NationStates Jolt Archive

Computer Crimes Act

NOTING the increasing trend for computer networks to be interconnected and to transcend national borders;

AWARE that the vast majority of businesses and most national and international economies rely on these systems and the information contained within;

ALERT to the dangers of allowing such a vital and grand-scale system to remain unprotected by international law; dangers which could cause massive economic, and other, damage to individuals, corporations and states alike through the damage or theft of computer systems or the information contained therein;

PROHIBITS the following practices:

1) The use, spread, and creation without proper safety precautions*, of computer viruses and other similar malicious programs including worms, Trojans, or any other program which damages, or otherwise adversely affects, computer systems; or destroys, damages, manipulates or steals information without authorisation. This excludes security specialists in their attempts to find new ways of defending against viruses, so long as they are creating and using such programs solely for that purpose, and do not use them without the authorisation of the owners of the computer system. They still may not spread them, and they must use proper safety precautions* (*to prevent spread and/or direct damage to computer systems or data in them without the express permission of the owners).

2) Computer hacking, defined as the intentional unauthorised access to, or unauthorised use, theft, manipulation or damage of information stored electronically.

3) Identity theft, defined as any unauthorised attempt to use or steal elements pertaining to another individual’s identity, including credit card details.

MANDATES that any business, organisation (either governmental or non-governmental) must take security measures to protect any confidential data contained in them, especially that data that pertains to information about their customers or members of the public. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, password protection of systems, data encryption, firewall installation, and virus scanning software, etc.

URGES all UN nations to implement security measures or legislation to protect these computer networks and the information contained on them through the promotion of, and education on, such measures, including encryption, password protection, firewalls, virus scanning software, and the use of secure operating systems, etc.

ENCOURAGES international cooperation between national law enforcement agencies, as well as the voluntary co-operation of the computer and Internet industry, in an attempt to reduce computer crime and improve the security of global computer networks and systems

ESTABLISHES the International Computer Security Institute (ICSI) whose tasks shall be to:

1) monitor international computer crime and work with law enforcement agencies to prevent it

2) promote and encourage the development of new security systems to help prevent computer crime

3) create and co-ordinate education programmes on computer crime prevention

and which shall be funded by voluntary donations by states, organisations, businesses or individuals.

Approved.

Agreed. Well thought out, well written and it has my approval, good work :p

I refuse to support this resolution until I've read it thoroughly, or someone gives me the gist of it. :D Looks good, though.

I refuse to support this resolution until I've read it thoroughly, or someone gives me the gist of it. :D Looks good, though.

It stops bad people from doing bad things to and with computers. Like spreading malicious viruses, etc.

It stops bad people from doing bad things to and with computers. Like spreading malicious viruses, etc.

Oh, is that all? What's the rest, War and Peace? :D

I agree with it; it makes sense. Why should people use computers for the wrong reasons and get away with it?

Don't we have this in the real world? and isn't it not working?

We have concerns over the cost of implementing this Act, but support nonetheless.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Diamond Realms have given this proposal their approval. :)

Edit: Or we will, when we can get the page to load correctly...

Or we will, when we can get the page to load correctly...

Same here, brotha. :)

Resolution has been approved, your up to 75 or so when i approved, doing well considering it is newly submitted

ESTABLISHES the International Computer Security Institute (ICSI) whose tasks shall be to: do stuff that local/regional/national police could do just as well.

I'll support this, but would prefer it it the ICSI was left out and replaced by something about police cooperating internationally and sharing information that could help arresting computer criminals.

So what exactly can this Resolution do that most federal organizations aren't already doing?

THis is a very written proposal. However, how do we stop hackers from hacking, spammers from spamming, etc., etc.? In truth, while your thought is a good one, it is also undefineable. How do you know when a virus starts in my country, a hacker lives there? How do I know where they live? In truth...I don't, you can't, so it is useless to pass this. You can't enforce it, in any terms.

So what exactly can this Resolution do that most federal organizations aren't already doing?

It creates the ISCI. The most the Fatus Maximus government can do to prevent online crime is to arrest Fatus Maxian citizens guilty of it. If an ElectronX-ian citizen hacks into my national database, I can do nothing, aside from possibly invading your country in an attempt to capture him, which is undesirable in any case. This would make it an international crime under the jurisdiction of an international computer crimes unit. Plus it would encourage the growth of new security features for computers.

The most the Fatus Maximus government can do to prevent online crime is to arrest Fatus Maxian citizens guilty of it. If an ElectronX-ian citizen hacks into my national database, I can do nothing, aside from possibly invading your country in an attempt to capture him, which is undesirable in any case.

I am, quite frankly, shocked at your view. The only option to capture a foreign criminal is to invade the country?? I mean, what has happened to simply asking? Your Computer Crime Department can simply say "Hello, we've traced a computer criminal to your country, these are our files, we would like you to find this criminal and put him/her to trial or send him/her to us to put on trial". A nation not cooperating with that is unlikely to listen to the ICSI anyway, so you can accomplish the same without another institute.

Any attempts to invade my country, for any reason, will be met with force. Make no mistake about it. As for asking...That is completely fine. However, understand that if a hacker is found within my country, we might not be able to return him/her for justice in your country. If their crimes are worse in mine...I'll likely have already dealt with the problem. Also, please understand that the death penalty is alive and well within Darkumbria, and will remain until all crime is irradicated from the world, which won't likely happen any time soon.

I like the proposal. Even though it dosn't protect against attacks from non UN nations, it's the best we can do. As for the Non UN nations, I can still do what I used to, give them a chance to either enforce a punishment to our satifaction, turn them over to us, or we'll take things into our own hands if they don't comply to our satisfaction.

It creates the ISCI. The most the Fatus Maximus government can do to prevent online crime is to arrest Fatus Maxian citizens guilty of it. If an ElectronX-ian citizen hacks into my national database, I can do nothing, aside from possibly invading your country in an attempt to capture him, which is undesirable in any case. This would make it an international crime under the jurisdiction of an international computer crimes unit. Plus it would encourage the growth of new security features for computers.
In a nation of .90 billion it's hard enough to capture citizen based attacks, do you think that an organization like the ISCI is going to be able to do any better with untold hundreads of billions of people using computers in the UN?

I like the proposal. Even though it dosn't protect against attacks from non UN nations, it's the best we can do. As for the Non UN nations, I can still do what I used to, give them a chance to either enforce a punishment to our satifaction, turn them over to us, or we'll take things into our own hands if they don't comply to our satisfaction.

It does protect against attacks from non-UN nations in that it encourages international cooperation in the development of defences against computer crimes. In theory, that would quicken the rate of development of said defences.

And please note: this proposal does not allow anyone to invade or demand the extradition of a computer criminal. It does however mandate that such activities are made criminal, and it encourages international cooperation in all aspects of computer crime prevention.

It does protect against attacks from non-UN nations in that it encourages international cooperation in the development of defences against computer crimes. In theory, that would quicken the rate of development of said defences.

