NATION

PASSWORD

[DEFEATED] Regulation on the Integrity of Genetic Data

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1093
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

[DEFEATED] Regulation on the Integrity of Genetic Data

Postby Daarwyrth » Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:55 pm

A while back I had an issue on the topic of commercial DNA tests published here on NationStates, and recently I felt inspired to write about it in the WA. After having searched for any existing legislation on the subject, I was unable to find anything specifically on this topic (please correct me if I missed something), and came up with the following draft proposal. Feedback, thoughts and comments are very welcome and encouraged!

CURRENT DRAFT:
Regulation on the Integrity of Genetic Data
Regulation | Consumer Protection

The General Assembly,

Lauding the continuous efforts of this international body to safeguard and secure the privacy of its member states' citizens,

Understanding that the ever-growing field of privacy protection can not be regulated by a single, all-encompassing resolution,

Concerned that entities such as corporations or individual traders could abuse the trust of consumers of non-medical DNA tests, by selling their genetic data to third parties,

Convinced that international cooperation is necessary in preventing the malicious handling of genetic data that is acquired by such entities offering non-medical DNA tests to consumers,

Hereby,

  1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:

    1. 'non-medical DNA test' as any form of genetic testing that is offered commercially as a good or service, directly to consumers for non-medical purposes;

    2. 'testing entity' as any entity that commercially offers and distributes non-medical DNA tests as goods or services, directly to consumers;

    3. 'third party' as any entity that is not the testing entity, or the consumer of non-medical DNA tests as goods or services;

  2. Prohibits testing entities from sharing the genetic data that is produced by the non-medical DNA tests that they offer to consumers with third parties, for monetary compensation or otherwise;

  3. Clarifies that the laboratories that analyse and study the genetic samples produced by non-medical DNA test for testing entities are excluded from the prohibition under Clause 2, to the extent to which they need to fulfill their contractual obligations to the testing entity;

  4. Further clarifies that the prohibition under Article 2 may be waived to the extent to which it obstructs the pursuit of justice, or impedes upon the processes of legal investigations and actions pursued by judicial entities;

  5. Asserts that Clause 2 similarly applies to the genetic data that is produced by non-medical DNA tests that are offered free of charge, either in the form of charity, or trial-based distribution;

  6. Establishes the World Assembly Genetic Data Oversight Authority (WAGDOA) to oversee the handling of genetic data produced under the definition of Clause 1a by testing entities, and tasks this committee with the following:

    1. Establishing and maintaining a database of all testing entities that offer non-medical DNA tests as goods or services;

    2. Investigating any testing entity around which signs and signals have emerged that they are non-compliant with the articles of this resolution;

    3. Issuing guidelines to testing entities that find themselves in a state of non-compliance with the articles of this resolution, on how to rectify their situation;

    4. Informing the WACC of any testing entities that remain in a state of non-compliance, after earlier attempts at eliciting rectification have failed;

  7. Mandates member states to cooperate with the WAGDOA in the fulfilment of its mandates and tasks as defined in Clause 6;

  8. Instructs member states to enact any rectifying or punitive actions that are imposed by the appropriate authorities of the World Assembly, on any of the testing entities offering non-medical DNA tests to their citizens, that remain non-compliant with the articles of this resolution.


DRAFT 4:
Regulation on the Integrity of Genetic Data
Regulation | Consumer Protection

The General Assembly,

LAUDING the continuous efforts of this international body to safeguard and secure the privacy of its member states' citizens,

UNDERSTANDING that the ever-growing field of privacy protection can not be regulated by a single, all-encompassing resolution,

CONCERNED that entities such as corporations or individual traders could abuse the trust of consumers of non-medical DNA tests, by selling their genetic data to third parties,

CONVINCED that international cooperation is necessary in preventing the malicious handling of genetic data that is acquired by such entities offering non-medical DNA tests to consumers,

Hereby,

  1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:

    1. 'non-medical DNA test' as any form of genetic testing that is offered as a good or service, directly to consumers for non-medical purposes;

    2. 'testing entity' as any entity that offers and distributes non-medical DNA tests as goods or services, directly to consumers;

    3. 'third party' as any entity that is not the testing entity, or the consumer of non-medical DNA tests as goods or services;

  2. Prohibits testing entities from sharing the genetic data that is produced by the non-medical DNA tests that they offer to consumers with third parties, for monetary compensation or otherwise;

