed. The main reason, is Right to Privacy does not give anyone the Right to Privacy. It does nothing.

WA Ambassador from Weed,

Clinton Tew

[Novus Niciae]

I would advise patience on this bill, please contact me in my office for a private discussion about your proposal.

[Weed]

I would advise patience on this bill, please contact me in my office for a private discussion about your proposal.

We see no need for closed doors meetings. Anything there is to say may be said in this room.

WA Ambassador from Weed,

Clinton Tew

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

In other words, having the right to privacy doesn't mean you can't be searched when boarding a plane, or other cases like that. The resolution should make clear that your right to privacy ends when you try to use someone's property or a service.

Hmm, yes; now I look at it again I see that. But still, to make it a little clearer, might we recommend the following amendment:

Believing the text should clearly state that 'consent' to infringe on onesa person's privacy can be considered given by that person if they are either seeking to enter a secure location or someone else's property, or by trying to use services like transportation or hospitals,

No, my reference stands. And it certainly won't ban cameras, because a repeal can do no such thing. A repeal only repeals.

Well, that may make us less likely to vote in favour of this proposal in principal. A repeal can do more than repeal: it sets the stage for the next proposal. We have seen many such examples.

Well, as I said in the OP, the line wouldn't have been needed at all. If you say people have a right not to be monitored and have the personal information accessed, you do not need a line saying the government is forbidden from creating programs to monitor citizens and gather their personal information. So the line does not need to be replaced at all.

What about survey/census data?

It would be very hard to make it without contradicting or duplicating this one, and thus rendering it illegal.

"Observing that there is a small gap in International Law, and determined to fill it,
The World Assembly hereby forbids governments from making a specific person's private information public without the approval of that person."
No contradiction or duplication.

Also, if you could affirm that clause 8 of the Right to Privacy is sensible, you may receive more support.

[Weed]

Hmm, yes; now I look at it again I see that. But still, to make it a little clearer, might we recommend the following amendment:

Possibly. I'll look at it later. They say the exact same thing, and both are easily understandable. I don't really have a preference.

Well, that may make us less likely to vote in favour of this proposal in principal. A repeal can do more than repeal: it sets the stage for the next proposal. We have seen many such examples.

Not greatly concerned. Though I will point out I wrote my replacement first, then my repeal based on my replacement. So backwards of how you suggested.

What about survey/census data?

Hmm, the original resolution would ban census collection, had it actually granted privacy to people. Luckily, the resolution did not do anything, so it wasn't a problem.

I did run and update my replacement draft in the other thread to allow for the census, as that fell foul of my definition too.

No contradiction or duplication.

Not so confident, and neither one of us have the power to make such rulings. But it is not relevant, not just because that is not the route I will be taking, but also because such a short resolution would be voted down based on its appearance, as most voters do not read resolutions.

Also, if you could affirm that clause 8 of the Right to Privacy is sensible, you may receive more support.

That issue has nothing to do with personal privacy, its presence in the resolution is nonsensical.

[Bahgum]

The mothers in law of Bahgum are wholeheartedly in agreement with any resolution removes any impediment to their desire to interfere, evesdrop and generally be nosey. A right to privacy is in their opinion an abomination and should be prevented at all costs.

[Flibbleites]

The mothers in law of Bahgum are wholeheartedly in agreement with any resolution removes any impediment to their desire to interfere, evesdrop and generally be nosey. A right to privacy is in their opinion an abomination and should be prevented at all costs.

All the more reason not to repeal it.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[New Edom]

Against. The definition of 'trespass' is the clincher--prefer the original with regard to this.

- Princess Mara Obed, WA Ambassador

[Novus Niciae]

I would advise patience on this bill, please contact me in my office for a private discussion about your proposal.

We see no need for closed doors meetings. Anything there is to say may be said in this room.

WA Ambassador from Weed,

Clinton Tew

OOC: A replace option is being discussed instead of the repeal/new proposal which is the case now. you may wish to wait until then since more people will support a change to a right rather than the removal of a right.

