Vicotis Kor has decided to abstain from voting on the resolution named “Preventing Identity Theft”.
Major General Nadim Shabazz
Ambassador to the World Assembly from Vicotis Kor
Advertisement
by Vicotis Kor » Wed Sep 15, 2021 3:21 pm
by URA World Assembly Affairs » Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:05 pm
by Texkentuck » Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:36 pm
by Tsaivao » Thu Sep 16, 2021 7:08 am
Texkentuck wrote:President Schirkophf takes a puff of his cigar and has a drink of his Texk Vodka.
Normally we agree with the NRA but our nation is concerned about 3rd parties having a bunch of innocent peoples data. We simply vote against this proposal. If this proposal is to make it simply in which their is direct cooperation more easy amongst two nations in the WA then we would vote for this proposal. That's not exactly the case because this makes it in which it doesn't matter where the theft came. This proposal will make it in which more nations have an innocent persons information. When the theft is more and likely between two nations. This data base will serve a great purpose but more information available to more hands. It's another vulnerable system. No data base is 100% protected.
President Bram W. Schirkophf
UCCR
Texkentuck
OPERATION TEN-GO: Tsaivao Authority confirms wormhole drives based on alien designs are functional | Gen. Tsaosin: "Operational integrity is the key to our success against the xenic threat. In a week, we will have already infiltrated into their world." | All leaders of Tsaivao send personal farewells to Ten-Go special forces unit Tsaikantan-8
by Texkentuck » Thu Sep 16, 2021 1:11 pm
Tsaivao wrote:Texkentuck wrote:President Schirkophf takes a puff of his cigar and has a drink of his Texk Vodka.
Normally we agree with the NRA but our nation is concerned about 3rd parties having a bunch of innocent peoples data. We simply vote against this proposal. If this proposal is to make it simply in which their is direct cooperation more easy amongst two nations in the WA then we would vote for this proposal. That's not exactly the case because this makes it in which it doesn't matter where the theft came. This proposal will make it in which more nations have an innocent persons information. When the theft is more and likely between two nations. This data base will serve a great purpose but more information available to more hands. It's another vulnerable system. No data base is 100% protected.
President Bram W. Schirkophf
UCCR
Texkentuck
Delegate Manhu waved his wing to try and clear the air of the tobacco smoke. "Would you quit that, ambassador?? I'd like to save my lung cancer for after retirement."
He looked over the proposal using a reading monocle. "I believe that third parties would not have access to the database, as Clause 3 section i states only 'governments of member-states and accredited law enforcement agencies within member-nations' may 'access, edit, and remove any information they upload to the database.' Similar provisions are provided for non-member nations under additional review. The nations and organizations are only able to read/write based on the nationality of each case, and I presume are unable to see the cases of other nations, member or not. The only organization that I presume would be able to see all cases is whoever is in charge of administrating the IID, and simple measures such as activity logging or hashed-and-salted data would prevent most simple attacks. While it is a good idea to have a healthy degree of skepticism for cybersecurity, rest-assured that I'm fairly certain that the World Assembly is aware."
by Bananaistan » Thu Sep 16, 2021 1:16 pm
by Honeydewistania » Sat Sep 18, 2021 2:18 am
Bananaistan wrote:"Bananaistan has voted against due to the open ended charge levied on taxpayers in section 5. In many cases if not most cases, the perpetrator will have absconded with their ill gotten gains, and even when a member state can bring them justice, the likelihood is that they will have already spent some or all of the proceeds of their crimes. Ultimately it will fall back on governments to cover "the total sum of losses shall be repaid to the victim". This is unfair, disproportionate and anti-socialist."
Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass
by Morover » Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:55 am
Bananaistan wrote:"Bananaistan has voted against due to the open ended charge levied on taxpayers in section 5. In many cases if not most cases, the perpetrator will have absconded with their ill gotten gains, and even when a member state can bring them justice, the likelihood is that they will have already spent some or all of the proceeds of their crimes. Ultimately it will fall back on governments to cover "the total sum of losses shall be repaid to the victim". This is unfair, disproportionate and anti-socialist."
by Bananaistan » Sat Sep 18, 2021 12:01 pm
Morover wrote:Bananaistan wrote:"Bananaistan has voted against due to the open ended charge levied on taxpayers in section 5. In many cases if not most cases, the perpetrator will have absconded with their ill gotten gains, and even when a member state can bring them justice, the likelihood is that they will have already spent some or all of the proceeds of their crimes. Ultimately it will fall back on governments to cover "the total sum of losses shall be repaid to the victim". This is unfair, disproportionate and anti-socialist."
Darin Perise.
"If you found yourself able to comply with the prior resolution, then the government is under no obligation to spend the taxpayer's dollar in order to fulfill the obligations laid out under the clauses you specify."
by Tinhampton » Sat Sep 18, 2021 9:03 pm
by Morover » Sat Sep 18, 2021 9:13 pm
Bananaistan wrote:Morover wrote:Darin Perise.
"If you found yourself able to comply with the prior resolution, then the government is under no obligation to spend the taxpayer's dollar in order to fulfill the obligations laid out under the clauses you specify."
"This is not true Comrade Perise.
"REQUIRES member states to force convicted identity thieves to pay monetary compensation to the victims of their crime" which was the relevant mandate in the repealed resolution is a substantially different mandate to "the total sum of losses shall be repaid to the victim". One has no fall back on the taxpayer, the other forces taxpayers to pick up the bill for potentially unlimited losses when the identity thief is not apprehended or is no longer in possession of the stolen funds.
"Mandates of resolutions are not optional for member states. There's a clear sequence of steps here that leads to this resolution literally taking food off the plates of hungry children in order to compensate millionaires and others who might well be well able to sustain substantial losses."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