  3. Clarifies that member states may waive the prohibition under Article 2 to the extent to which it obstructs the pursuit of justice, or impedes upon the processes of legal investigations and actions pursued by their judicial entities;

  4. Further clarifies that Article 2 similarly applies to the genetic data that is produced by non-medical DNA tests that are offered free of charge, either in the form of charity, or trial-based distribution;

  5. Establishes the World Assembly Genetic Data Oversight Authority (WAGDOA) to oversee the careful and secure handling of any genetic data produced under the definition of Article 1a, and tasks this committee with the following:

    1. Investigating whether testing entities that offer non-medical DNA tests to consumers conduct themselves according to the articles of this resolution;

    2. Issuing guidelines to testing entities that find themselves in a state of non-compliance with the articles of this resolution, on how to rectify their situation;

    3. Informing the WACC of any testing entities that remain in a state of non-compliance, after earlier attempts at eliciting rectification have failed;

  6. Mandates member states to cooperate with the WAGDOA in the fulfilment of its mandates and tasks as defined in Article 5;

  7. Instructs member states to enact any rectifying or punitive actions that are imposed by the appropriate authorities of the World Assembly, on any of the testing entities offering non-medical DNA tests to their citizens, that remain non-compliant with the articles of this resolution;

  8. Encourages this international body to continue to safeguard and secure the privacy of its member states' citizens by passing further legislation on the subject of safeguarding genetic data, and storing it safely.


DRAFT 3:
Regulation on the Integrity of Genetic Data
Regulation | Consumer Protection

The General Assembly,

Lauding the continuous efforts of this international body to safeguard and secure the privacy of its member states' citizens,

Understanding that the ever-growing field of privacy protection can not be regulated by a single, all-encompassing resolution,

Concerned that private entities in the form of corporations or individual traders could abuse the trust of consumers of non-medical DNA tests, by selling their genetic data to third parties,

Convinced that international cooperation is necessary in preventing the malicious handling of genetic data that is acquired by private entities offering non-medical DNA tests to consumers,

Hereby,

  1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:

    1. 'non-medical DNA test' as any form of genetic testing that is offered directly to consumers by a private entity for non-medical purposes;

    2. 'private entity' as any entity that is in the hands of private citizens and operates as a for-profit organisation on the market;

    3. 'third party' as any entity that is neither the seller of non-medical DNA tests, nor the consumer of such goods and services;

  2. Prohibits private entities from sharing the genetic data that is produced by the non-medical DNA tests that they offer to consumers with third parties, for monetary compensation or otherwise;

  3. Clarifies that member states may waive the prohibition under Article 2 to the extent to which it obstructs the pursuit of justice, or impedes upon the processes of legal investigations and actions pursued by their judicial entities;

  4. Further clarifies that Article 2 similarly applies to the genetic data that is produced by non-medical DNA tests that are offered free of charge, either in the form of charity, or trial-based distribution;

  5. Establishes the World Assembly Genetic Data Oversight Authority (WAGDOA) to oversee the careful and secure handling of any genetic data produced under the definition of Article 1a, and tasks this committee with the following:

    1. Investigating whether private entities that offer non-medical DNA tests on the market conduct themselves according to the articles of this resolution;

    2. Issuing guidelines to private entities that find themselves in a state of non-compliance with the articles of this resolution, on how to rectify their situation;

    3. Informing the WACC of any private entities that remain in a state of non-compliance, after earlier attempts at eliciting rectification have failed;

  6. Mandates member states to cooperate with the WAGDOA in the fulfilment of its mandates and tasks as defined in Article 5;

  7. Instructs member states to enact any rectifying or punitive actions that are imposed by the appropriate authorities of the World Assembly, on any of the private entities offering non-medical DNA tests on their internal market, that remain non-compliant with the articles of this resolution;


Encourages this international body to continue to safeguard and secure the privacy of its member states' citizens by passing further legislation on this subject.


