NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi. I just put in a proposal called the international internet code. It proposes UN legislation to solve problems with the internet (in the game, of course). I think this is an issue that the UN needs to address. Please support this legislation. If you have a legitimate reason not to support it or have any worthwhile critiques, please post them here. I would be willing to give this legislation a second shot with any changes you post. For reference the proposal is as follows:Whereas the internet is currently controlled by individual states.

Whereas events on the internet are capable of causing international problems.

Whereas individual nations are unable to combat these problems effectively due to the nature of the internet.

The UN moves to define an International Internet Code.

This resolution is designed to combat online problems that have international effects including but not limited to:
1) Spam mailings
2) Computer Viruses
3) Hacking
4) Online piracy
5) Online Pornography

The UN will seek for solutions to these problems that are agreeable to all member nations. Such laws would include:
1) Punishing spam mailings with fines for offenders
2) Establishing a system in which spam mailings can be effectively reported
3) Establishing code for e-mail validation, to ensure that spammers can be prosecuted
4) Establishing laws punishing the creators of computer viruses
5) Mandating that all computers in member nations have up to date virus software and protection from hackers.
6) Establishing laws that effectively punish hacking, with exceptions for governmental counter terrorist actions.
7) Ensuring that all nations are compliant with point 4 through UN sponsored distribution of such software.
8) Mandating that all countries punish online piracy to the extent required by UCPL (UN resolution #45 )
9) Establishing code for online pornography where as no children are at risk of being exposed, but of age consumers can still access it.
10) The UN shall form a council to modify the International Internet Code as necessary.

Definitions for the previous laws:
1) Spam mail shall be defined as unsolicited e-mail in any quantity.
2) Computer viruses shall be defined as any code or program on the internet that produces an undesired and harmful effect on data.
3) Hacking shall be defined as any intentional action that produces an undesired or harmful effect on data.
4) Online piracy shall be defined as any act of piracy or violation of copyright law committed over the internet.
5) Online Pornography shall be defined as any image or video designed to cause sexual arousal by the user.

Thanks for your support!

Hi. I just put in a proposal called the international internet code. It proposes UN legislation to solve problems with the internet (in the game, of course). I think this is an issue that the UN needs to address. Please support this legislation. If you have a legitimate reason not to support it or have any worthwhile critiques, please post them here. I would be willing to give this legislation a second shot with any changes you post. For reference the proposal is as follows:Whereas the internet is currently controlled by individual states.

Whereas events on the internet are capable of causing international problems.

Whereas individual nations are unable to combat these problems effectively due to the nature of the internet.

The UN moves to define an International Internet Code.

This resolution is designed to combat online problems that have international effects including but not limited to:
1) Spam mailings
2) Computer Viruses
3) Hacking
4) Online piracy
5) Online Pornography

The UN will seek for solutions to these problems that are agreeable to all member nations. Such laws would include:
1) Punishing spam mailings with fines for offenders
2) Establishing a system in which spam mailings can be effectively reported
3) Establishing code for e-mail validation, to ensure that spammers can be prosecuted
4) Establishing laws punishing the creators of computer viruses
5) Mandating that all computers in member nations have up to date virus software and protection from hackers.
6) Establishing laws that effectively punish hacking, with exceptions for governmental counter terrorist actions.
7) Ensuring that all nations are compliant with point 4 through UN sponsored distribution of such software.
8) Mandating that all countries punish online piracy to the extent required by UCPL (UN resolution #45 )
9) Establishing code for online pornography where as no children are at risk of being exposed, but of age consumers can still access it.
10) The UN shall form a council to modify the International Internet Code as necessary.

Definitions for the previous laws:
1) Spam mail shall be defined as unsolicited e-mail in any quantity.
2) Computer viruses shall be defined as any code or program on the internet that produces an undesired and harmful effect on data.
3) Hacking shall be defined as any intentional action that produces an undesired or harmful effect on data.
4) Online piracy shall be defined as any act of piracy or violation of copyright law committed over the internet.
5) Online Pornography shall be defined as any image or video designed to cause sexual arousal by the user.

Thanks for your support!

I welcome the idea, but hacking is sometimes necessary to reveal the government, or various huge mega-corps doing something wrong. And in my nation it is the role of the parent to prevent children from accessing things they shouldn't, rather than the role of the state. Because if the state is allowed to censor what children see it is a short hop to letting the state censor what everyone sees, which is not a good thing.

Also, although I do support severe punishments for anyone who goes on line without anti-virus software and a firewall, I am not willing to actually put that in to writing as a law in my nation, and I do not want to be forced to do so.

There is also a question of jurisdiction. I am not willing to let people in my nation be punished by other nations for computer viruses, or for spamming. If someone commits a crime in another country, they can be punished by that country. But if they commit a crime in my nation they will be punished by my laws, not by anyone elses.

No support, and I'll show why:

Hi. I just put in a proposal called the international internet code. It proposes UN legislation to solve problems with the internet (in the game, of course). I think this is an issue that the UN needs to address. Please support this legislation. If you have a legitimate reason not to support it or have any worthwhile critiques, please post them here. I would be willing to give this legislation a second shot with any changes you post. For reference the proposal is as follows:Whereas the internet is currently controlled by individual states.

Whereas events on the internet are capable of causing international problems.

Whereas individual nations are unable to combat these problems effectively due to the nature of the internet.

The UN moves to define an International Internet Code.

