Multiland
28-11-2005, 19:37
In light of UN Resolution 'Stop privacy intrusion', in view of the latter paragraph: 'This evidence shall be reviewed and approved by the Judiciary before eavesdropping, phone tapping, network traffic monitoring, and other kinds of interception of communications is allowed', the Multiland Leadership is currently debating whether to implement the following Act. We would appreciate the views of other Nations. For reference, the Multiland Leadership is equivlant to a Government.
Leadership is Judicial Act
The Leadership of Multiland is part of the Judiciary
This law would be enacted in view of two things: 1, that the Leadership already deals with Appeals against decisions made in Court, and 2, that the Leadership believes "reasonable" evidence shouold be acceptable for this type of surveillance, rather than "serious" evidence.
This Act would mean that evidence would be reviewed by the Multiland Leadership, eliminating time-consuming jury/court/judge enquiries which could come to a decision too late to prevent a serious crime from taking place. It would also mean that the Leadership would decide whether evidence was to be considered "serious" - as the UN Act states that the evidence must be considered "serious", we will only use the type of surveillance described in the act when we consider the evidence to be serious. However, it would be the Leadership that decides this, meaning that, potentially, evidence which MAY have been considered only reasonable if it had been presented to a court, would be considered serious[/] by Multiland.
This does not break the UN resolution - if the Leadership is considered part of the Judiciary, then it is the Judiciary that is approving the use of said surveillance. In addition, if the Leadership considers evidence to be [i]serious, regardless of what it MAY have been considered to be (eg. reasonable) elsewhere, then said surveillance is only being used when evidence is considered serious.
Any thoughts?
Multiland Leader
Leadership is Judicial Act
The Leadership of Multiland is part of the Judiciary
This law would be enacted in view of two things: 1, that the Leadership already deals with Appeals against decisions made in Court, and 2, that the Leadership believes "reasonable" evidence shouold be acceptable for this type of surveillance, rather than "serious" evidence.
This Act would mean that evidence would be reviewed by the Multiland Leadership, eliminating time-consuming jury/court/judge enquiries which could come to a decision too late to prevent a serious crime from taking place. It would also mean that the Leadership would decide whether evidence was to be considered "serious" - as the UN Act states that the evidence must be considered "serious", we will only use the type of surveillance described in the act when we consider the evidence to be serious. However, it would be the Leadership that decides this, meaning that, potentially, evidence which MAY have been considered only reasonable if it had been presented to a court, would be considered serious[/] by Multiland.
This does not break the UN resolution - if the Leadership is considered part of the Judiciary, then it is the Judiciary that is approving the use of said surveillance. In addition, if the Leadership considers evidence to be [i]serious, regardless of what it MAY have been considered to be (eg. reasonable) elsewhere, then said surveillance is only being used when evidence is considered serious.
Any thoughts?
Multiland Leader