DRAFT 2:
Regulation on the Safety of Genetic Data
Regulation | Consumer Protection

The General Assembly,

Lauding the continuous efforts of this international body to safeguard and secure the privacy of its member states' citizens,

Understanding that the ever-growing field of privacy protection can not be regulated by a single, all-encompassing resolution,

Concerned that private entities in the form of corporations or individual traders could abuse the trust of consumers of commercial DNA tests, by selling their genetic data to third parties,

Convinced that international cooperation is necessary in preventing the malicious handling of genetic data that is acquired commercially, by private entities such as the aforementioned,

Hereby,

  1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:

    1. 'commercial DNA test' as any form of genetic testing that is offered commercially, directly to consumers by a private entity for non-medical purposes;

    2. 'private entity' as any entity that is in the hands of private citizens and operates as a for-profit organisation on the market;

  2. Prohibits private entities from sharing the genetic data that is produced by the commercial DNA tests that they offer to consumers - and that is stored in any virtual or physical storage space of that private entity - with any third party, for monetary compensation or otherwise;

  3. Further prohibits private entities from using a third party to either virtually or physically store the genetic data produced under the definition of Article 1a, for the purposes of evading the prohibition enacted under Article 2;

  4. Clarifies that the prohibitions under Articles 2 & 3 should not obstruct the pursuit of justice, or impede upon the processes of legal investigations and actions pursued by the judicial entities of member states;

  5. Further clarifies that Articles 2 & 3 similarly apply to the genetic data that is produced by commercial DNA tests that are offered free of charge, either in the form of charity, or trial-based distribution;

  6. Establishes the World Assembly Genetic Data Oversight Authority (WAGDOA) to oversee the careful and secure handling of any genetic data produced under the definition of Article 1a, and tasks this committee with the following:

    1. Investigating whether private entities that offer commercial DNA tests on the market conduct themselves according to the articles of this resolution;

    2. Ensuring the rectification of any cases of non-compliance with the articles of this resolution;

    3. Undertaking punitive actions against private entities that remain in a state of non-compliance after earlier attempts at rectification have failed;

  7. Mandates member states to cooperate with the WAGDOA in the fulfilment of its mandates and tasks as defined in Article 6;

  8. Instructs member states to enact any rectifying or punitive actions that the WAGDOA has imposed on any of the private entities offering commercial DNA tests on their internal market, according to the committees responsibilities as defined by this resolution;

Encourages this international body to continue to safeguard and secure the privacy of its member states' citizens by passing further legislation on this subject.


DRAFT 1:
Regulation of International Genetic Data Storage
Regulation | Consumer Protection

The General Assembly,

Lauding the continuous efforts of this international body to safeguard and secure the privacy of its member states' citizens,

Understanding that the ever-growing field of privacy protection can not be regulated by a single, all-encompassing resolution,

Believing that international cooperation is necessary in the safe and secure storage of genetic data that is acquired commercially, by private entities,

Hereby,

  1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution the term 'commercial DNA tests' as any form of genetic testing that is commercially offered directly to consumers by a private entity for non-medical purposes;

  2. Establishes the WA Genetic Data Storage Agency (WAGDSA) as an independent committee to collect, store and secure any genetic data produced by commercial DNA tests;

  3. Specifically tasks the WAGDSA with the following:

    1. The collection of genetic data - be it digital or otherwise - that is produced within member states as a result of a commercial DNA test having been bought and performed by a consumer, and returned to the private entity distributing these tests on the market under the terms and conditions of their contract;

    2. The storage of the genetic data as produced under Articles 1 & 3a in physical or virtual storage spaces that enjoy a high level quality of protection and security;

    3. The regular testing of the security of the physical and virtual storage spaces as established under Article 3b, and the improving of the security systems when faults are discovered, or when improvements are possible;

    4. The destruction of genetic data as produced under Articles 1 & 3a upon the request from a member state's citizen - who was the consumer of a commercial DNA test - to have their genetic data be destroyed;

  4. Forbids the WAGDSA from reviewing the content of the collected genetic data that is produced under Articles 1 & 3a, or interacting with it in any way that is not listed under Article 3 of this resolution;

  5. Mandates member states to cooperate with the WAGDSA in the fulfilment of its mandates and tasks as defined in Articles 2 & 3;

  6. Instructs member states to ensure that any genetic data that is produced by its citizens under the definition of Article 1 can be safely collected and secured by the WAGDSA according to its responsibilities as defined by this resolution;

  7. Orders member states to ensure the destruction of any genetic data as produced under the definition of Article 1, upon its collection and storage by the WAGDSA;
[/list]

Encourages this international body to continue to safeguard and secure the privacy of its member states' citizens by passing further legislation on this subject.
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Tue May 04, 2021 1:26 am, edited 18 times in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1093
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Sat Mar 13, 2021 4:21 am

"My dear colleagues, my office has drafted the following proposal for a resolution, which we would like you to consider. Naturally, my office is not going to submit this to the General Assembly yet, as we would be most appreciative of your comments and feedback upon the proposed legislation, its potential effects, and of course the text itself first.