And please note: this proposal does not allow anyone to invade or demand the extradition of a computer criminal. It does however mandate that such activities are made criminal, and it encourages international cooperation in all aspects of computer crime prevention.

I don't see how you can protect against an attack of computer nature, or how you plan on controlling it. I control against hackers, virus', and such things by ensuring that my populace is well controlled in all aspects of their lives. Their lives are not, really, their own. They are a resource that I need to get the things built and done that I need. Nothing more. Encouraging international cooperation from nations that do not belong to the UN says nothing, unless you are going to force something upon the Non UN nations of the universe, which you cannot do. You can't enforce it... If you can, please prove that you can. Or this resolution means nothing, in my opinion.

You can criminalize anything you want, but it doesn't make it so for Non UN countries. Also, how are you planning to encourage this cooperation outside the UN?

You misunderstand me. I am not enforcing anything on non-UN nations. I am merely stating that if non-UN nations are going to resort to attacks of a computerised nature, then it is in our best interests to develop protection against this technology, and we can do this best by cooperating with each other (ie other UN members). I have never mentioned anything about applying this law to non-UN members.

I only need 6 endorsements to get this to a UN vote. So PLEASE any delegates out there, please endorse the Computer Crimes Act NOW as there is only a few hours left!

I'll be so pissed off if I miss out on this by 6 votes...

I only need 6 endorsements to get this to a UN vote. So PLEASE any delegates out there, please endorse the Computer Crimes Act NOW as there is only a few hours left!

I'll be so pissed off if I miss out on this by 6 votes...
Gwen, the only problem with your whole resolution is that it really doesn't do anything. I mean if my own police force cannot stop cyber crime in our own nation, how can one organization stop international crime?

Gwen, the only problem with your whole resolution is that it really doesn't do anything. I mean if my own police force cannot stop cyber crime in our own nation, how can one organization stop international crime?

Because one nation in isolation cannot solve this problem. Computer crime by its very nature is international in scope.

Computer viruses are not restricted by national borders.
Hackers can access computer systems anywhere, from anywhere, in the world.

These crimes transcend national sovereignty: an international solution is required. The organisation set up in this proposal is not the be all and end all- it is a means to an end. It aims to encourage and organise international cooperation with the aim to finding ways to prevent computer crime and educating people on these methods.

Furthermore, it prohibits these activities in the first place, which is the first step to stopping them. Currently they are not crimes in international law. They are perfectly acceptable. I for one do not believe that they are acceptable and want them outlawed.

Or perhaps, ElectronX, you would be quite happy for a team of Gwenstefanian hackers to break into your digital systems and divert millions of dollars out of your accounts, and discover confidential military information?

Perhaps you believe a computer virus capable of bringing power stations or traffic lights or just computer networks to a grinding halt, causing devastation and disruption to civil society as a whole, is acceptable to be forwarded in an email.

Or perhaps, ElectronX, you would be quite happy for a team of Gwenstefanian hackers to break into your digital systems and divert millions of dollars out of your accounts, and discover confidential military information?

Perhaps you believe a computer virus capable of bringing power stations or traffic lights or just computer networks to a grinding halt, causing devastation and disruption to civil society as a whole, is acceptable to be forwarded in an email.
Or perhaps I believe that this organization will do nothing to stop the propogation of these crimes. Fine, now you have an organization that can go arrest a hacker anywhere he is, well whoopdy do, you cannot stop the non-UN nations for one thing, and finding hackers and the point of infection for an virus will still be just as difficult.

Or perhaps I believe that this organization will do nothing to stop the propogation of these crimes. Fine, now you have an organization that can go arrest a hacker anywhere he is, well whoopdy do, you cannot stop the non-UN nations for one thing, and finding hackers and the point of infection for an virus will still be just as difficult.

Are you listening to me at all? I'm trying to say that the organisation is only a small part of the resolution. The main aim is to:

a) outlaw the computer crimes as defined in the proposal
b) encourage international cooperation in developing new defences
c) educating people about these defences
d) encorgaing international cooperation in the prosecution of criminals under this act through the sharing of information and resources.

The organisation would act as an educational and organisational force without actually apprehending any criminals. It only monitors such activities and informs the appropriate authorities- which may well include agencies of more than one nation.

And only 1 more endorsement is needed now.

I sincerely hope you get it, although i do not like the singer gwen stefani. You are in Britain so great. It deserves to go to quorum

Are you listening to me at all? I'm trying to say that the organisation is only a small part of the resolution. The main aim is to:

a) outlaw the computer crimes as defined in the proposal

Most of them are already illegal anyway regardless of a resolution
b) encourage international cooperation in developing new defences

Encourage does not mean force, if they are not doing it now what makes you think they will do it later?
c) educating people about these defences
Anyone with an interest knows about them already.
d) encorgaing international cooperation in the prosecution of criminals under this act through the sharing of information and resources.

Encouraging does not mean that they have to FYI.

The organisation would act as an educational and organisational force without actually apprehending any criminals.

So it really doesn't do anything?

It only monitors such activities and informs the appropriate authorities- which may well include agencies of more than one nation.

Its the same as I posted above, your resolution is one without any teeth.

Most of them are already illegal anyway regardless of a resolution

How? There is no universal law in NS which would make them so. This isn't RL you know. Where do I get these cards that everyone's bandying about??


And furthermore, this resolution is not toothless. The UN Gnomes will now ensure that no computer crime is committed within UN members. How's that?

Regardless,

Quorum Reached: In queue!

The Empire of Dominus Gloriae would like to make clear its objection to this measure, many of the greatest advances in information technology originated with so called hackers the likes of Linus Torvalds, such a measure will limit overal information technology development, to do so is a foolhearted measure, the action of police statesm which we are not.

The office of External Affairs
Dominus Gloriae

"Genuflecte Tue Dominus"

Approvals: 169

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Congratulations, made it easily in the end.

The Empire of Dominus Gloriae would like to make clear its objection to this measure, many of the greatest advances in information technology originated with so called hackers the likes of Linus Torvalds, such a measure will limit overal information technology development, to do so is a foolhearted measure, the action of police statesm which we are not.

The office of External Affairs
Dominus Gloriae

"Genuflecte Tue Dominus"

If you read the full text of the proposal, you will see that it does not hinder the development of computer technology. It does not prohibit the development of computer viruses for example, but it does require that they are not used maliciously and are developed responsibly within a contained environment, and are not used on a system without the owner of that system's permission.

Congratulations, made it easily in the end.

I wouldn't say easily. I had to telegram hundreds of delegates. I don't want to think about how many. I didn't have to do this much work for Humanitarian Intervention. Maybe because this was an international security proposal less people were willing to endorse it?

You had my endorsement as soon as I read the thread. :D

How? There is no universal law in NS which would make them so.

The logic that stipulates that most governments do not appreciate computer crimes in which the resolution defines.

This isn't RL you know.

I know that already.

Where do I get these cards that everyone's bandying about??

Yeah, because I wouldn't be able to defend myself against an ego attack.


And furthermore, this resolution is not toothless. The UN Gnomes will now ensure that no computer crime is committed within UN members. How's that?

