NationStates Jolt Archive

Total Freedom of Information
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Greatest Power

Taking into account that knowledge is the foundation of human evolution,
Convinced that the lack of knowledge leads to the lack of progress—for individuals as for nations,
Affirming resolutions "Education For All" implemented on January 8, 2003, and "Free education" implemented on August 19, 2003,
Keeping in mind resolution "UN Educational Committee" on April 9, 2004,
Believing all individuals has the right to make informative decisions in life,

The UN

1. Urges nations to interconnect their public libraries so individuals could have free access to universal contents.
2. Requests governments to provide documents and guides to individuals for any proceeding they must undertake by law (e.g. jury duty service, voting, etc.)
3. Calls upon legislators of every nation to pass new laws that guarantee all information publicly available (from businesses to the government) will be digitalize in electronic form and will be accessible for free.

Um. Well.

'Knowledge is the foundation of human evolution'? Oookay. Sounds like dogma to us. Personally, we thought human evolution had more to do with nucleic acids and the hibbedy-jibbedy, but obviously we just don't know enough.

These are all good guidelines, true, but many nations don't have free public libraries, or electrionic infrastructure capable of transmitting public information.

Some public libraries are ancient and immense. Digitalising them would be a costly and time-consuming process: worthy, true, but hardly an issue for UN legislation.

Since this resolution doesn't instate anything binding, however, we've no objection to it.

I'm gonna have to go with Rehochipe on the "foundation of human evolution," there.

Besides, governments, businesses, and individuals have to be able to keep some secrets. Does the average citizen really need fully detailed, official information about the current whereabouts of a particular little girl living three states away? What about the security arrangements -- notably including rosters, training, equipment, and operational information -- for heads of state? What about the findings, sources, and operations of extra-domestic intelligence services? What about encryption codes and methods for secure communication? What about the locations and precise designs of military bases and equipment, up to and including nuclear weapons and the equipment, technology, and supplies to build them?

Evolution is not necessarily biological. A human from 200 years ago is biological speaking nearly equal at the current one but intellectually has evolved a lot. That is the difference knowledge produced.

I understand certain nations have their limitations, but I am pretty sure nearly all have computers. So governments with issues to bring this proposal into effect have to pass laws and make arrangements that grant them the required help from the IT private sector.

Respect to Santin questions, I must say the proposal always talk about publicly available information. So, businesses' secrets, military classified projects, people's privacy should be safe.

I hope my answers addresses your concerns.

Makenai

Ah, my bad. I generally take "total freedom of information" to mean the forbidding of secrets, and with that in mind I misread the intention of section 3. ^_^;

At this time the Terran Assemblage can not endorse this proposal. There is possibly information that would not be well receieved by the public, and may cause a breakdown of social structure within our nation or allies of our nation.

If all information is to be made public, then I assume that information must be total in it's definition. Including every last aspect of your home personal life, which would be considered by many nations citizens, as an invasion of personal privacy.

Bank records, confidential medical records, business records, purchase records.

I'm more than sure every nation would love to know how our asteemed diplomatic rival had just recently purchased a penile implant with the use of funds from his last finance raising dinner for his president's re-election campaign. And that he has also contracted syphylis from a prostitute in the Durhi province in their capital city.

All information must be made public with the passing of this reforundum. That means everything that you have ever did in your life, good or ill, must be made open for public consumption at any time after it's acceptance.

That means you, and that means every private citizen. And we wish to protect the rights of our citizens by asking this body to cast a vote of no.

I understand certain nations have their limitations, but I am pretty sure nearly all have computers. So governments with issues to bring this proposal into effect have to pass laws and make arrangements that grant them the required help from the IT private sector.

Well, nearly all have computers, but not all have computers widely accessible to the populace, which is the essential difference here. In most third-world nations, personal computers are the province of the wealthy minority. By relying on digital technology you're making information free only to those who can pay for it.

'Arrangements with the IT private sector' is meaningless in a nation without a private sector, or with a negligible IT industry.

Also, I'd consider rephrasing your proposal's title, since half the nations replying here seem not to have actually read beyond it.

OH we've read it all right. Also wish to inform you that certain regions have outlawed computers in their nations.

What do you have to say about that?

Terran Assemblage: Dealing with information already out in the open is part of life. You do that on daily basis. For example, when you read the paper, you may get informed that the government decides to raise taxes or that a meteor is heading Earth. So, if the former means less money for you or the later makes you consider suicide, it is up to you know how you deal with that.
Respect to the last part of your assessment; I already explained (to Santin) what is the scope of the proposal.

Rehochipe: It does not matter that people does not own computers at their houses. Once interconnected, public libraries would provide free access to people in the same sense cybercafes provides access to the Internet. The proposal clearly states that laws should be passes that guarantee information would be available for free.
Although it is true to certain degree what you said respect to the IT sector, I have to say that if a nation's IT infrastructure is nearly non-existent, then maybe is because its people does not really need access to information in the sense the rest of the world does. It is like they live in a desert island and all they care about are coconuts.
Anyway, I think most nations have the IT infrastructure; the Internet supports my point considering nearly all the world is connected that way and for that you need IT infrastructure.
About the proposal's title, the original one was Universal Freedom of Information, but the system did not allow such a long title.

Makenai

Some of that freely exchanged information is going to be about my health records, who I date, what I eat and what i smoke. I am confident that is all in my government's database. I don't want any mor people to see that than those who already have their noses in my business.

Collaboration: As far as I know, that it is not true. Common individuals have privacy. If the government knows what you eat, smoke, who you date, etc. is because you are the President, at least a big-time celebrity or definitely the most-wanted criminal. Otherwise, you are not that important. Therefore, if all your information is out on the open is probably because you made it available yourself (I told you weblogs are evil, j/k.)

Makenai

Not everyone is a common household name celebrity in the world. That's to much information on to many people, who would rather have their information private. That includes the individual citizens, business' and entire nations.

I can't see how some can not see the contradiction of their own resolution. Freedom of information, but the individuals information would be non-disclosed?

That's like my 1LT once told me that he was late for a meeting, and he wanted me to drive fast but drive safely at the same time. I stopped the vehicle, pulled over, and told him your going to get one or the other, but you are NOT going to have both. Either your going to have to have total freedom of information on all subjects of all peoples, or the people are going to be allowed their privacy.

We might as well create a new resolution titled Freedom of Privacy, and see which one gets voted in first.

Terran Assemblage -

Basically, this proposal only applies to information that's already publically available - its only purpose is to ensure that such information as is nominally available to all is actually distributed. It doesn't affect any privacy or confidentiality or state-secret stuff, or copyrights for that matter; it just states that if a nation doesn't have an actual law to protect a type of information, then the government isn't allowed to suppress it. A government could still pass rigourous censorship laws - but it would have to make all non-censored material widely available.

This is why we said the title was misleading - it makes it sound as if the resolution's calling for total transparency, as opposed to calling for better distribution of already-available material.

A proposal which garners even more power to a previous passed resolution, Freedom of Choice act.

Which would lead to new resolutions abolishing requirements that some information is not currently for public consumption. It takes steps from point A to point B to point C.

Freedom of Choice
Freedom of Information
Freedom this, freedom that...

Even when to many people already shout out their abusive, "My rights", "My choices", "My freedoms" which would soon chain every nation into one rigid way of thinking. Our uniqueness as nations and people would be cast aside, we'd be nothing better than machines with pasty smiles and no brains to think for ourselves.

There comes a time when to much freedom leads to a disolution of government. Your all high and mighty ideals of a perfect United Nations society utopia is tripe and prattle. Your perfect world does not exist, and it will never exist if these idealistic nations continue to choke us with their ideals of what constitutes a perfect society and law.

With each passing resolution of freedoms to people who little understand their limits, you are weighing down our society in a moras of people which will question and resist every last thing their government proposes. With each passed proposal you are creating a link in that chain that will bind every nation around their collective necks, and choke their individuality.

How about freedom from information ? My last trip was too intense! I was assulted at lightspeed with various oxymorons and logical falacies that the world currently thrives from. It got so bad I had to crawl in bed and turn off my sound system......

Please... I have too much information as is

Bishop Chong, Co-Minister of agriculture for all Psychotropics

Rehochipe: One more clarification about the proposal's title: I checked the Webster dictionary and I found this entry on total: "involving a complete and unified effort especially to achieve a desired effect." Sounds good to me.

Terran Assemblage: That is how the world works. New regulations, resolutions, laws appears that give or take freedoms from previous ones. So, we should take one at time and do not precipitate things.
Respect to the way of thinking, I just have to say that the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" chain every nation into one rigid way of thinking but that does not mean the uniqueness as nations and people fade away. So, if the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" is about the right to be, the "Total Freedom of Information" is about the choice to know.
Finally, about your fear of government dissolution and too much freedom, let me say that it sounds like you do not think people is rational about their choices. And you know that when that happens, a dictatorship is a step near. Anyhow, do you know that any nation can stand by itself and it is not compel to be part of the UN, right?

Psychotropics: I respect your position, but now you have to respect others as well. You see, this proposal is about the RIGHT to have access to information and not about the DUTY to read any single snippet of it.


Makenai

Rehochipe: One more clarification about the proposal's title: I checked the Webster dictionary and I found this entry on total: "involving a complete and unified effort especially to achieve a desired effect." Sounds good to me.

Well, some way above that entry is this one:

Whole; not divided; entire; full; complete; absolute; as, a total departure from the evidence; a total loss.

I agree that the title is deeply misleading as it's not about freedom of information - let alone "total freedom of information" - but access to already free information. "Universal information access" might be a better way of putting it.