What is the intent behind this proposed legislation? The goal is to promote consumer safety, and through that the safety of citizens of all member states. As it stands, my office believes that a private company could collect genetic data from these commercial DNA tests, and preserve the genetic data produced by them in an irresponsible manner, or a manner which could threaten the privacy of individual citizens who were consumers of the services and products offered by the company in question.

By taking that genetic data from the company's storage, and instead put it under one international entity, the data will be collected in a safe and overseeable manner. A company selling commercial DNA tests naturally doesn't operate exclusively in a single nation, but rather across a broader, international market. As such, my office believes it would be prudent to also offer a broader, international guarantee of privacy protection as a response to this.

I reiterate, any feedback and commentary from my esteemed colleagues would be most welcome!"
- Dame Maria vyn Nysen, WA Representative for the Royal State of Daarwyrth
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Sat Mar 13, 2021 8:06 am, edited 2 times in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8157
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Sat Mar 13, 2021 4:30 am

How exactly is requiring the DNA of citizens who choose to take a DNA test to be handed over to a Big, Unwieldy Piece of WA supposed to enhance anybody's privacy?
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading 21 Lessons for the 21st Century by Yuval Noah Harari

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1093
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Sat Mar 13, 2021 4:38 am

Tinhampton wrote:How exactly is requiring the DNA of citizens who choose to take a DNA test to be handed over to a Big, Unwieldy Piece of WA supposed to enhance anybody's privacy?

"Imagine you take a commercial DNA test from My23AncestralHeritages, and the genetic sample you provide them with produces a view of your genetic data. That is valuable information to various entities, be they malicious or not. As it stands, that company is free to store the data in any way they like, and can potentially do with it whatever they please. A nation such as Blackacre could potentially purchase your genetic profile from My23AncestralHeritages, without your knowledge. However, should the genetic data be removed from under the company, and brought under within an international entity like the proposed committee, then the genetic data would be stored in one space, which would be internationally overseen and protected. Especially with the demand that any collected data by the proposed committee is destroyed within any databank outside of the storage space of the WAGDSA (Article 7). That way there will be only one copy of the genetic data, in the hand of the WAGDSA, which cannot interact with the stored data in any way other than as is specified in the articles of this resolution. It would not be able to sell or otherwise distribute the data to any third parties."
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Sat Mar 13, 2021 4:42 am, edited 4 times in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8157
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Sat Mar 13, 2021 5:03 am

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Dame Maria, if your goal is to ensure that DNA collected by private DNA testing companies is not leaked or sold, why not regulate the companies' DNA banks rather than forcing their liquidation?
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading 21 Lessons for the 21st Century by Yuval Noah Harari

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1093
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Sat Mar 13, 2021 5:12 am

Tinhampton wrote:Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Dame Maria, if your goal is to ensure that DNA collected by private DNA testing companies is not leaked or sold, why not regulate the companies' DNA banks rather than forcing their liquidation?


"Delegate-Ambassador Smith, this is exactly why we have offered this legislation up for debate first. My office is very much open to such amendments, should they be deemed a more prudent course of action. The approach we propose at the moment might be invasive, but it does appear as a thorough approach to us. However, we would very much like to hear how you would envision the regulation of the DNA banks of private entities, should you be willing to share such with us. General pointers will be enough, we're not asking you to draft the proposal for us, of course."
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Sat Mar 13, 2021 5:39 am, edited 3 times in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10380
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Mar 13, 2021 5:31 am

If you're concerned about hackers, what makes the WA database unhackable? If you're concerned about resale of that information, why not just ban that action? If you're concerned about insufficient safety precautions why not mandate having them? If you're concerned about governments taking the data why not ban that?

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1093
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Sat Mar 13, 2021 5:37 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:If you're concerned about hackers, what makes the WA database unhackable? If you're concerned about resale of that information, why not just ban that action? If you're concerned about insufficient safety precautions why not mandate having them? If you're concerned about governments taking the data why not ban that?

