NationStates Jolt Archive

International Privacy Act:

Recalling Resolution #10: Stop Privacy Intrusion,

Recognizing the growing knowledge businesses have about its customers,

Also recognizing that the internet, GPS systems in automobiles, and other such advances in technology provide businesses with much more information about individual citizens,

Concerned with the rapid rise in the number of closed circuit television systems, henceforth referred to as CCTV, in private businesses,

Also concerned about the security of date, information, and video tapes collected by businesses about its customers,

Recognizing the need to ensure such information remains private,

Also recognizing the duty of nation states to properly create and enforce laws to ensure information collected by businesses remains private,

Noting with concern the potential damage releasing private information about a businesses' cutomers can have on the lives of those customers,

The United Nations Declares that:

1. All nations should reaffirm their commitment to Resolution 10 and continue to enforce all provisions of the resolution

2. All nations should immediately craft legislation to better protect citizens by ensuring and enforcing that businesses do not release any information about its customers except in a police investigation where a proper search warrant for the specific information has been issued.

3. All nations draft legislation to require all businesses to report any instances of security of their databases being violated

4. Draft strong legislation to arrest and prosecute any person who obtains illegetimate access to business databases

5. Draft legislation to prevent the sharing of GPS satellites and require all businesses to solely own each one of their satellities

6. Draft strong legislation to keep all GPS tracking confidential except if requested for a police investigation in which there is a proper search warrant for the specific information with the exception of companies which provide tracking services to their customers in the event that a car is stolen, in this instance the business will be allowed to provide information to the police, but only at the explicit request of the customer

I am not sure you can expand resolutions. Resolution 10 would have to be repealed before a new resolution can be enacted to do what you are proposing.

And I think if #10 is repealed it won't come back - there are already proposals to repeal it due to fights on terrorism and other such lame excuses.

Anyway - This does prevent businesses doing credit checks using other companies. It also makes extensive demands on businesses to pay a lot of money for GPS satalites if they need it.

Resolution #10 was (I believe) an attempt to stop the governments from spying on their citizens by un-authorized means. But this is taking it a step further that does not relate to government rule.

I dont see the need to repeal resolution 10. This resolution asks nations to reaffirm their support for the principles of resolution 10 and then deals with an entirely seperate part of the privacy debate. It simply builds on previously existing resolutions and does not change the principles stated within them.

Also, its asking nations to draft legislation to regulate businesses, which isnt outside of the UN's mandate as many other resolutions require nations to pass legislation as well.

Any other comments on this resolution?

I dont see the need to repeal resolution 10. This resolution asks nations to reaffirm their support for the principles of resolution 10 and then deals with an entirely seperate part of the privacy debate. It simply builds on previously existing resolutions and does not change the principles stated within them.


Which is fine, except you are listing this as an expansion to #10, not a new resolution dealing with privacy. #10 was to stop the governments of the UN spying on their people. This is now extending in to saying businesses can not share resources, which has nothing to do with government intrusion.

(Original resolution for reference)

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.



Also, its asking nations to draft legislation to regulate businesses, which isnt outside of the UN's mandate as many other resolutions require nations to pass legislation as well.

Which is all well and good, but #10 was listed as "A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights" - and now you are asking for it to impede on businesses, which I think should be another category.

To address your first point, I typed above the title "International Privacy Act", something I thought of after I had posted this in the proposal section which I regret as I think feedback is necessary first which is why I posted it here.

International Privacy Act will replace the current title and I will change that right now. In fact I will also delete the current classification to prevent further confusion on that note.

To address your first point, I typed above the title "International Privacy Act", something I thought of after I had posted this in the proposal section which I regret as I think feedback is necessary first which is why I posted it here.

International Privacy Act will replace the current title and I will change that right now. In fact I will also delete the current classification to prevent further confusion on that note.

Cool :}

I still object to you telling my people the way their business should be run - especially the part about sharing resources between businesses, and as such would still oppose this if it came to the floor :}

Also - to whom would businesses have to report breaches of their security?

The judicial system of the nation where they are located

The judicial system of the nation where they are located

And you don't accept there could be a good reason why a business might not want to report it?

Two companies are in line for a government contract. One decides that it wants to win, so it hires someone to break in to the databases of the other company. That company reports it, and loses the government contract. Ten years later the investigation shows what actually happened, but by that time the first company is rolling in money, and the second one is out of business due to the loss of the contract.

Also how does this proposal take account of partner business? Say Gemini Software has a GPS satalite, and SysCon Industries has a new computer part. can the two companies go in to business together and share the GPS system?

And what about parent companies and their child companies? Or sub-contractors and prime contractors? They are different companies but might want to share the same resources because the sub-contractors are way, way smaller.

I know it seems like I am just picking holes in your proposal for the fun of it, but all of this could be a serious issue in my nation, and I want to be sure you are not going to drive half of the companies in my country out of business.

I also think the sharing of GPS satellites is a bit over the mark in this respect. There is a point where these restrictions stop being beneficial to the Civil Rights and continue on to harm the economy.

The republic of Aeruillin is also unsure in how far the vague requirement for a "search warrant" will actually be effective in outruling government intrusion. Rather, the search warrant required should be defined more specifically, to prevent corrupt intelligence agencies from using "anti-terror" policies to spy on the nation's own people for anti-government stance. For instance, all individuals whose privacy has been compromised should be alerted to this within 24 hours of the search being conducted. Unless they are informed of the search (and sign a written agreement to acknowledge it, and confirm they have been informed), no evidence found by the search can have any legal value.

I am shelving this resolution for a while to focus on repealling resolution 18, repealling and replacing resolution 43, and passing the global education initiative. Thank you for all your comments, I will keep them in mind when I come back to this and re-draft it.