This resolution is designed to combat online problems that have international effects including but not limited to:
1) Spam mailings
2) Computer Viruses
3) Hacking
4) Online piracy
5) Online Pornography

Problem #1: Viruses. While nasty as hell, their spread also encourages the increase in computer security.Same for Hacking. We don't illegalize these things in Vastiva. Instead, we encourage other companies to 'fight back'. Which has resulted in incredible leaps in Information Technology. Overall? We win.

Problem #2: Online Pornography. Good luck defining this one. Everything short of child pornography is legal in Vastiva. Child pornography is a death sentence. We like to keep things simple.



The UN will seek for solutions to these problems that are agreeable to all member nations. Such laws would include:
1) Punishing spam mailings with fines for offenders

Restricts my businesses unfairly. If you don't like spam, block it.



2) Establishing a system in which spam mailings can be effectively reported


To who?



3) Establishing code for e-mail validation, to ensure that spammers can be prosecuted


Vastiva is not handing over her computer security to anyone.



4) Establishing laws punishing the creators of computer viruses


Repeat, we like viruses. Encourages anti-viruses.



5) Mandating that all computers in member nations have up to date virus software and protection from hackers.


"Up to date" by whose standards? Ours outstrip most of the world because of the constant state of "internet war". And we're not selling them or giving them out.



6) Establishing laws that effectively punish hacking, with exceptions for governmental counter terrorist actions.

Good hackers get comfy jobs beating on other hackers. Works better.



7) Ensuring that all nations are compliant with point 4 through UN sponsored distribution of such software.

Your software isn't compliant with my computers.
I suppose we could make a patch...



8) Mandating that all countries punish online piracy to the extent required by UCPL (UN resolution #45 )

A-Ok with this one.



9) Establishing code for online pornography where as no children are at risk of being exposed, but of age consumers can still access it.

Define 'children' and 'of age', or insert something that allows nations to do it themselves.



10) The UN shall form a council to modify the International Internet Code as necessary.


Creates an in-game board, possibly illegal.



Definitions for the previous laws:
1) Spam mail shall be defined as unsolicited e-mail in any quantity.

Well, there go any diplomatic overtures via internet.



2) Computer viruses shall be defined as any code or program on the internet that produces an undesired and harmful effect on data.

"Accidents don't happen! You're under arrest!"

... an intentional, undesired and/or harmful effect...



3) Hacking shall be defined as any intentional action that produces an undesired or harmful effect on data.

This could be turning the computer ON.



4) Online piracy shall be defined as any act of piracy or violation of copyright law committed over the internet.
5) Online Pornography shall be defined as any image or video designed to cause sexual arousal by the user.

Thanks for your support!


So, if I'm aroused by navel oranges, or pictures of money, or financial data, or whatever, and someone has an advertisement which has a sexual connotation, then that's illegal by your proposal.

Well, there goes advertising.

Proposal needs alot of work

Thanks for the suggestions. I agree with some of the definitions points. I guess I was thinking in terms of laws I would like to see in my country. This is reflected in the proposal in two ways :
1. I'm the leader a socalist nation, and I personally can't stand advertising therfore the current proposal does not make exeptions for it. I suppose if I really want it passed I'll put it in.
2. Even if I passed such a law in my country, it would have little to no effect, therefore making this UN jurisdiction. That is the problem that this proposal tries to address, since independent countries won't have much of an effect.
I suppose one could use this argument against me, since non-UN nations will not be affected, but that's always a problem with the UN.
To explain specific points:
The spam reportings would go to whoever is in charge of the spam removal and punishment in the first place, some branch of the UN.
E-mail validation does not infringe on computer security, it only ensures that we can I.D. the real person behind an e-mail address. Yes, one could make this a privacy issue, but if all you get is a name and the quantity of e-mail, then it's not an issue.
I agree an exeption could be put in online diplomacy, government offices probably should be immune to the spam clauses.
Up to date would be the best standards in the UN. That's the whole point of this, to make state of the art protection software universally avalible.
On the censorship point, mandating an age validation (this could be coupled with the e-mail name registration) isn't really censorship. This would be allocated to the sites themselves, not the individual's computers.
I hope this clears some things up. If this verson does not make it to vote I will make a second proposal. Thanks again for the help!

(added extra numbers for clarity)
Thanks for the suggestions. I agree with some of the definitions points. I guess I was thinking in terms of laws I would like to see in my country. This is reflected in the proposal in two ways :
1. I'm the leader a socalist nation, and I personally can't stand advertising therfore the current proposal does not make exeptions for it. I suppose if I really want it passed I'll put it in.
2. Even if I passed such a law in my country, it would have little to no effect, therefore making this UN jurisdiction. That is the problem that this proposal tries to address, since independent countries won't have much of an effect.
I suppose one could use this argument against me, since non-UN nations will not be affected, but that's always a problem with the UN.
To explain specific points:
A) The spam reportings would go to whoever is in charge of the spam removal and punishment in the first place, some branch of the UN.
B) E-mail validation does not infringe on computer security, it only ensures that we can I.D. the real person behind an e-mail address. Yes, one could make this a privacy issue, but if all you get is a name and the quantity of e-mail, then it's not an issue.
C) I agree an exeption could be put in online diplomacy, government offices probably should be immune to the spam clauses.
D) Up to date would be the best standards in the UN. That's the whole point of this, to make state of the art protection software universally avalible.
E) On the censorship point, mandating an age validation (this could be coupled with the e-mail name registration) isn't really censorship. This would be allocated to the sites themselves, not the individual's computers.
I hope this clears some things up. If this verson does not make it to vote I will make a second proposal. Thanks again for the help!