HAH! The UN Gnomes can do no such thing. The belief that some "Gnomes" can magically end all crime is the most hilarious notion I have ever come across.

HAH! The UN Gnomes can do no such thing. The belief that some "Gnomes" can magically end all crime is the most hilarious notion I have ever come across.

IC: I would agree obivously.
OOC: that is how the game works. Read the FAQ.
Both IC and OOC: You really are obnoxious.

IC: I would agree obivously.

And thats why you wrote this resolution :rolleyes:
OOC: that is how the game works. Read the FAQ.

I have read no where in the FAQ that a UN resolution can stop international crime.

Both IC and OOC: You really are obnoxious.
And you're really niave.

And you're really niave.

I can spell though.

And something you should probably think about: you tend to influence people more when you engage in intelligent discussion about opposing viewpoints rather than attempt to belittle or insult your opponent, which only results in pissing people off. On this thread, and others especially, you tend to take any form of criticism as an attack and in the UN forum that is not how you should go about things. It is highly arrogant to assume that the first draft of your proposal will be perfect, or that your opinion is worth more than anyone else's.

Now to adress your point that this proposal will not stop computer crime. Well no, not completely. But making murder illegal doesn't stop murder. Having anti-terrorist organisations doesn't stop terrorism. And so on and so forth. This proposal will help in the fight against computer crime by criminalising it and fostering international cooperation in the development of software and hardware protection, as well as in the capture and sentencing of computer criminals.

I can spell though.

Because my ability to spell somehow lowers myself below you :rolleyes:

And something you should probably think about: you tend to influence people more when you engage in intelligent discussion about opposing viewpoints rather than attempt to belittle or insult your opponent, which only results in pissing people off.

And calling me obnoxious isn't an insult? Tu quoque.

On this thread, and others especially, you tend to take any form of criticism as an attack and in the UN forum that is not how you should go about things.

Yeah because you know how I take things :rolleyes:

It is highly arrogant to assume that the first draft of your proposal will be perfect, or that your opinion is worth more than anyone else's.

Is this your first draft? And are you a pyschic able to tell what my intnetions are when I post my opinions in this forum? Double no.

Well no, not completely. But making murder illegal doesn't stop murder. Having anti-terrorist organisations doesn't stop terrorism. And so on and so forth.
I believe that is a strawman.

This proposal will help in the fight against computer crime by criminalising it and fostering international cooperation in the development of software and hardware protection, as well as in the capture and sentencing of computer criminals.

Unless nations adore having their own systems attacked then most, if not all of the crimes listed in this proposal are already illegal. As to cooperation in the development of hardware and software, how? How? people do not suddenly cooperate because there is a law that says you should. The same goes with capturing criminals.

And calling me obnoxious isn't an insult? Tu quoque.

And once again: Vescere bracis meis.



I can spell though.

Didn't you just spell obviously "obiviously?" :D

And once again: Vescere bracis meis.

They give me gas.



Didn't you just spell obviously "obiviously?" :D[/QUOTE]
the irony. AMI'RITE?

lol

:p

nobody is going to hack ur country jeez

For records purposes:


Approvals: 214 (Vastiva, Bernardi, Sorrow Crown, LeFleur, Groot Gouda, The European Nation, Mayve, Saufer, OBSA, Erroneous Errol Island, Antrium, Aipotu ym, Mythila, Jiangland, Zouloukistan, Fenrig, Spurland, St Oswald, The Hunter Isles, Collonie, Schwall, Tannu Tuval, Natashenka, Aztec National League, Gloria in Excelsis Deo, Corinos, Baudrillard, Nevscrow, Jandar, Flibbleites, SouthFerns, Awesome Possumdor, Purple Seralena, Yelda, Stompland, Noxinland, ANT Lab, Gaiah, Iznogoud, Archoz, The Fro Royal Family, Republic of Freedonia, Allendis, Pilantras, Micropolis, Fishy19, Bestiville, Cado Angelus, Siaka, Spaz Land, Markodonia, Diamond Realms, Saint Les, Dodaxnia, Emory, Black Reading, Leo I, StingingFlea, The Three-Toed Sloth, Erroneous Nations, Black Thirteen, The Royal Storms, Wireless-1, Arglemeton, Spartans mark2, Sinsvyka, Rogue Newbie, Eastwestland, The Philosophes, Cirrostratus, Wegason, Blaming, Fatus Maximus, La Rose Bella, Foxenburg, Trois Pont, Erdhyn, The Dog God, Triple Hard Nutters, Jimbob the Jingoistic, Asleepymom, Palteau, CNYSkinFan, Xelleron, Ushani, Venerable libertarians, Pure Perfection, Saturniam, The AL East Champz, Meryl Streep, Serene Forests, Skredtch, Utopian Id, Ancients Tomatoes, Milk And Alcohol, Dannist Republics, Timberlacia, Montrosiad, Mattabooloo, The City of Amory, Civil right democratic, Democracian, Beerhood, Heresgovina, Zealotos, Reehan, Smukkeland, Cherry Bakewell, The Great UP, Meshuggeners, Pharan, Chunkylungbutter, Othelma, Inuksuk, Otahpia, Dizziness, Uber Menschen, Greator Glen, Bonum commune hominis, Vincent B, Hollidayland, Flagellumpa, Oilsjt, Of Cascadia, The Republic of Orack, The Grelg, Umur, Ygkylzstan, Meeptrinity, Roman Republic, Skoda Drivers, Stalybridge MCR, Unknown Peoples, Vermette, Jamesburgh, Schmegegi, Blue Floyd, Eldar rule, Potinum, Calabraxia, Vedinius I, Pennsylvania and Me, Jonathalia, Jaghur, Trowk, Joia, RKEM, Pedronus, Jimoria, Hezbollah Empire Rep, Jowell, Hitler XXVI, Ursos, Maczors, Fenure, Dratogia, Gods escape from Bush, WinterAlchemist, CankerSore, McAnirlin, America-Canada-Mexico, America---, Wealthists, Infernalists, The Mormon Church, The one eyed man, Janistania, Troubadouria, Pegasuras, Donchatryit, Trackeendy, Cockeysville, Red Flash, Tactical PIE, Shrin Kali, Marracom, KualaLumpar, Czardas, Canabis Smokers, Terredelyn, Knuk, United Swines, Purpleation, Villestania, Posul, The Eternal Kangaroo, Praxon, Zhukhistan, The Karma Army, Ness Snorlaxia, Tyyrus, Laueria, Eldpollard, United Smufs, Whitekong, Lichtenstrasselburg, Roarktopia, Deathination, Juthopia, PintoBerg, Safkonia, Buhnuf, Northren Ireland, Dustinslovakia, Tatarica, Ishlaha, Putuni, Karaghord, Velveta, Finbergia, Tronfagisus, Mighty Boom, Rohini, The Popemobile)

*applause*

And I won't draw attention to the fact Vastiva was the first nation to give their support. :D

Didn't you just spell obviously "obiviously?" :D

Ah, but that was a typo ;)

And Electron X, I usually refrain from personal insults but in this case you drove me to it. I really can't tolerate you. I find unjustified arrogance a real turn-off.