[Mousebumples]

OOC: A replace option is being discussed instead of the repeal/new proposal which is the case now. you may wish to wait until then since more people will support a change to a right rather than the removal of a right.

As such an option is only being discussed and is by no means assured of happening, I would caution anyone from "waiting until then" as "then" may never come to pass.

[Topid]

Against. The definition of 'trespass' is the clincher--prefer the original with regard to this.

1) There was no definition of trespass to be the 'original'.
2) The one I am pointing out is the legal definition, which applies whether you like it to or not (until we repeal the resolution).
3) The 'new' definition is irrelevant after repealing this resolution. Past repeal, I won't be using the term in the replacement.

OOC: A replace option is being discussed instead of the repeal/new proposal which is the case now. you may wish to wait until then since more people will support a change to a right rather than the removal of a right.

As such an option is only being discussed and is by no means assured of happening, I would caution anyone from "waiting until then" as "then" may never come to pass.

I agree with the Ambassador of Mousebumples.

EDIT: Also, ambassadors, I shall be taking up this effort where Tew left off.
[OOC: Switching WA back from Weed to Topid.]

[Mousebumples]

2) The one I am pointing out is the legal definition, which applies whether you like it to or not (until we repeal the resolution).
3) The 'new' definition is irrelevant after repealing this resolution. Past repeal, I won't be using the term in the replacement.

To be fair, I don't think that the legal definition necessarily applies "whether you like it to or not" as it is left undefined in the resolution in question. My understanding of past precedent means that common sense/dictionary/legal definitions certainly apply, but it is not necessarily the legal definition that must be used in a given nation. I'd suggest not relying too much on that argument within the repeal as some nations may be using a different definition of trespass.

[Moronist Decisions]

2) The one I am pointing out is the legal definition, which applies whether you like it to or not (until we repeal the resolution).
3) The 'new' definition is irrelevant after repealing this resolution. Past repeal, I won't be using the term in the replacement.

To be fair, I don't think that the legal definition necessarily applies "whether you like it to or not" as it is left undefined in the resolution in question. My understanding of past precedent means that common sense/dictionary/legal definitions certainly apply, but it is not necessarily the legal definition that must be used in a given nation. I'd suggest not relying too much on that argument within the repeal as some nations may be using a different definition of trespass.

OOC: Not only that, but the definition of trespass depends on the legal jurisdiction. Based on the definition supplied by Harpwood's Modern Tort Law (British law), the tort of trespass into land consists of "directly entering upon land, or remaining upon land, or placing or projecting any object upon land in the possession of the claimant, in each case without lawful justification."

Even within American law, I disagree with the certitude with which you have claimed that the legal definition is not the common definition. Heller v New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. (CA2 NY) 265 F 192, 17 ALR 823, 825. states that
"Every unauthorized entry on another's property is a trespass and any person who makes such an entry is a trespasser. A trespasser is one who goes upon the premises of another without invitation, express or implied, and does so out of curiosity, or for his own purposes or convenience, and not in the performance of any duty to such owner. It is not necessary that one in making such an entry should have any unlawful intent."

Unless the definition depends on state law, I object therefore to the concept that trespass's legal definition is different from that of the common usage.

[Topid]

I'd be willing to pull the reference entirely. Surely the only argument really needed to convince someone that a replacement is needed is that the resolution fails to give the right of privacy to anyone. I just put in other flaws for the sake of having more than one reason.

[Merfurian]

We like this Proposal. In the new one, please define the laws of privacy and theft, because they are actual legal concepts.

Klause Uliyan
etc

[Topid]

OOC:
Edits made to the OP: The two clauses about trespass have been removed, since most people did not seem to understand them and there are sufficient other flaws in the resolution to merit a repeal without mentioning that one.

Weed changed to Topid as author.

[Topid]

Having fallen to the second page again, I'll be submitting as soon as I have the appropriate number of World Assembly supporters for my nation.