"Those are valuable comments that will be worked into a redraft of this proposal. My office and I are very grateful."
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Sat Mar 13, 2021 5:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1093
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Sat Mar 13, 2021 8:02 am

"In light of the comments expressed by the honourable delegations of Tinhampton and Imperium Anglorum, my office has come up with a redraft of the original proposal, which we now offer for your perusal, and hopefully, your commentary."
- Dame Maria vyn Nysen, WA Representative for the Royal State of Daarwyrth
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Sat Mar 13, 2021 8:06 am, edited 2 times in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8157
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Sat Mar 13, 2021 8:11 am

Delegate-Ambassador Smith: Firstly, ensuring compliance with resolution mandates is usually the business of the WACC - and yes, that is its full name - although I thought we had something about compliance already. Secondly, if Articles 2 and 3 apply to commercial DNA tests that are sent out for free, then why not refer to simply "non-medical DNA tests" and take out the word "commercially" from its definition in Article 1b?
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading 21 Lessons for the 21st Century by Yuval Noah Harari

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1093
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Sat Mar 13, 2021 8:17 am

Tinhampton wrote:Delegate-Ambassador Smith: Firstly, ensuring compliance with resolution mandates is usually the business of the WACC - and yes, that is its full name - although I thought we had something about compliance already. Secondly, if Articles 2 and 3 apply to commercial DNA tests that are sent out for free, then why not refer to simply "non-medical DNA tests" and take out the word "commercially" from its definition in Article 1b?

"My office and I felt that a separate authority would be appropriate in this case, yet if this falls under the mandates and tasks of the WACC, then we will alter that part of the proposal. Would it be an idea to establish the WAGDOA under the WACC? Or would it be better to leave the creation of a new commission out entirely?

The remark on the "non-medical DNA tests" is an excellent one, and will be incorporated in the next redraft once my office has gathered more comments."
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Sat Mar 13, 2021 8:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1165
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Sat Mar 13, 2021 9:00 am

"Would it be possible for an explanation to be provided about the phrase "that is stored in any virtual or physical storage space of that private entity" in clause 2? It seems to me that unless there is a separate compelling reason for its existence, removing it would eliminate the need for the slightly awkward work-around that is clause 3.

"The ambiguity of the word "should" will cause you much more trouble than it is worth - if I may, I would suggest a rewording along the lines of the following:

Clarifies that member states may waive the prohibitions under Articles 2 & 3 to the extent to which they obstruct the pursuit of justice, or impede upon the processes of legal investigations and actions pursued by the judicial entities of member state


"As pointed out by Delegate-Ambassador Smith, while I believe that the duties imposed in clause 6.a. could reasonably fall under the purview of a newly established committee, clause 6.c. is already a task assigned to the WACC."

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1093
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Sat Mar 13, 2021 9:23 am

Maowi wrote:"Would it be possible for an explanation to be provided about the phrase "that is stored in any virtual or physical storage space of that private entity" in clause 2? It seems to me that unless there is a separate compelling reason for its existence, removing it would eliminate the need for the slightly awkward work-around that is clause 3.

"My office may have been somewhat overzealous in wording the intent clearly within that instance. The "that is stored in any virtual or physical storage space of that private entity" is indeed an unnecessary part that creates more complications than clarity, upon reviewing it again. I will make sure to have that bit removed in the next draft."

Maowi wrote:"The ambiguity of the word "should" will cause you much more trouble than it is worth - if I may, I would suggest a rewording along the lines of the following:

Clarifies that member states may waive the prohibitions under Articles 2 & 3 to the extent to which they obstruct the pursuit of justice, or impede upon the processes of legal investigations and actions pursued by the judicial entities of member state

"An excellent suggestion, thank you. I will see it worked into the new draft."

Maowi wrote:"As pointed out by Delegate-Ambassador Smith, while I believe that the duties imposed in clause 6.a. could reasonably fall under the purview of a newly established committee, clause 6.c. is already a task assigned to the WACC."

"And if clause 6.c. were to be removed, and clauses 6 and 7 altered to refer to the WACC? Would that solve the issue that Delegate-Ambassador Smith and you have pointed out?"
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1165
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:06 am

Daarwyrth wrote:
Maowi wrote:"As pointed out by Delegate-Ambassador Smith, while I believe that the duties imposed in clause 6.a. could reasonably fall under the purview of a newly established committee, clause 6.c. is already a task assigned to the WACC."