At this point however, in order to prevent this thread from degenerating any further and straying from the topic, I am not going to respond to any more of your posts.

Congratulations on acheiving quoroum, Gwen! This proposal has our support.

Also, try hard not to let naysayers get to you, no matter how infuriating or insipid they are. Putting up with that is apparently part of passing a UN resolution. Just look at the crap in my proposal's thread.

Fight the good fight, mate.

And Electron X, I usually refrain from personal insults but in this case you drove me to it. I really can't tolerate you. I find unjustified arrogance a real turn-off.

Yeah because questioning authority makes me arrogant.

At this point however, in order to prevent this thread from degenerating any further and straying from the topic, I am not going to respond to any more of your posts.
Way to debate!

Also, try hard not to let naysayers get to you, no matter how infuriating or insipid they are.

Because disagreeing makes us wrong :rolleyes:

Putting up with that is apparently part of passing a UN resolution. Just look at the crap in my proposal's thread.

"I don't agree. <input list of reasons here>"

"Your post is crap."

huhu

Well written and obviously alot of thought has gone into your proposal Gwen, well done on that score.

I have to say though that I feel that these laws if enacted will really do nothing but push the hackers etc into those nations where these laws will not apply, thereby doing nothing to reduce the risks to those that do comply.

If Catterwaal was the victim of such an attack from one of these non UN nations and they then refused to either hand over the perertrator or to take what we see as appropriate action themselves we would be forced to take the matter into our own hands. Something that we are more than equipped to do.

Wars have started over much much less.

While we see the merits in what you are putting forward we feel that it would be unworkable at an international level and should be left to the law enforcement agencies in each nation to combat in whatever way they deem necessary.

Therefore Catterwaal is unable to give support to your proposal.

Regards

The Catterwaalians

We have concerns over the cost of implementing this Act, but support nonetheless.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

The Tazikh Government also expresses concern over the cost of implementing this act, both on the national (further expenditure on our already stretched Education budget) and on the international level.

Ambassador Imran Zaric of The Democratic Republic of Tazikhstan

This bill is just banning something that is already banned. Identity theft, vandalism, and robbery can all be done without computers, why is this superflous bill even being voted on?

As I see it, Super Me,
there are already national laws and possibly another UN resolution banning identity theft and the like, but this proposal adds a solution as well. The IC-something or other (forgot its name already), the organization that would maintain the internet and be an "anti-hacker" police, so to say. With this organization in place, you not only say, "don't do this," but also say, "we have a means to stop you too."

Ambassador Zaric and the government of Tazikhstan,
I would agree with you that the economic implementations with this resolution are a concern. I am not sure that enough people would willing donate, or enough corporations would back it. But, in your case, I seem to sense that you ar more worried that your tight national budget could not hold up the planned organization. If this is untrue forgive me, but in the resolution itself, you find it does not ask for governmnet spending, but more private funding. You can go to the public saying that you have a new and better solution to hacking, but it needs their help. Show them how identity theft could be erradicated at best, and hackers could be caught and not cause such trouble. Many people would donate annually to that cause if publicized correctly.

Furthermore, one ould offer the private corporations some political recognition, and get them publicized more for helping to aid the program. I don't know about you, sir, but I find that the big businesses love publicity and especially in politics. They would pounce on the chance.

In conclusion, I think you have nothing to worry about in terms of actual cost of implementation. Hope that aids you.

Jerry G. Allman, The People's Voice
Free Land of The Smelly Hippys

We all want to stifle computer crimes within our own borders and in the world, and while this resolution does a good job of bringing the problem to light, in reality the bulk of computer crimes will come from non-UN nations, and from places where the UN's ability to monitor will be limited or refused. I feel that each nation, in their own self-interest, should be concerned with the issue of computer crimes, but I also see an international organization as a frivilous boondoggle, which will ulitmately be no better at stopping these crimes as would nations left to their own. It's money and time that could be spent better elsewhere. The people of the Commonwealth of Oatesworth will be voting against this resolution.

UN Delegate
Commonwealth of Oatesworth

I support the intent of the Resolution. However, I have some concerns about the definitions of "Security Specialist" and the lack of some clear guidelines about what constitutes safe procedures for the creation of malicious programs.

think people. at the very bottom of the resolution:

"and which shall be funded by voluntary donations by states, organisations, businesses or individual"

how can you put that in there when/if it becomes approved we have no control over that. it's going to take money from my nation anyways. I have no way to say that I don't want to contribute monotarily to this.

Further more, computer hacking should be dealt with on a national level where searches and seizures can be more centralized and effective, not dealt with on a world level. The U.N. would be overwhelmed. :headbang:

Greetings.

We find it peculiar that those who seek to be delegates to a frivolous boondoggle (or in this case, perhaps boon-dongle might be more appropriate) malign the august assembly of the United Nations while attempting to work within it. We make no further comment on this head.

More to the point, we seek views on the projected consequences of implementation (or lack thereof) on a state such as ours, within which computers fail to function except at the interface locations so decreed by us. The bulk of information transfer within our lands is by various modes of thaumaturgic conveyance and focussed divination.

In particular, I seek the views of states with a similar technological milieu, as to how they have managed their interface with the global community.

We shall take such views into account when voting.

Ambassador Zaric and the government of Tazikhstan,
I would agree with you that the economic implementations with this resolution are a concern. I am not sure that enough people would willing donate, or enough corporations would back it. But, in your case, I seem to sense that you ar more worried that your tight national budget could not hold up the planned organization. If this is untrue forgive me, but in the resolution itself, you find it does not ask for governmnet spending, but more private funding. You can go to the public saying that you have a new and better solution to hacking, but it needs their help. Show them how identity theft could be erradicated at best, and hackers could be caught and not cause such trouble. Many people would donate annually to that cause if publicized correctly.

Furthermore, one ould offer the private corporations some political recognition, and get them publicized more for helping to aid the program. I don't know about you, sir, but I find that the big businesses love publicity and especially in politics. They would pounce on the chance.

In conclusion, I think you have nothing to worry about in terms of actual cost of implementation. Hope that aids you.

Jerry G. Allman, The People's Voice
Free Land of The Smelly Hippys


Thank-you for advice on this matter and clarification on the language of the Resolution, you have addressed many of our concerns. However, we also feel that perhaps money that our citizens would donate to this cause may prevent them from donating to other, perhaps more worthy causes.

Even though the Tazikh Government supports this Resolution, we must first carefully analyse the budgetary requirements and the projected spending of our people, and the adverse effects this would have on funding other international bodies or domestic charities, before comitting our vote. As such, the Tazikh position depends heavily on the findings of Treasury Minister Oleg Massoud.

My only concerns is the jurisdiction(sp?) of the proposed International Computer Police; specifically the line about "Monitoring". Currently Police cannot perform survellince(sp?) on a location without a warrant... I think this proposal is a little too vague at the point that discusses the role/boundries of the International Computer Police. Privacy is a big issue to my citizens, I don't feel comfortable with a International Computer Police potentially hacking my computers without having to present a warrant to search my property, and the property of my citizens.