1) A great many nations in the NSUN are capitalists. Including mine. Just because you can not stand advertising doesn't mean everyone else should be made to stop it.

A) I am not letting the UN punish anyone in my country for something they have done. They are my people, so they are my responsibility.
B) Someone might have a good reason for wanting to disguise their e-mail address. Anonymous remailers are also used extensively for various reasons and they can not be validated - that is the whole point.
C) While I kind of accept this, letting the government do it, and not other political parties, could interfere with the political balance in a country. And surely the UN should not be in the business of interfering in national politics.
D) How is the UN going to pay to distribute AV software to EVERY computer in EVERY member nation? And if the UN won't pay, who will?
E) Your original quote said "Establishing code for online pornography where as no children are at risk of being exposed, but of age consumers can still access it" - which doesn't mention age validation or e-mail registration. And however losely you wish to define it, stopping someone seeing something is censorship, even if it is in a good cause.

Finally (from your original proposal) -

1) Spam mail shall be defined as unsolicited e-mail in any quantity.
2) Computer viruses shall be defined as any code or program on the internet that produces an undesired and harmful effect on data.
3) Hacking shall be defined as any intentional action that produces an undesired or harmful effect on data.
4) Online piracy shall be defined as any act of piracy or violation of copyright law committed over the internet.
5) Online Pornography shall be defined as any image or video designed to cause sexual arousal by the user.


1) So if I get an e-mail from an ex-boyfriend I can get him charged under the spam laws? That sounds a tad over the top.
2) Does this effect have to be intentional or unintentional? Because, in my past, I have had some truly awful bugs in software that had a pretty harmful effect, but they were not malicious - just badly coded.
3) The same thing can be argued as in point (2) - you write code to do something, and it turns out it wasn't what you meant. The code was written intentionally, even if the effect was unintended.
4) As long as this is not used to stop legitimate file-sharing uses I have no problem with it.
5) Aside from not being anywhere near specific enough (sex stories on line are not covered by this at all), the sentence should read "in the user" not "by the user" as it implies the image or video would be designed by the user, not the person who made it.

1) I agree that the whole socalism point is not legitimate reasoning in the proposal, that was put in as reasoning for my personal dislike of spam. I agree capitalist countries should have a say, that's the whole point of this discussion.
1a) Even though many nations are capitalists, many people in all nations (both in NS and the real world) cannot stand SPAM. While buisnesses can make profits off of it, in it's current form it's not an acceptable form of advertising. There are many reasons for this such as the increadible % of mail that is SPAM. E-mail and the internet are good for advertising no doubt, but it really should be regulated
A) The UN would ensure that these punishments were carried out by the member nations, not actually punish the people (although that's almost the same thing)
B) Fine, there should be an exeption for anonoumous and autonomous senders, but there has to be a legit reason, such as the mail being solicited, SPAM is not one of them.
D) This AV software would be freeware, that's the whole point of having the UN do it. I know some corperations may not like this, but it could be subsidized.
E) I've come to realize the whole pornography thing needs an overhaul. Perhaps it will be cut from the next proposal entirely

Back on the original proposal:
1) I was considering a quantity limit before these were enforced, that will be part of the next proposal.
2) the word intentional will be added to the next proposal. As well as a definition for whose intention.
3) Prove it. As long as no malicious intent can be proven, the alleged hacker would be off the hook. There will be a clause for this the next proposal.
4) It won't be. Legit file sharing isn't a violation of UPCL, therefore it won't be stopped
5) refur to "E" While online pornography should be confonted, it should be a separate proposal. I'm not about to lose votes over censorship issues, even if the censorship is morally justified. I'll cut it from my next attempt.
Thanks again for your help!

1) I agree that the whole socalism point is not legitimate reasoning in the proposal, that was put in as reasoning for my personal dislike of spam. I agree capitalist countries should have a say, that's the whole point of this discussion.
1a) Even though many nations are capitalists, many people in all nations (both in NS and the real world) cannot stand SPAM. While buisnesses can make profits off of it, in it's current form it's not an acceptable form of advertising. There are many reasons for this such as the increadible % of mail that is SPAM. E-mail and the internet are good for advertising no doubt, but it really should be regulated

No.



A) The UN would ensure that these punishments were carried out by the member nations, not actually punish the people (although that's almost the same thing)

If that's the case, my nations punishment shall be a fine of one cent. Now are you seeing a problem here?



B) Fine, there should be an exeption for anonoumous and autonomous senders, but there has to be a legit reason, such as the mail being solicited, SPAM is not one of them.

And who is going to define legitimacy, and - more to the point - who is going to check and enforce? And how?



D) This AV software would be freeware, that's the whole point of having the UN do it. I know some corperations may not like this, but it could be subsidized.

This would destroy some Information Technology businesses basis for being. Nix. I like my economy.



E) I've come to realize the whole pornography thing needs an overhaul. Perhaps it will be cut from the next proposal entirely


Yes it does.



Back on the original proposal:
1) I was considering a quantity limit before these were enforced, that will be part of the next proposal.
2) the word intentional will be added to the next proposal. As well as a definition for whose intention.
3) Prove it. As long as no malicious intent can be proven, the alleged hacker would be off the hook. There will be a clause for this the next proposal.
4) It won't be. Legit file sharing isn't a violation of UPCL, therefore it won't be stopped
5) refur to "E" While online pornography should be confonted, it should be a separate proposal. I'm not about to lose votes over censorship issues, even if the censorship is morally justified. I'll cut it from my next attempt.
Thanks again for your help!