"And if clause 6.c. were to be removed, and clauses 6 and 7 altered to refer to the WACC? Would that solve the issue that Delegate-Ambassador Smith and you have pointed out?"

"I personally believe that, given its specific relation to this proposal, using a newly established committee for clause 6.a. and clause 7. is more suitable than using the WACC - and the same would apply to clause 6.b. if it were modified slightly to perhaps angle it towards the committee providing guidelines to the entity in non-compliance to allow them to rectify that (rather than abstractly "ensuring" that compliance is attained)."

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1093
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Mon Mar 15, 2021 9:13 am

"My dear colleagues, in light of the wonderful feedback that our draft proposal has received, my office has devised a new draft that we present for your consideration.

My primary concern is whether clause 7 has been sufficiently altered to better fit the tasks and responsibilities that have been bestowed upon the WACC, or whether it still unnecessarily reiterates the duties that have been imposed upon member states by previous legislation. If the latter is the case, my office will see the clause removed in any future draft that may arise."
- Dame Maria vyn Nysen, WA Representative to the Royal State of Daarwyrth
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1165
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:01 pm

"To my eyes, my qualm with your committee use has been satisfactorily addressed and the instructions issued to the WAGDOA and the WACC seem appropriate and effective."

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1093
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Tue Mar 16, 2021 1:47 am

Maowi wrote:"To my eyes, my qualm with your committee use has been satisfactorily addressed and the instructions issued to the WAGDOA and the WACC seem appropriate and effective."

"My office is grateful for the feedback you have provided, Ambassador. We are always happy to rely on the insights of those more experienced in WA affairs than our delegation."
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1093
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:51 pm

OOC: Any comments or thoughts on the current proposal draft?
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Merni
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1466
Founded: May 03, 2016
Democratic Socialists

Postby Merni » Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:12 am

OOC:
Forgive me for my ignorance on this topic, but why should this proposal apply only to non-medical DNA tests? Surely it would be better to extend it to all DNA tests? (Or perhaps DNA tests conducted for medical purposes fall under the "personal medical records" protected by article VI of 29 GA Patient's Rights Act.)
Apart from this, I think the definition of "private entity" (why not include non-profits? and some nations don't have market economies. Perhaps "testing entity" would be better), "third party" (is the "seller" different from whoever conducts the test?), and "consumer" (do you really "consume" a DNA test?) can be improved.
Also, why is "Encourages" separate from the rest of the operative clauses? You can include it in the numbered list, and make bold other operative words like "Defines", etc.
COVID19 still exists! | Donate your free time
The Labyrinth | TGW Warden | GA Committee List

Admins: Please allow blocking WA TGs!
E -8.0 S -3.18
Wrote 532 GA
meth
I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. — Ronald Reagan
When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.' — Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)
You're supposed to be employing the arts of diplomacy, not the ruddy great thumping sledgehammers of diplomacy. — Ardchoille
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion [...] but rather by its superiority in applying organised violence. — Samuel P. Huntington (even he said that!)

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1093
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Fri Mar 26, 2021 3:16 am

Merni wrote:OOC:
Forgive me for my ignorance on this topic, but why should this proposal apply only to non-medical DNA tests? Surely it would be better to extend it to all DNA tests? (Or perhaps DNA tests conducted for medical purposes fall under the "personal medical records" protected by article VI of 29 GA Patient's Rights Act.)
Apart from this, I think the definition of "private entity" (why not include non-profits? and some nations don't have market economies. Perhaps "testing entity" would be better), "third party" (is the "seller" different from whoever conducts the test?), and "consumer" (do you really "consume" a DNA test?) can be improved.
Also, why is "Encourages" separate from the rest of the operative clauses? You can include it in the numbered list, and make bold other operative words like "Defines", etc.

OOC: This issue focuses specifically on non-medical DNA tests, meaning those tests you can buy from MyHeritage, or 21Ancestry, or any of the other commercial DNA tests that companies offer on the market. That is also why it is "consumer", because you are a consumer of the product that is a commercial DNA test. If you buy one of the tests that MyHeritage offers, for example, to find out what your ancestry is, then you're a consumer of their product. It's also why this is in the category "consumer protection", because it specifically focuses on that brand of DNA testing. Also, that is why they become the seller of the DNA tests. The DNA test has become a product. And since the consumers take the test themselves (meaning they get a testing kit and have to send it back with a sample of their bodily fluids to the company), there is no test taker other than the consumers themselves.