Since these restrictions on the International Computer Police are not addressed with this proposal, I'm going to have to oppose this resolution.

It is obvious that this will mantain order. That is the ultmost need. Order.

Atlantean Dysthopia approves this resolution.

For the most part, I am for this proposal. However, too many things about it bother me to lend it my vote. First of all, as has been mentioned many times now, this seems like it will cost a massive amount of money. I doubt private funding would be enough to maintain the committee that's being established. Also, I don't know what kind of effect this resolution is truly going to have, anyway, so it may be a complete waste of money in all respects; a good hacker could most likely mask the source of the virus as originating in a non-UN nation, in which case it was legal to make it; bad hackers could physically move to other nations not in the UN, and also be excluded from this resolution. All things considered, I really don't know how this would be enforced to begin with. It's a good thought, but seems somewhat hopeless.

This is a very good and very well written proposal; however I feel it would be wrong for Cobdenia to vote on it as we won't have had invented the personel computer for another 30 years (we currently have a code cracking machine called Colin, but that's it), and therefore we would be unaffected by this resolution.
Hence our abstaination.

The People of the Free Lands of Draconomia are heavily torn about this proposal. We are concerned that the cost could out weigh the bennefit, wich we do acknowledge there are some.

We are leaning to the side of voting against this proposal but will watch the debate in case new arguments for or against sway us in either direction before our final vote.

The People of the Free Lands of Draconomia are heavily torn about this proposal. We are concerned that the cost could out weigh the bennefit, wich we do acknowledge there are some.

We are leaning to the side of voting against this proposal but will watch the debate in case new arguments for or against sway us in either direction before our final vote.
You should be against it because this proposal doesn't have enough power behind it to enforce anything.

I love this resolution and I'm surprised that nobody has done anything about this sooner. I have no qualms about the funding for this as my nation is obscenely wealthy and I'm sure that at least some others are. Private businesses will help complete the fee because they get hurt by this stuff too.

Having said that, I would like to know just what we're going to do about viruses from non-UN nations.

Thank-you for advice on this matter and clarification on the language of the Resolution, you have addressed many of our concerns. However, we also feel that perhaps money that our citizens would donate to this cause may prevent them from donating to other, perhaps more worthy causes.

Even though the Tazikh Government supports this Resolution, we must first carefully analyse the budgetary requirements and the projected spending of our people, and the adverse effects this would have on funding other international bodies or domestic charities, before comitting our vote. As such, the Tazikh position depends heavily on the findings of Treasury Minister Oleg Massoud.

I must agree with you that there are better uses for money in the eyes of my nation as well. In terms of monetary issues, it poses no problem to the government, but can hinder the economy or other privately funded organizations beneficial to our nation.

Moving beyond cash value, I read other very valid and interesting statements by other nations on the topic and agree with the ideas stated. Some of these are:
1. The issue of international responsibility: would other nations (more specifically those outside the UN) cooperate with one another in order to stop hackers?
2. Gold-plated or genuine: the resolution seems very sound, but in the end, are the pros worth more than the cons?
3. Non-Un nations: disregarding the idea of cooperating internationally to help a UN member nation to persue a hacker cross-borders, what about simply being a pitri dish for hackers to fester and multiply escaping the international law as many have pointed out?

I am only barely touching upon these issues very generally since it would take too long to discuss in depth. Still, with these in mind, I feel this resolution needs some work done to revamp it, making it more "nation-friendly." I have decided to vote against this resolution.

Jerry G. Allman, The People's Voice
Free Land of The Smelly Hippys

I do not feel this resolution is as well defined as I would like it to be. Most noteably, the Computer Hacking section. Computer Hacking can mean a variety of things. Under this resolution, a child running the EvolutionX dashboard on his Xbox could be considered Computer Hacking. A person looking into security flaws to prevent malicious people from attacking the computer system could be arrested for hacking. This problem in the resolution could have simply been solved by having it that Computer Hacking be defined as the intentional unauthorised access to, or unauthorised use, theft, manipulation or damage of information stored electronically with malicious intent. I wouldn't be that hard to prove the intent, as we have evidence going one way or the other. We already do it all the time with Manslaughter/Murder cases. Beacuse of this oversight in the writing of the proposal, I must vote against this bill.

maybe I'm just being paranoid (I just read 1984) but...

If it's funded off of donations, what's to stop the doners from using it as their personal spy agency?

That, and the nations who get most involved could use it to spy and have it become a Big Brother-esq organization.

It's a decent effort to confront a very real problem, but it will invade privacy and devolve into something eithe horribly inificeit, or a huge, private spy agency. Say no. Vote against the Computer Crimes Act.

This is a good resolution. It has Kingladn's support. This resolution, once passed, can be easily enforced with a good police force and if needed, military force.

Let me make myself very clear, here. I will not vote for a resolution that limits the amount of weapons in a nation. That's what is keeping many nations alive-others not knowing how many guns the other has.

The Vote of Kingladn: Yea

I think it seems good. Gurdien approves.

My concern is the potential of the ICSI to begin "watching" member nations of the UN. I dont want the UN or the ICSI to have the legal means to do this. What I mean is that I am afraid that the potential to begin using this act to spy will be initiated. Can anyone calm my fears??? I agree with Groot Gouda...leave the ICSI out. I still believe strongly enough in the issue of STATE'S RIGHTS. NO ICSI. Thank you.

This law makes perfect sense why not add thist to the other laws flowing through the system.

Because it is flawed. Plain and simple. Just read earlier posts about how its implications will affect UN member nations and how it can cause more trouble than it is worth.

I agree with the concept of preventing computer hacking, but the government/legislative body has no place in enforcing it. If the government is allowed to monitor internet usage to this degree, they pretty much decide for themselves on whatever they want the Internet to be. Far too much intrusion into the rights of individual countries to decide for THEMSELVES as to what methods are best at fighting computer crimes.

You have my full approval :sniper: :mp5:

P.S. i only added thie smilies kuz i think they are cool

As I said before, the author of the resolution has his heart in the right place, but his brain seems to be elsewhere. Although I am in support of the basic concepts of this resolution, it is nigh impossible to enforce, and the costs for trying could be massive. As I stated earlier, it would be simply too easy for good hackers to mask the source of their virus or activity as coming from a non-UN nation. And non-UN nations are unaffected by our decisions here, so this would not stop them. Bad hackers, if they really cared enough, could move, so even they would continue to spread their viri and hack countless people. Unfortunately this resolution just won't work.

I have recently come across an interesting idea for those UN-member nations that disagree with this proposal.

It seems that a resolution that does not change many things besides adding a program to enforce security, the passing of the resolution simply makes internation law, waht is already widely practiced as national law. There seems to be almost no change in how you would need to run your nation.