Vastivas age of consent is 12. We also have classes in "Instructional Pornography" in school from grade 9 upwards. There is no "moral justification" for censorship, only closed-mindedness and general ninnyness. What is legal in one country does not have to be legal in others.

Morality, in other words, does not have to cross national borders.

E-mail and the internet are good for advertising no doubt, but it really should be regulated

Do you mean e-mail should be regulated or the internet should be regulated? Or both?
Who gets to chose what is regulated and what isn't? And are you aware of how much power you are putting in the hands of those who get to regulate it?


B) Fine, there should be an exeption for anonoumous and autonomous senders, but there has to be a legit reason, such as the mail being solicited, SPAM is not one of them.

So now we have exemptions for governments, exemptions for anonymous system....
What else can we get exemptions for? Medical alerts? Recall notices for cars/comptures etc?


D) This AV software would be freeware, that's the whole point of having the UN do it. I know some corperations may not like this, but it could be subsidized.

So now we are paying to prevent people being stupid?


1) I was considering a quantity limit before these were enforced, that will be part of the next proposal.

Whatever you define as the quantity will either be too much or not enough.


2) the word intentional will be added to the next proposal. As well as a definition for whose intention.
3) Prove it. As long as no malicious intent can be proven, the alleged hacker would be off the hook. There will be a clause for this the next proposal.


I am still not convinced that this could not be used to punish people who have coded something wrongly.
And also what if someone is writing a virus for their own use (to wipe their hard drive for example) and it gets out on to the web by accident. They could possibly wipe out a HUGE amount of data, and since it is a virus (albeit an accidental one) they should be held to account. Or should they?


4) It won't be. Legit file sharing isn't a violation of UPCL, therefore it won't be stopped


So basically all the file sharing systems would have to be monitored all the time to ensure no UCPL violations are going on? And thus starts another intrusion in to daily life by the governments.


5) refur to "E" While online pornography should be confonted, it should be a separate proposal. I'm not about to lose votes over censorship issues, even if the censorship is morally justified. I'll cut it from my next attempt.
Thanks again for your help!


Censorship can always be morally justified - "We must protect our children from this filth" turns in to "we must protect our people from things that are morally bad" turns in to "we must protect our people from things we don't think they should see" and before you know it the people can't see that the government just spent the entire budget on holidays and beer, because the bugdet records are now out of the public eye because they are "things we don't think they should see".

Parents are responsible for their children (or whoever is currently looking after the child - school, playgroup etc). The government should not be in the business of overruling what choices the parents are making about their kids' browsing habbits.

I feel you are treading on freedom of speech, therefore we will not be supporting this resolution.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

I'm going to continue not using quotations, just addressing points.
1) If you are going to critiqe something please read the full context. The internet pornography regulations are going to be cut, as stated in my last post.
2) this is a work in progress, so if something is not defined, it will be eventually, in the next version of the resolution.
3) I meant SPAM should be regulated, therefore only e-mail would be regulated in the smallest extent possible. This would not have to be done by e-mail entrusion but by other methods, such as a tax on-email (this is the least likely but most effective) or simply tagging the e-mail with the country of origin. That way if there is a problem with SPAM the people can complain to their government, the government notifies the UN, and the SPAM's country of origin can be charged with solving the problem. If the problem is not solved, then the UN provides penalties for that country. I'll define such penalties later.
4) As for exemptions I'm trying to avoid e-mail being a medium for mass media here. Obviously it can be used for such things, but only if the user solicited the mail in the first place. The key word in all of this is unsolicited, so there's really not that much that can be touched in the first place.
5) Yes we are pretty much paying to prevent stupidity. The point is, one person's stupidity can cause the virus to spread to other people. Safety features offline are common (think of how many things are inspected), and I think they should be manditory online. They would be already if someone could find a way to sue the virus author for crashing their computer.
6) Accidental vs. intetional is for the courts to decide. The courts would be in the country of the virus author's residence at the time the virus was released.
7) Once again I have no intentions of regulating online pornography in furthur proposals, but my last words on the subject will be this. Saying the UN can't cross international borders with morality is not a valid arguement. The UN has already moved to guarentee the right to an abortion, legalize prostitution, and many other things that some countries may see as immoral.

I am going to continue to use quotations, if that's okay :}

I'm going to continue not using quotations, just addressing points.
1) If you are going to critiqe something please read the full context. The internet pornography regulations are going to be cut, as stated in my last post.


I did understand that. It's censorship for "moral" reasons bugs the crap out of me and I tend to make that feeling known whenever I am confronted with the arguement :}



And I will continue to question what is not defined until it is, because if these are laws that are going to affect my people I want to be sure of what it is I am going to be agreeing to (or voting against as the case might be)

[QUOTE]
3) I meant SPAM should be regulated, therefore only e-mail would be regulated in the smallest extent possible. This would not have to be done by e-mail entrusion but by other methods, such as a tax on-email (this is the least likely but most effective) or simply tagging the e-mail with the country of origin. That way if there is a problem with SPAM the people can complain to their government, the government notifies the UN, and the SPAM's country of origin can be charged with solving the problem. If the problem is not solved, then the UN provides penalties for that country. I'll define such penalties later.