In essence, a company that gathers all that genetic data could potentially sell it to a third party. Meaning another state, another company, or even another person. After all, there are those who consider information a commodity that can be bought and sold. The company in question is the one that holds the genetic data they have collected in their databanks, so they are in control of it. To limit what they can do with it (i.e. sell it to others), this proposal has been drafted, to specifically outlaw the sale of that data. I feel there are also other ways on how to give consumer protection to people who buy commercial DNA tests, and should have their genetic data protected, so I am considering subsequent proposals on this topic, but I digress.

Medical DNA tests are covered by the resolution that you mentioned I feel, but I didn't see anything on the topic of non-medical DNA tests (in other words, commercial DNA tests). The 'for-profit' bit could technically be removed I think, but to be honest, I haven't seen any companies offer those DNA tests as a non-profit organisation. However, I could see a case being made for non-profit organisations also being included, because there could be instances where they also might offer non-medical DNA tests, so I will ponder on that bit and work on that part in a new draft. As to nations that don't have market economies, then the state is the one providing the non-medical DNA tests, no? I feel there are provisions for that in WA legislation already, and since this specifically targets commercial DNA tests, I feel it would be okay leaving it in as it is (unless I am gravely mistaken in that regard).

The final Encourages is meant to reflect back on the preamble, but to be honest it's largely textual fluff. I'm even thinking about removing it completely. But I could also put it in the list like you said, that's also an option.
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Fri Mar 26, 2021 3:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1093
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Sat Mar 27, 2021 9:11 am

"Dear colleagues, in light of the feedback that we have received on this proposal, a new draft has been distributed for your perusal.

Our delegation has worked on the definitions under Article 1 to improve them, and made several smaller alterations in the text to ensure the overall proposal remained in line with the new definitions.

As always, we are looking forward to your feedback and commentary."

- Dame Maria vyn Nysen
WA Representative of the Royal State of Daarwyrth
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1093
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Mon Apr 05, 2021 10:47 am

OOC: Small bump :) feedback would be greatly appreciated!
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15502
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:09 am

OOC: About to head out the door so my apologies for the brevity and lack of RP.

1.a: How is any DNA testing not "medical DNA test"? I get you mean it's for non-medical purposes, but what really is a non-medical purpose? Is a paternity test a medical test? Are CSI's DNA tests done on blood found on the scene medical test? Don't edit the draft, please answer in reply.

1.b: So a pharmacist (drugstore if you're American) that sells the test kits is a testing entity now?

1.c: So, for example, the lab that actually, you know, runs the test?

2: Even if that was required to actually get results back? Or if the person's consent was obtained? Think Internet and tracking cookies. You can opt out of advertizers getting your data, in most cases, but if you click yes, the site can share your data with them with your consent.

3: Member states can but the WA can't? So WA can't actually find out if any of this proposal's contents are being acted against as they can't check if people's DNA info ended up in the wrong hands?

4: Why is this necessary? It just muddles things up. Who's the testing entity if a charity does DNA tests to people to match cadavers found in a mass grave to living relatives? Are the people being tested then the third party? And instead of "article", use "clause".

5: "Article 1.a." seems off given there are no articles. Also, what the subclauses have does not sound like "oversee[ing] the careful and secure handling of any genetic data", when all the subclauses focus on cases where the invisible guidelines are not followed. Why is this extra committee needed anyway? WACC already does all that and gives nations the chance to sort things out first.

5.a: In addition to the above: no, don't waste WA money on crap like this. Remember that the WA's funds come from ALL WA nations, including the poorest ones. Have them only investigate cases that have been flagged for them by complaints.

6: Unnecessary, goes without saying. And again, clause, not article.

7: ...what? It starts with "instructs" but does anything but.

8: This is a joke, right? The WA itself does more snooping into people's private issues than any of the WA nations legally can.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1093
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:17 am

Araraukar wrote:OOC: About to head out the door so my apologies for the brevity and lack of RP.