On the subject of paying for it, you don't really have to. In the resolution it says that donations for the program would be provided by private sectors, and other non-governmental areas. If you simply don't pay for it with national funding and if you advise your nation not to provide funding as well, you effectively lose almost no money, and you are withing every right to do so. The program must be put in place, but not maintained by each individual nation. The resolution makes that clear.

On the subject of paying for it, you don't really have to. In the resolution it says ...
Sorry, but the text of the resolution is irrelevant to the in-game effect. As an International Security resolution, "A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets," you can bet that there will be financial repercussions. The only voluntary part is participation in the committee. The rest is mandatory, like all UN resolutions.

It wouldn't really matter if you use public money or not. Computer crime would cost individuals and companies a lot more in the long run. They might as well pay that up as tax, and get a more comprehensive service, instead of little agencies.

As an OOC aside: just so all in favor of this resolution know, it is going to result in a very large increase in your nation's spending due to its "significant" rating, so even if it says it is funded by donation, we're still going to be paying bigtime. Be sure that you are willing to spend such large amounts of money on something that is so difficult, if not impossible, to enforce.

With a tax rate of 15% at the moment i think/hope, i should be able to afford it

You should be against it because this proposal doesn't have enough power behind it to enforce anything.


OOC:
I said the cost could outweigh the bennefit. If it was powerful enough wouldn't the bennefits outweigh the cost?

;) You shouldn't be calling someone out on failed logic before fully understanding what they said. I read the thread before making my statement. I knew your position on it.
All you did was make yourself sound redundant.

There are several problems and flaws with this resolution.
One being that there is no possible way that any type of powerful nation can get anything done if they have to ask the user to hack into a computer.
Many governments must take action against digital terrorists and terrorits who use the internet and computers without "asking them first"

ooc: the proposal's "significant" rating is the one thing keeping me from voting for it, both in spirit and letter, it should have been a mild resolution. Tax rates have gotten completely out of control in my country; I have have to start making cuts, and so the last thing I need is for the tax rate to jump another %2 for protection against a problem we can already handle internally. As a nation, we have nothing against teamwork on an international scale against computer hacking, but we just don't have the funds to help other nations out right now. The frustrating part is that we are already in accordance with the rest of the bill.

First of all, it's currently illegal (by our own votes) for the UN to collect taxes. So who pays for this stuff?

Second, that means I'm counting on the UN (a chronically inept collection of politicians that occassionally gets it right) to protect my nation's primary system of communication, monetary exchange, research and record-keeping?

Third, it means that should my nation ever depart from the UN, I would be required to suddenly be able to handle my own computer needs without the UN's protection. In other words, if I am willing to stay with the UN no matter what happens, I can stop worrying about computer security in my nation all together. But if I want to leave my options open as to whether or not I might stay with the UN, I had better keep my own computer security people sharp, which means now we're talking about redundant spending. First the UN system has to be paid for, and then my own nation's back-up plan has to be funded as well.

Fourth, should my nation ever enter into hostilities with another entity, I want and would encourage my military to use all means available, including computer espionage, to thwart our foes. Agreeing to this proposal limits my own ability to defend my nation and people, or forces me to be less than integral when agreeing to it.

Fifth, we all know not everyone that agrees to this law or that is a member of the UN once it is passed is going to abide by the agreement - someone, somewhere, will continue to engage in computer espionage. That alone makes it silly for us to agree to disarm ourselves since there is no assurance that everyone else is going to do so as well.

No thank you.

Alisle']First of all, it's currently illegal (by our own votes) for the UN to collect taxes. So who pays for this stuff?

It's illegal for the UN to collect taxes directly from citizens. It can tax nations all it wants.

From the office of Facilitator 4 EvA, elected representative of the Free Land of Self-Organization,

The current proposal being considered at the UN is crap. See below.

NOTING the increasing trend for computer networks to be interconnected and to transcend national borders;

DOWN WITH BORDERS! LET PEOPLE ROAM FREE!

2) Computer hacking, defined as the intentional unauthorised access to, or unauthorised use, theft, manipulation or damage of information stored electronically.

INFORMATION ISN’T A COMMODITY; INFORMATION IS A HUMAN RIGHT! TRANSPARENCY OF INFORMATION FOR ALL! DOWN WITH PRIVATION AND UP WITH PEOPLE!

MANDATES that any business, organisation (either governmental or non-governmental) must take security measures to protect any confidential data contained in them, especially that data that pertains to information about their customers or members of the public. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, password protection of systems, data encryption, firewall installation, and virus scanning software, etc.

TOO MUCH SECURITY MAKES IT EASIER FOR THEM TO GET IN! WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE?!

ENCOURAGES international cooperation between national law enforcement agencies, as well as the voluntary co-operation of the computer and Internet industry, in an attempt to reduce computer crime and improve the security of global computer networks and systems

FUCK THE POLICE! FUCK STATES! FUCK ALL REPRESSIVE FORMS OF ORGANIZATION! DOWN WITH FREE TRADE AND BUSINESS AS USUAL!

ESTABLISHES the International Computer Security Institute (ICSI) whose tasks shall be to:

1) monitor international computer crime and work with law enforcement agencies to prevent it

2) promote and encourage the development of new security systems to help prevent computer crime

3) create and co-ordinate education programmes on computer crime prevention

and which shall be funded by voluntary donations by states, organisations, businesses or individuals.

WILL SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE ME MY BAR CODE? I SEEMED TO HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED! I NEED TO KNOW THAT THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS WHERE I AM AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE MY PRIVACY MEANS SHIT. AHHHHHHHHHH!

(A note on the funding of this though, if it’s voluntary and rich states tend to underwrite it that would mean they have a significant say in how it is used and who uses it. Sounds like one more device adding to global tyranny of the few over the many.)

For the reasons stated above, the Free Land of Self-Organization absolutely cannot approve of this proposal. We vote no.

Sincerely,

F4E
Self-Organization

Well I must say I for one am completely against any proposal in which will make the global security of the internet better, more police is not he issue here, all the un member is trying to do is get some long winded well writen peice of crap to pass for his own bennifit" see I know how to get BS UN laws to pass, look at all the one's I wrote"

MY VOTE IS NO

We need to approve this or we will still be having lots of things hapening to us like this: :sniper: and this :headbang: so I think that we should all vote for it!

I can't support this resolution...

I would say I'm surprised anyone would support this resolution, but there is no intelligence test before you sign up for NationStates; any moron can sign up and start voting for ill-conceived resolutions.

If you want a detailed explanation why, you can feel free to ask, but, my god, what were you thinking? Do you have any understanding of the U.N.? The scope of this resolution is far beyond anything you could hope to achieve. It's laughable that the U.N. should have to waste it's time on this, and to have it pass would send a clear message that the U.N. has lost it's mind! Why don't we just pass a resolution that says people can't do bad things and we should have rainbows in the sky every Wednesday?

Okay, I know I said you should ask if you wanted a detailed explanation on why this resolution is so awfully stupid, but I can't hold back. This is a particularly glaring mistake: this resolution outlaws "...other similar malicious programs including worms, Trojans, or any other program which damages, or otherwise adversely affects, computer systems..." ARE YOU SERIOUS?! Outlaw any software that "adversely affects computer systems?" You'll have a hell of a time defining adverse effects of software. I'm sure Windows is immediately outlawed, and probably MacOS too... Then it's just a few wrong commands before all flavors of Unix are gone. Any program that crashes leads to...? Will I be able to sue Microsoft when a glitch in Windows produces a virus? Can I have a CEO arrested if his software causes my computer to crash?

ARGH! :headbang:

"...other similar malicious programs including worms, Trojans, or any other program which damages, or otherwise adversely affects, computer systems..."

Since the word "including" follows "malicious," the above statement is referring only to *malicious* programs which damage or otherwise adversely affect systems. This means there needs to be proof of intent to prosecute under this part of the law.

Why is it that that his proposal is getting so much support? Virtually every government in the world will either violate this resolution or have law enforcement crippled.

PROHIBITS the following practices:

1) The use, spread, and creation without proper safety precautions*, of computer viruses and other similar malicious programs including worms, Trojans, or any other program which damages, or otherwise adversely affects, computer systems; or destroys, damages, manipulates or steals information without authorisation. This excludes security specialists in their attempts to find new ways of defending against viruses, so long as they are creating and using such programs solely for that purpose, and do not use them without the authorisation of the owners of the computer system. They still may not spread them, and they must use proper safety precautions* (*to prevent spread and/or direct damage to computer systems or data in them without the express permission of the owners).

This would make it illegal for governments to take part in electronic warfare, which is an effective and bloodless method of shutting down enemy infrastructure. This, of course, is a far less violent and destructive method of conflict that would be rendered illegal by this resolution, forcing the use of direct application of force.

2) Computer hacking, defined as the intentional unauthorised access to, or unauthorised use, theft, manipulation or damage of information stored electronically.

It is common practice for law enforcement agencies, with proper warrants and probable cause, to access digital information without permission from the owner. Online archives, emails, chat archives, these would now be off limits to law enforcement unless the owners of that information chose to hand it over willingly, which would give criminals a digital haven for all manner of nefarious deeds.

Until there is a clear excemption for government activities, this resolution is criticall flawed and should not be supported.

Howdy SeOCC. I just figured you should know that there's an official stickied topic (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=419598) for the current resolution. Please use it rather than making a new thread.

You have some insightful comments, by the way. :)

Which is why I http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/merged_sm.jpg it.

just vote againgst it its a bad idea to ban it many people need computers its their job and life!!!

i mean come on :headbang:

:confused: why??? why vote for it

:sniper: :mp5: GRRRRRRRRRR it makes me mad :mad:

This would make it illegal for governments to take part in electronic warfare, which is an effective and bloodless method of shutting down enemy infrastructure. This, of course, is a far less violent and destructive method of conflict that would be rendered illegal by this resolution, forcing the use of direct application of force.

1) The use, spread, and creation without proper safety precautions*, of computer viruses and other similar malicious programs including worms, Trojans, or any other program which damages, or otherwise adversely affects, computer systems; or destroys, damages, manipulates or steals information without authorisation. This excludes security specialists in their attempts to find new ways of defending against viruses, so long as they are creating and using such programs solely for that purpose, and do not use them without the authorisation of the owners of the computer system. They still may not spread them, and they must use proper safety precautions* (*to prevent spread and/or direct damage to computer systems or data in them without the express permission of the owners).

Authorisation is open to definition by individual nations. You could probably give your head of government or the head of your military the power to authorise the "use, spread and creation of computer viruses ... etc."

It is common practice for law enforcement agencies, with proper warrants and probable cause, to access digital information without permission from the owner. Online archives, emails, chat archives, these would now be off limits to law enforcement unless the owners of that information chose to hand it over willingly, which would give criminals a digital haven for all manner of nefarious deeds.

Again, you just need to be authorised. Give your judges the power to authorise such things, in the form of warrants.

INFORMATION IS A HUMAN RIGHT!

It is not your human right to view confidential information such as private citizens' personal details. You don't have any right to view my recent purchases on amazon.com, for instance, so amazon should be obliged to protect its customer records. By and large, this part of the resolution supports the rights of individuals.


OOC: As to leaps in tax rates, well, that's just stats. If you want to play the game with specific aims concerning your stats, such as taxation, so be it. But I think the UN in particular is more fun if we debate the merits of the RP'ed texts of resolutions, not the stats effect from the category and strength - and as far as the text is concerned, contributions are entirely voluntary.

just vote againgst it its a bad idea to ban it many people need computers its their job and life!!!

i mean come on :headbang:

:confused: why??? why vote for it

:sniper: :mp5: GRRRRRRRRRR it makes me mad :mad:

Have you even read the resolution?

It doesn't ban computers, it bans hacking, viruses etc.

This helps those who work legitimately with computers.

As the delegate of the region I say to Approve this proposal because alot of nations out there have a Powerhouse at Tech. Information.

:confused:

After discussing this resolution with my highest advisors, we have come to the conclusion that this resolution won't change a thing inside our great kingdom

:rolleyes: Our concerns are to what door this resolution will open.

1) Non UN nations will hack to their heart's content...Until they face my army.

--Now the rest will be after other resolutions

2) The UN's "peacekeepers" will have a right to come into my nation and extradite whoever they deem responsible for a computer crime--yes that's the thought police for our 1984 book fans

3) The CBLS' intelligance can be comprimised by those considered our enemies.

So pretty much in conclusion It is with much consideration that I vote to the negative upon this matter

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

After considering this proposal and reading the arguments for each side, and also considering my own reserves about this proposal, I am forced to vote against it, though I'm sure my vote will not matter since the majority of the supporters of this resolution have no clue what it truly entails, and instead think along the lines of "Oh, boy, no more hackers, yay."

The act sounds good. I support it.

1) Non UN nations will hack to their heart's content...Until they face my army.

What?? This proposal doesn't change anything in that respect. Non-UN nations can do that now without the proposal. This proposal, through encouraging cooperation between UN members, will help to build stronger defences against computer crime (of member and non-member origin).


2) The UN's "peacekeepers" will have a right to come into my nation and extradite whoever they deem responsible for a computer crime--yes that's the thought police for our 1984 book fans
Where are you getting that from? Where does the proposal mention UN peacekeepers? The ICSI does not have a police force- it works with national security teams.


3) The CBLS' intelligance can be comprimised by those considered our enemies.

How?

:rolleyes:

OK let me reiterate my position:

Your resolution is the key to open a door.

It will set forth a new agency that (first of all for the record, the CBLS will not voluntarily contribute to) will become a policing organization for the UN.

Now like I originally said. There is no harm or foul here with your first resolution. It is gonna to be what comes down the pike afterwards that concerns me.

Or as Rogue Newbie said "Oh, boy, no more hackers, yay."

Thank you,

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

OOC:


I have read no where in the FAQ that a UN resolution can stop international crime.

And you're really niave.