But people and nations have different definitions of spam. And quite honestly I have no problem with spam. Software that spies on my people - that is not good. Software that totally screws up my computers systems - that is pretty bad. But spam is the same as junk mail that you get through the door. If a website is going to provide a free service, how else are they going to pay for it than sending you adverts?

Having thought it over I would have to vote against any proposal to punish those who spam, unless the mails they are sending can be shown to be spying on the systems that are receiving them, or doing malicious damage to said systems.

Plus there is a fair amount of software out there to stop spam on a single system, and at the ISP level (my ISP doesn't block it because it doesn't know what I consider spam and not spam, but my personal computer has software to filter out all the stuff in to another folder so it doesn't bug me).


4) As for exemptions I'm trying to avoid e-mail being a medium for mass media here. Obviously it can be used for such things, but only if the user solicited the mail in the first place. The key word in all of this is unsolicited, so there's really not that much that can be touched in the first place.


Governments could require it to be a mass media thing. They might want to send out a leaflet about the recent demon attacks in the southern counties. Someone who lives in the northen counties might consider this unsolicited and use these laws to punish the government.
Oh but the government would be exempt of course. But, as I asked, what about other political parties?


5) Yes we are pretty much paying to prevent stupidity. The point is, one person's stupidity can cause the virus to spread to other people. Safety features offline are common (think of how many things are inspected), and I think they should be manditory online. They would be already if someone could find a way to sue the virus author for crashing their computer.


And you think it is the role of the UN to make governments pay to stop stupidity in their people? You don't think that my view that a person's computer is their own property and should not be monitored by the government at all is fair and balanced one? Because to make it mandatory you would have to monitor a persons computer - what software is installed and so forth. Which is a HUGE invasion of privacy and possibly in contravention of Resolution #10


6) Accidental vs. intetional is for the courts to decide. The courts would be in the country of the virus author's residence at the time the virus was released.


Fair enough. This doesn't take in to account the fact that two people who live in different countries might write something together, and that if the virus damages systems in two dozen countries each one of them might want jurisdiction, but I am sure that can be sorted out later :}


7) Once again I have no intentions of regulating online pornography in furthur proposals, but my last words on the subject will be this. Saying the UN can't cross international borders with morality is not a valid arguement. The UN has already moved to guarentee the right to an abortion, legalize prostitution, and many other things that some countries may see as immoral.

I didn't say morals couldn't cross borders (I went back to check just in case I had). I said that morallity is not a good reason for censorship. But as you are going to remove the whole online porn thing this is not really relevent to the topic any more :}

Just so as you understand why I am not letting any of this go, I strongly, strongly believe that the regulation of the internet should be limited to the country in which it is used. So I have laws in my country, you have them in yours and so on.

No one single body should regulate the contents of the net, whether it be the websites or the e-mail, because there are so many national laws, religiouns, cultures and beliefs that no single body could ever hope to accomadate all of them. And when it tries it will just end up pissing half the world off and pandering to the other half.

First remember that I am responding to all posts since mine, so if you don't think it applies to your post, it probably doesn't.
I can understand your point, but it contradicts exactly what I'm trying to do with this legislation. Basically there are five main things I'm arguing for. The first four are the problems that need to be controlled:
1) SPAM
2) Viruses
3) hacking
4) piracy
5) I'm justifying this based on the nature of the internet. I belive it is more or less international turf since everyone on the internet is being affected by what goes on there. This makes it UN jurisdiction. It's a new idea, I know, but I belive this if this ideal is obtained then problems with the internet will decrease tremendously. This is at the core of the legislation.
The means of controlling and enforcing these points us what is still up for discussion. I appreciate the help, making this more moderate will increase it's likelyness to pass, but it looks like we're nearing the point at which no more comprimising is going to happen.

The freemarket is taking care of such problems quite well without government interference.

First remember that I am responding to all posts since mine, so if you don't think it applies to your post, it probably doesn't.
I can understand your point, but it contradicts exactly what I'm trying to do with this legislation. Basically there are five main things I'm arguing for. The first four are the problems that need to be controlled:
1) SPAM
2) Viruses
3) hacking
4) piracy
5) I'm justifying this based on the nature of the internet. I belive it is more or less international turf since everyone on the internet is being affected by what goes on there. This makes it UN jurisdiction. It's a new idea, I know, but I belive this if this ideal is obtained then problems with the internet will decrease tremendously. This is at the core of the legislation.
The means of controlling and enforcing these points us what is still up for discussion. I appreciate the help, making this more moderate will increase it's likelyness to pass, but it looks like we're nearing the point at which no more comprimising is going to happen.


I realisae that my intention is exactly opposite to your's - but that is the point. I think that the way each of the four problems are dealt with in a country should be just that - within a country. I have no problem with spam in my nation - a free service has to support itself some how. All the "free to air" channels use advertising, so all the free to view websites either use advertising or they use e-mail advertising - what you refer to as spam.

I would be very much against a law that says I can not continue to use this in my nation. I don't even have any plans to legislate about it within my nation - it is up to the computer user to decide what to do with it.

Viruses and hacking are slightly different, in that they are (more often than not) malicious. But providing free software to deal with them would put a fair amount of companies in my country out of business. And - again - I do not want anyone in my country executed for releasing a virus or hacking, just because it happens to infect a computer in the next door neighbours country (who execute for that sort of thing). And I do not want anyone in another country executed because they damaged some of my computers - that would be appalling to most of my people.