1.a: How is any DNA testing not "medical DNA test"? I get you mean it's for non-medical purposes, but what really is a non-medical purpose? Is a paternity test a medical test? Are CSI's DNA tests done on blood found on the scene medical test? Don't edit the draft, please answer in reply.

1.b: So a pharmacist (drugstore if you're American) that sells the test kits is a testing entity now?

1.c: So, for example, the lab that actually, you know, runs the test?

2: Even if that was required to actually get results back? Or if the person's consent was obtained? Think Internet and tracking cookies. You can opt out of advertizers getting your data, in most cases, but if you click yes, the site can share your data with them with your consent.

3: Member states can but the WA can't? So WA can't actually find out if any of this proposal's contents are being acted against as they can't check if people's DNA info ended up in the wrong hands?

4: Why is this necessary? It just muddles things up. Who's the testing entity if a charity does DNA tests to people to match cadavers found in a mass grave to living relatives? Are the people being tested then the third party? And instead of "article", use "clause".

5: "Article 1.a." seems off given there are no articles. Also, what the subclauses have does not sound like "oversee[ing] the careful and secure handling of any genetic data", when all the subclauses focus on cases where the invisible guidelines are not followed. Why is this extra committee needed anyway? WACC already does all that and gives nations the chance to sort things out first.

5.a: In addition to the above: no, don't waste WA money on crap like this. Remember that the WA's funds come from ALL WA nations, including the poorest ones. Have them only investigate cases that have been flagged for them by complaints.

6: Unnecessary, goes without saying. And again, clause, not article.

7: ...what? It starts with "instructs" but does anything but.

8: This is a joke, right? The WA itself does more snooping into people's private issues than any of the WA nations legally can.


OOC: Very well, here are my answers.

1.a: This is quite straightforward: commercial DNA tests. Those are not for medical purposes, as they are meant to study someone's genetic composition to, for example, discover what ethnic markers they have, and thus what their heritage is. There's dozens of companies by now that offer such tests, like MyHeritage, or 23AndMe. In the first drafts I used the term "commercial DNA tests", but other commenters found the term incorrect in this context, and "non-medical DNA test" was suggested instead. I found that the term applied excellently to what the intent of the resolution is, namely stop companies like MyHeritage from selling genetic data.

1.b: No? I don't see how they would be. "Offers and distributes non-medical DNA tests as goods or services". I am not aware of any apothecary selling commercial DNA tests, or any DNA tests to be honest. Perhaps it's different in the US, but the concept is foreign to me.

1.c: You do realise this applies to the genetic data that is produced AFTER the DNA test has been analysed? The sample itself can be analysed by a lab under the terms of this resolution, but if necessary, I can add a clause that clarifies that labs that conduct the test for the company selling non-medical DNA tests are excluded from the restriction.

2. And why would anyone want to have their genetic data, the very blueprint of their being, be shared with anyone? Medical DNA tests are a different subject, but this specifically targets non-medical/commercial DNA tests from entities like MyHeritage. That data has absolutely no business being shared.

3. This can be easily altered in the next draft. I will remove the 'member states' bit and simply have it be about 'the pursuit of justice', so that both the WA and member states are included.

4. Correct me if I am wrong, but from the sound of it you are unfamiliar with the concept of commercial DNA tests like MyHeritage, for example, offers. Why would cadavers be tested? As far as I know, that is not how those entities operate, and they only create databases based on the non-medical DNA tests performed by living and breathing customers.

5. You're being somewhat unclear here, could you clarify what you mean?

6. If that's how you feel about it. I will consider whether I will remove that part or not, as in my head it appears like a logical flow of the text. I will alter the 'articles' into 'clauses' in the next draft.

7. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, 'to instruct' means "to order or tell someone to do something, esp. in a formal way". I assume that in your hurry you did not read the clause properly, as it literally states: "Instructs member states to enact any rectifying or punitive actions that are imposed by the appropriate authorities of the World Assembly, on any of the testing entities offering non-medical DNA tests to their citizens,". If necessary, 'instructs' can be changed to 'orders', or another verb.

8. No, this is not a joke. The clause can be removed, as it doesn't do anything specific in particular, but I could imagine a resolution on regulating how the genetic data can be stored safely by testing entities like a company such as MyHeritage.
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:37 am, edited 6 times in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1093
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:32 am

OOC: New draft is up that addresses some of the comments and concerns raised earlier! :)
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads