NationStates Jolt Archive

United Nations Resolution #10 states:
Description: We feel alarmed by the increasing intrusion of privacy by the governments in the world. Therefore, we propose that legislation is passed by each UN member that all personal communication, including, but not limited to:

face-to-face conversations, mail, telephone, radio, LAN and Internet

shall NOT be intercepted by the government, unless there is serious evidence of a planned or committed crime. 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.

In this new era, communication comes in many forms. By forcing the governments of UN member nations to turn a blind eye to what their citizens do, this resolution makes all UN nations terrorist havens. It does not go into detail as to what "evidence" is required to start an investigation. This resolution will be the death of the intelligence community. If people aren't hiding anything, then they have no reason to keep it private. There should be strict procedures about what can and cannot be done with the gathered intelligence, but gathering it in the first place should not be restricted.

Unfortuneatly, my nation does not yet have enough power and support in the international community to propse that this resolution be repealed. I can only ask that a nation with stronger standing within the UN realize the harm this resolution has caused and continues to cause and will attempt to have it repealed.

Signed Prime Representative of the Armed Republic of Palaestra

You can't repeal resolutions, idiot.

Actually, you can. If you'd read the NS News page lately, or read any of the other threads in this forum, you'd realize that the admins have finally coded a repeal mechanism into the UN interface.

Idiot.

Actually, you can. If you'd read the NS News page lately, or read any of the other threads in this forum, you'd realize that the admins have finally coded a repeal mechanism into the UN interface.

Idiot.

Aouch.. you got to answer that before me.
And could all parties mayby stop calling each other idiots.

United Nations Resolution #10 states:


In this new era, communication comes in many forms. By forcing the governments of UN member nations to turn a blind eye to what their citizens do, this resolution makes all UN nations terrorist havens. It does not go into detail as to what "evidence" is required to start an investigation. This resolution will be the death of the intelligence community. If people aren't hiding anything, then they have no reason to keep it private. There should be strict procedures about what can and cannot be done with the gathered intelligence, but gathering it in the first place should not be restricted.

Unfortuneatly, my nation does not yet have enough power and support in the international community to propse that this resolution be repealed. I can only ask that a nation with stronger standing within the UN realize the harm this resolution has caused and continues to cause and will attempt to have it repealed.

Signed Prime Representative of the Armed Republic of Palaestra

Although I understand the threat of organized crime and terrorism is becoming more pervasive, it should not be used as an excuse to overturn basic liberties. The right to privacy in all communications should be upheld for a number of reasons.

First - the government might have a vested interest in the business dealings of a company. By allowing them to tap in to all the conversations, mails and telephone calls, not to mention the company network, it would allow the government to spy on that company to gain information on the business, and use it to it's advantage.

Secondly - people use these methods of communication for other things than business and planning crimes. Personal business should be just that - personal. If I am talking to my partner I do not expect the government of my nation, or of any other nation, to be listening in and making notes. I find that intolerable.

Thirdly - if the information is to be gathered, then it must be stored. And criminal organizations could access that store and use the information for whatever means they might have.

Fourth - Allowing the government of a nation to spy on it's citizens is the first step towards a totalitarian dictatorship, where people will be afraid to critize the government in any medium lest it get back to those in power.

Finally - By definition the internet, e-mail and other communication forms are international. So they fall under the purview of all the governments that the communication reaches. I realise there is little I can do about the non-UN states, but I would strongly hope that all my citizens communications with another country are private and protected, unless a member of the judiciary belives there is a reason for them not to be.

I strongly urge all members to keep this proposal on the statues of the UN so that all our citizes can keep their right to privacy.

If a person shouted from one house to another they wouldn't expect their conversation to be private. So why should mail, telephone, or Internet communications be any different? You can never really know for sure if your house is bugged or if the person your talking to is a governemnt informant, so what difference does it make if there actually is a listening device hidden in your home or if one third of the population is spying on the other two-thirds?

We fully support the repeal of this pointless resolution.

If a person shouted from one house to another they wouldn't expect their conversation to be private. So why should mail, telephone, or Internet communications be any different? You can never really know for sure if your house is bugged or if the person your talking to is a governemnt informant, so what difference does it make if there actually is a listening device hidden in your home or if one third of the population is spying on the other two-thirds?

We fully support the repeal of this pointless resolution.

But if you are shouting from one house to another, you know you are doing it in the open air where sound carries. So you know other people will hear you.

Conversely if you are lying in bed next to your partner and whispering in their ear, you do not expect anyone else to be able to hear you.

All citizens of my country have the right to privacy in their lives, unless the government, supported by the judiciary, has a very good reason to violate it.

And I also believe that the cover of "terrorist threats" is being used as an excuse to enact/propose a lot of dictatorial laws that would never be thought of otherwise, and I find this behaviour shabby and unworthy of UN members.

Also - just as a matter of curiousity (that could turn in to a serious problem) does this give back the right for one government to spy, eavesdrop and generally invade the privacy of citizens from another country. Or can they only violate the privacy of their own citizens?

I believe that this resolution should go. I think that a nation should decide what it should monitor and what it shouldn't, and not the decision of the United Nations. That's why I'm supporting this repeal.

But if you are shouting from one house to another, you know you are doing it in the open air where sound carries. So you know other people will hear you.

And people can hear you on a copper wire if they have the proper equipment.


Conversely if you are lying in bed next to your partner and whispering in their ear, you do not expect anyone else to be able to hear you.

Maybe people should expect it. What are all these people keeping secret anyway? Secrets are unhealthy. We promote openess in our society. Don't people have a right to live in a society free of people whispering these dark poisonous secrets into one another's ears? We believe this very deeply and work everyday to protect this freedom.

Goontopia supports this repeal.

Why should mail, telephone, or Internet communications be any different?

Because such communication is intended as one-to-one and should not be otherwise. Someone shouting a conversation knows other people will be able to hear them. But someone talking on a telephone, on the other hand, does not expect someone to be listening in to their conversation. Someone who sends a letter or an e-mail expects it to be a communication between, exclusively, themselves and the people the letter/e-mail is addressed to. It's an apples/oranges comparison.


You can never really know for sure if your house is bugged or if the person your talking to is a governemnt informant.

Do you live in the book 1984 or something? No house can be bugged without a proper warrant, and to get the warrant, the police or agency would need to show that they have a damn good reason to do it. And well, your friend might be a government informant, but I'm sure the intelligence people have more important things to do than that. So yes, you actually CAN be pretty sure that your house is not bugged and that the person you're talking to is NOT a spy.

Privacy is an important civil liberty, and if you give it up because you're afraid of terrorists, congratulations, you're living in terror. They've won. This resolution is a guarentee of this liberty and it should stand.

Do you live in the book 1984 or something?


A good book with a happy ending. Too bad we had to ban it.

Maybe people should expect it. What are all these people keeping secret anyway? Secrets are unhealthy. We promote openess in our society. Don't people have a right to live in a society free of people whispering these dark poisonous secrets into one another's ears? We believe this very deeply and work everyday to protect this freedom.

If I am whispering sweet nothings in my partner's ear then I do not believe that is going to be a threat to the security of my country. And I believe that government has no business regulating, or spying, on what people do in their own homes unless they have due cause to believe it is a threat to the security of the nation (with due cause being decided by an independent authority).

And while I will continue to respect this within my nation, even if the more dictatorial states have their way in repealing privacy, I want assurances that no other nation would take advantage of the repeal to spy on my citizens.

I believe that this resolution should go. I think that a nation should decide what it should monitor and what it shouldn't, and not the decision of the United Nations. That's why I'm supporting this repeal.

Within one nation then I really can't object to it - my government will continue to respect the right of my citizens to live their own lives.

But what if the repeal gives other nations the right to spy on my citizens? Or your citizens? Would you not find that objectionable?

But what if the repeal gives other nations the right to spy on my citizens? Or your citizens? Would you not find that objectionable?

But already we can see non UN members doing this. Why would we worry about a possible replacement of the resolution? We can vote on that when it comes. My Emirate wouldn't spy on our citizens, but we wouldn't force that view on others, especially where you can see how national security issues could come into play.

Goontopia supports this repeal.

South Goontopia also supports this.

Originally Posted by Kelssek:
Do you live in the book 1984 or something?
A good book with a happy ending. Too bad we had to ban it.
That? Was priceless.

But already we can see non UN members doing this. Why would we worry about a possible replacement of the resolution? We can vote on that when it comes. My Emirate wouldn't spy on our citizens, but we wouldn't force that view on others, especially where you can see how national security issues could come into play.

But if you apply that logic then you might as well close down the UN. Because nothing we say or do applies to non-UN members.