Piracy - I don't have a problem with stopping it, but with how you would set about stopping it. file-sharing is legal, and (and I could be wrong about this) the only way I can see you preventing piracy over file-sharing is by monitoring every file that goes across every network. Which is not only an intolerable invasion of privacy, but quite possible in violation of resolution #10.

So if you can assure me that no one will die because of your laws, that none of my companies will go out of business because you are providing free software, that no one in my nation will be spied on to check if they are pirating stuff, that my people can still produce spam by the bucket load to support their web-sites/businesses, then I might consider supporting your proposal.

5) Online Pornography shall be defined as any image or video designed to cause sexual arousal by the user.

I can never support any resolution that uses this sort of definition. This would encompass huge areas. For example, it would ban minors from accessing a Sports Illustrated swimsuit site. It would ban teenagers in my country from looking at fully-clothed photos of sexy people drinking soda. It would require people to enter in a government ID to look at examples of makeup products. It would ban the internet viewing of all rated R, PG-13 and even most PG movies.

Looking at just this part, I cannot support this resolution, and I urge all delegates not to approve it.

So obviously the orignial legislation failed, I'll start posting probable changes. Here's a quick recap:
1. Pornography clause is cut. This code will do nothing to stop internet porn.
2. There needs to be a more exact code for many of these things. The first proposal talked in rather broad terms, I'm going to lay down a procedure in the next legislation. A lot of this is still up for debate, I'm not sure when I'll have the next version done, but it will be posted here before it is proposed.
Now to address some points:
The freemarket is taking care of such problems quite well without government interference.
In some countries, yes it is. I'm trying to make sure it takes care of these problems in all countries.
I do not want anyone in my country executed for releasing a virus or hacking
I am personally aginst capital punishment, therefore the next version will include a maximum sentince. It will not be capital punishment or anything extreme.
I was also thinking of providing subsidies to a company for the software, but some governments may not like this. Please give me your thoughts on this point.

Hi. I just put in a proposal called the international internet code. It proposes UN legislation to solve problems with the internet (in the game, of course). I think this is an issue that the UN needs to address. Please support this legislation. If you have a legitimate reason not to support it or have any worthwhile critiques, please post them here. I would be willing to give this legislation a second shot with any changes you post. For reference the proposal is as follows:Whereas the internet is currently controlled by individual states.

Whereas events on the internet are capable of causing international problems.

Whereas individual nations are unable to combat these problems effectively due to the nature of the internet.

The UN moves to define an International Internet Code.

This resolution is designed to combat online problems that have international effects including but not limited to:
1) Spam mailings
2) Computer Viruses
3) Hacking
4) Online piracy
5) Online Pornography

The UN will seek for solutions to these problems that are agreeable to all member nations. Such laws would include:
1) Punishing spam mailings with fines for offenders
2) Establishing a system in which spam mailings can be effectively reported
3) Establishing code for e-mail validation, to ensure that spammers can be prosecuted
4) Establishing laws punishing the creators of computer viruses
5) Mandating that all computers in member nations have up to date virus software and protection from hackers.
6) Establishing laws that effectively punish hacking, with exceptions for governmental counter terrorist actions.
7) Ensuring that all nations are compliant with point 4 through UN sponsored distribution of such software.
8) Mandating that all countries punish online piracy to the extent required by UCPL (UN resolution #45 )
9) Establishing code for online pornography where as no children are at risk of being exposed, but of age consumers can still access it.
10) The UN shall form a council to modify the International Internet Code as necessary.

Definitions for the previous laws:
1) Spam mail shall be defined as unsolicited e-mail in any quantity.
2) Computer viruses shall be defined as any code or program on the internet that produces an undesired and harmful effect on data.
3) Hacking shall be defined as any intentional action that produces an undesired or harmful effect on data.
4) Online piracy shall be defined as any act of piracy or violation of copyright law committed over the internet.
5) Online Pornography shall be defined as any image or video designed to cause sexual arousal by the user.

Thanks for your support!


It is a nice idea in principle but I see several problems in here.

1. Instead of the UN establishing a system to punish spammers this should be left to national governments. Perhaps the clause could read, "The UN requires all nations to develope effective anti-spam legislation and to co-operate with member governments in persecuting spammers." That way if someone in country A gets spam from someone in country B, the two can work together to punish the spammer.

2. E-mail validation for every single person who as an e-mail account is a great idea but how will you implement this. This is a massive undertaking and would involve both nations and businesses. Is the UN able to work with thousands of internet service providers and website hosting companies?

3. Mandating everyone has anti-virus software. Nice but it is expensive and some people can hardly afford internet access let alone subscriptions for anti-virus software. You say that the UN should sponsor the supplying of anti-virus software but its useless to those who can't afford to subscribe.

4. What kind of code to prevent minors for accessing pornography. It's a great idea but what method do you propose to do it?

5. Maybe you should define the specific role of the council to clear up what it can and can't do.

6. Your definition of spam needs serious revision. As it stands right now, anytime you recieve an e-mail you don't want you can report spam, even if the e-mail was legitimate. This definition needs some serious work.

7. This could mean nudity could be considered pornography, even if used in a proper context, for example a medical website, an online encyclopedia, or some other form of resource. Are music videos pornography? What about sexy advertising? What about a picture of a couple kissing while advertising for a dating website? All of these could theoretically cause some form of sexual arousal to some people. The idea is a great one but it needs to be clarified.

8. I am really disappointed that there are no explicit references to stamping out child pornography. I think this resolution would be much stronger if you do some serious work addressing this concern, you will certain have a greater chance of passing it.

In some countries, yes it is. I'm trying to make sure it takes care of these problems in all countries.


Why? If the country isn't taking care of it now, maybe it doesn't want to. As I said my nation has no problem with spam, so why should I bow to your wishes and punish my people? (I would accept it if I can define the punishment - I think a bonus of around two hundred pounds should be a suitable punishment for every offender. That wouldn't be a problem would it?)


I am personally aginst capital punishment, therefore the next version will include a maximum sentince. It will not be capital punishment or anything extreme.


And now you are just making it worse! Not only are you interfering in national law making, you are interfering in national justice as well. As much as I might not like the death penalty I am - as I have stated elsewhere - not a great supporter of people trying to rule against it.


I was also thinking of providing subsidies to a company for the software, but some governments may not like this. Please give me your thoughts on this point.

Well - I would like more explanation of the subsidies. Who decides who gets them? Can you subsidise the entire world? What makes one company more worthy than another?

This proposal would now be interfering in free trade rules, which is probably not something it should be doing.

1. Instead of the UN establishing a system to punish spammers this should be left to national governments. Perhaps the clause could read, "The UN requires all nations to develope effective anti-spam legislation and to co-operate with member governments in persecuting spammers." That way if someone in country A gets spam from someone in country B, the two can work together to punish the spammer.
Exellent idea. This is far better than anything previously proposed. Now that I think of it, enforcement is not an issue, compliance is compulsory in this game.
As I said my nation has no problem with spam, so why should I bow to your wishes and punish my people? (I would accept it if I can define the punishment - I think a bonus of around two hundred pounds should be a suitable punishment for every offender. That wouldn't be a problem would it?)
I am thinkning the legislation will now leave that up to national governements. The only instance where the UN will step in is when there instances of international spam. Such as if one country is sending spam to another persons in another member nation and the latter doing nothing to stop it.
And now you are just making it worse! Not only are you interfering in national law making, you are interfering in national justice as well.
See the previous ruling. (I agree in previous statements I was) If that is in the proposal, pretty much whatever works, goes. Since it's up to the national governments (or will be) whatever effective punishment an individual nation desires will be enforced. To address a point already made on this: If that's the case, my nations punishment shall be a fine of one cent. Now are you seeing a problem here? The punishment has to be effective, this would not be effective.
5. Maybe you should define the specific role of the council to clear up what it can and can't do.
The council is probably going to be cut. There should be no need to modify the proposal with a hypothetical council. Since these councils don't actually exist (to my knowlege) there is no point in putting one in.
4. What kind of code to prevent minors for accessing pornography. It's a great idea but what method do you propose to do it?
Since having the UN do this is far too complciated and infriges on censorship etc. I was thinking of cutting this clause. Now that I actually have some support for it perhaps it will be changed to something like "The UN strongly encourages nations to implement procedures preventing minors from veiwing pornography." Does this still go too far, TilEnca? Or is it too broad?
8. I am really disappointed that there are no explicit references to stamping out child pornography. I think this resolution would be much stronger if you do some serious work addressing this concern, you will certain have a greater chance of passing it.
Another good idea. I'll add a clause that reads something like "Member nations will punish child pornography via the internet posted by a citizen of their nation." The only problem with this is defining child pornograpy. The UN has done nothing on this previously, so there is no definition for this. Coming up with a loophole-free definition will be extremly difficult.
3. Mandating everyone has anti-virus software. Nice but it is expensive and some people can hardly afford internet access let alone subscriptions for anti-virus software. You say that the UN should sponsor the supplying of anti-virus software but its useless to those who can't afford to subscribe.
The subsciptions would have to be free as well. That was where I was going with the up to date wording, I'll be more specific on the next proposal.
Well - I would like more explanation of the subsidies. Who decides who gets them? Can you subsidise the entire world? What makes one company more worthy than another?
This is the only major problem with the anti-virus softare clause. It obivously has to be free to those reciving it. Defining who gives and what country gets the subsidy is the issue. Odds are the consumer would choose the software, and the government would pay the company for it and for the updates. This still ensures competition. The only issue that remains is determaning who qualifies for free software.

With us it's the spam thing. Sure it's annoying but that is no reason for it to be banned. I don't think it's invading privacy, people on the street hand me leaflets all the time.

And the free market does take care of it and in communist/socialist countries the government should. That's what they do. The free market doesn’t feed people so the government does. Now you will be making it so the government has to, raising taxes and making business lose out. In many cases I'm not against this but, to be quite honest, I don't see the problem you are trying to solve.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

I am thinkning the legislation will now leave that up to national governements. The only instance where the UN will step in is when there instances of international spam. Such as if one country is sending spam to another persons in another member nation and the latter doing nothing to stop it.


Yeah - I still have a problem with that. If someone my country is sending out spam then they are not breaking the law in my country while they are resident in my country. So just because some other country objects to it, why should I be forced to punish them when they haven't done anything wrong?



The punishment has to be effective, this would not be effective.


It might be. Maybe the company only actually has 1 cent and is trying to make more. Who are you to decide what is effective and what isn't for nations you (possibly) know nothing about?


Since having the UN do this is far too complciated and infriges on censorship etc. I was thinking of cutting this clause. Now that I actually have some support for it perhaps it will be changed to something like "The UN strongly encourages nations to implement procedures preventing minors from veiwing pornography." Does this still go too far, TilEnca? Or is it too broad?


I can live with that. Cause it means I can pretty much ignore it.


Another good idea. I'll add a clause that reads something like "Member nations will punish child pornography via the internet posted by a citizen of their nation." The only problem with this is defining child pornograpy. The UN has done nothing on this previously, so there is no definition for this. Coming up with a loophole-free definition will be extremly difficult.


Quite honestly I would leave it out altogether. There have been previous proposals that have attempted to define Child Porn and they all ran in to huge difficulties about what it is and isn't especially when you get to dealing with the age of consent across all nations (the age of consent and majority in TilEnca is 14 for example, but is eighteen in other nations. So a film of a seventeen year old is legal in my country, and can be posted on the web as it breaks no laws. But if you access it from a country where the age of consent if 18 then it might be illegal there. However that does not mean the person in my country who posted it has committed a crime and I would refuse to punish them for it because of that fact).


The subsciptions would have to be free as well. That was where I was going with the up to date wording, I'll be more specific on the next proposal.



This is the only major problem with the anti-virus softare clause. It obivously has to be free to those reciving it. Defining who gives and what country gets the subsidy is the issue. Odds are the consumer would choose the software, and the government would pay the company for it and for the updates. This still ensures competition. The only issue that remains is determaning who qualifies for free software.

Ok - now you have created a different problem. The last estimate in my nation of internet users put it at about 60% of adults. (I am not counting children in this). So my government would have to use public money (taxes from all 100% of adults) to pay for software that only 60% of them are going to use?

No. Not a chance.

Plus I still object to this on the grounds the internet should not be regulated by a global body, but by a national one.

It might be. Maybe the company only actually has 1 cent and is trying to make more. Who are you to decide what is effective and what isn't for nations you (possibly) know nothing about?
I was assuming it would not be effective. The point is, I'm alright with it, as long as it gets the job done.
Yeah - I still have a problem with that. If someone my country is sending out spam then they are not breaking the law in my country while they are resident in my country. So just because some other country objects to it, why should I be forced to punish them when they haven't done anything wrong?
Because you should always be polite to another country. You never know there might be someone extreme enough to go to war over this. In a more realistic scenario, why should your companies be able to advertise in a form that is banned in another country? If you think about it, I'm making sure national laws get enforced here. Feel free to send spam to all countries that allow it. With the wording that I'm leaning twoards (not the original proposal) I'm protecting one group (those who do not like spam) while allowing another to still function, with a slightly smaller market. If you think about it, this won't decrease sales at all, since the people in the countries who don't like spam are less likely to buy anything anyway.
Ok - now you have created a different problem. The last estimate in my nation of internet users put it at about 60% of adults. (I am not counting children in this). So my government would have to use public money (taxes from all 100% of adults) to pay for software that only 60% of them are going to use?
Does your country have public education? It's the same sort of thing. Remember that I'm going to put in elegibilty reqirements before the software can be free, and leave it up to individual nations to mandate virus protection for those who can afford it.
In many cases I'm not against this but, to be quite honest, I don't see the problem you are trying to solve.
A specific problem I'm trying to solve with the maditory virus protection is the worm virus. If everyone has virus protection, these viruses will not spread nearly as fast. They only spread in the first place because some computers are unprotected. I know there are technological limits to stopping this (definitions etc) but with free (subsidized) definitons, their spread will be much less likely.

I was assuming it would not be effective. The point is, I'm alright with it, as long as it gets the job done.


And if it doesn't? Remember you are talking about fining my people for something I do not consider to be a bad thing. So what possible incentive would I have for trying to stop them, when it would only piss them off?


Because you should always be polite to another country.


You think asking me to punish my people for something they don't think is a crime is polite?


In a more realistic scenario, why should your companies be able to advertise in a form that is banned in another country?


Because - and this is the point I keep trying to make - they are not doing it in another country. If they went to another country and did it, then I would have no problem with them being punished by that country, because they are in the soverign realm of that country. But they are still in my country, and under my laws.

My analogy for this is what if my next door neighbours country had a law that banned rock music, on pain of death? If someone living on the border in my country played some rock music in the open air, it could be heard in the next country. By your logic that means the person in my country could be executed for doing something that was not against the laws of my country.

Sorry - but you can not ask me to punish people who send spam. I won't do it.


If you think about it, I'm making sure national laws get enforced here.


Yeah - but you are asking for the laws of some countries to be enforced on all nations. Which is not acceptable either.


Does your country have public education? It's the same sort of thing.


No it isn't. It would only be the same if only 60% of children went to high school in my country. And the internet is a priviledge, not a right. Education is a right, not a priviledge. Unless you are going to insist every person has an internet connection as well, then this is still asking me to subsidise an industry, against all the rules of free trade.


A specific problem I'm trying to solve with the maditory virus protection is the worm virus. If everyone has virus protection, these viruses will not spread nearly as fast. They only spread in the first place because some computers are unprotected. I know there are technological limits to stopping this (definitions etc) but with free (subsidized) definitons, their spread will be much less likely.

I don't want to sound callous and unfeeling, but I don't care. Yes the world would be better if everyone had full protection all the time, but as I said - using the web (and owning a computer) is not a fundemental right, and people should pay for it.
And - on another matter - how are you going to monitor whether everyone has suitable protection on their computer? I would direct you to resolution #10, because that might be applicable :}