I'm afraid you're really "niave": if I (once I get two endorsements: I'm in a small region and I am currently at war with the only other UN member in it) were to propose a resolution saying

NOTING the damage that crime does both to people and economies,
DEFINING crime as bad stuff,
the United Nations ENACTS that
Crime shall be illegal

And it were to get to the floor and be passed, the UN Gnomes would get onto the rather large job of enforcing it, but crime would be completely eradicated.

That's how the UN works.

IC: How about it guys? Let's ban crime.

From the communications working group of Self-Organization,

It is not your human right to view confidential information such as private citizens' personal details. You don't have any right to view my recent purchases on amazon.com, for instance, so amazon should be obliged to protect its customer records. By and large, this part of the resolution supports the rights of individuals.

Why would I care or even look into what you are buying on Amazon? I’m not talking about private citizens here, unless of course they happen to be connected to vast corporate webs of domination, and then I do want to know and make their lives miserable. But seriously, how can people in a body that’s supposed to be democratic make good decisions if information isn’t transparent? What’s your government trying to hide? INFORMATION IS A HUMAN RIGHT! DOWN WITH CAPITALISM AND DOWN WITH AMAZON!

This helps those who work legitimately with computers.

Define legitimate please. Are you talking about the public relations/advertising industry? Cause I don’t find that legit at all. They flood my computer with garbage, spy on me for consumer data, force me to buy virtual space if I want to be creative etc. Hack-tivists, on the other hand, tend to point out the fallacies of the major business operators, open space for people, show the hypocrisy of capitalism, and finally make information transparent. Let the worms and Trojans ride free until business gets it into its thick skull to make their code open so all can utilize and improve it.

Signed,

F4E
Self-Organization

This proposal definitely has a lot of good intentions behind it. however, as many previous posts stated, it is very hard to enforce and thus all it really accomplishes is that the amount of security gained will be extremely out of proportion with the amount of money spent on this initiative. Henceforth I encourage the people voting on this proposal to think about whether it really is worth it to them. As good as the intentions of this proposal may be, it would fall short of the expectation we place on it in public. I wote against it.

This proposal is wishful thinking at its best. I vote no.

It's a shame that this resolution didn't take the opportunity to regulate spyware/adware/malware

this proposal will be used by the recording and movie industries to spy on us. Thats why i voted against it.

OOC:
I said the cost could outweigh the bennefit. If it was powerful enough wouldn't the bennefits outweigh the cost?

Could not would.

;) You shouldn't be calling someone out on failed logic before fully understanding what they said. I read the thread before making my statement. I knew your position on it.
All you did was make yourself sound redundant.
When you are able to point out my failed logic, I might give you credence.

OOC:

I'm afraid you're really "niave": if I (once I get two endorsements: I'm in a small region and I am currently at war with the only other UN member in it) were to propose a resolution saying

NOTING the damage that crime does both to people and economies,
DEFINING crime as bad stuff,
the United Nations ENACTS that
Crime shall be illegal

And it were to get to the floor and be passed, the UN Gnomes would get onto the rather large job of enforcing it, but crime would be completely eradicated.

That's how the UN works.

IC: How about it guys? Let's ban crime.

I do not opperate int he OOC world. It is physically impossible to stop all crime of all kinds and stating that the UN Gnomes can do such in IC is retarded.

I do not opperate int he OOC world. It is physically impossible to stop all crime of all kinds and stating that the UN Gnomes can do such in IC is retarded.

"I don't go OOC, but OOC, this is how I feel."

Cute.

Surely everyone should support this in the real world hacking and computer security should be one of every nations priorities (If large amounts of government data are kept on computer) This is a very good idea :D

Surely everyone should support this in the real world hacking and computer security should be one of every nations priorities ... This is a very good idea :D

:rolleyes:

OK, am I just having a bad dream that I am not in the real world....

Or maybe Aklal is trying to say that in the real world of ours everyone would vote yes say "yeah, no more computer hacking" and then go on about their business developing computer information type weapons/spywear.

Yes that must be it...So I guess a vote for yes means the stupid nations stop their "research" right away

Hold your breath :p ,

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

<The Dictator of Neoscelus sits at his desk, a Neoscelan banner draped behind him, as he makes an official address>

To the respected delegates of the United Nations,

I am here to explain our stance on the newly proposed Computer Crimes Act.
Although it is doubtless an act with good intentions, it is simply too full of holes.

For one, the proposal deals with what the enforcement procedures would entail, but like most international law, it gets hazy when it comes to matters of punishment. If the enforcement of this law is to be done with the participation of the international community, how can we determine punishment for computer criminals? In one country perhaps, they would like their criminals to be punished harshly. However, another member of the enforcement committee may dissaprove of that. Nations will not wish to be party to a correctional system they do not approve of in another country.

Furthermore, some nations may not wish to use their resources for a committee that extends its duties to another nation that has committed less resources to the project.

These aforementioned issues being the most important in any discussion involving international law enforcement, the only substance this proposal has, is to ensure that companies with highly sensitive information take actions to keep that information safe. Why is this necessary to legislate? Presumably any organization with confidential information will take whatever precautions are necessary and cost effective. Legislating beyond this may simply cause undue strain on the resources of some organizations to provide redundant security systems.

Considering the lack of practicality and obviousness of this proposal, the nation of Neoscelus votes against it, and encourages a tighter, stronger proposal for this issue in the future.

<End transmission>

If this proposal makes it though, then the recording and movie industries will use it as an excuse to hack random peoples computers and delete our digital media. THATS WHY IT IS CRUCIAL THAT THIS DOESNT MAKE IT THOUGH!!!!!!!!!! IT WILL INVADE OUR PRIVACY!!!!!!!!!

If this proposal makes it though, then the recording and movie industries will use it as an excuse to hack random peoples computers and delete our digital media. THATS WHY IT IS CRUCIAL THAT THIS DOESNT MAKE IT THOUGH!!!!!!!!!! IT WILL INVADE OUR PRIVACY!!!!!!!!!

How?

I've just read the resolution through very carefully and can't see any part of it that would allow such a thing. In fact all I could see was the opposite. Hacking, especially to access private information, is not allowed.

As for privacy, we do have a "Stop Privacy Intrusion" resolution already in effect. I can't see how this resolution would violate privacy.

I also didn't see anywhere that this resolution promises to stop viruses or hacking. The way I read it is kind of "lets make this officially illegal, then get together and see what we can do to protect ourselves." Its a step in the right direction and if it helps protect the privacy and security of Waterana's computer users, then its a good thing. As far as I can see the only ones who need to be worried by this are the hackers and scrip kiddies writing viruses to destroy other peoples work.

I like this resolution and Waterana will vote for it as soon as I finish pottering around the forum and go to the main site.

Alisle']"I don't go OOC, but OOC, this is how I feel."

Cute.
Thats not what I said. :rolleyes:

I do not vote on UN resolutions based on what happens OOC, nor should anyone. And that is what I meant.

I think that this is none of the UN's business. The internet is just billions of lines of code and data. Created by nerds with nothing better to do. Its only data traveling though cables and fiber optic lines, and none of the UN's business.

I think that this is none of the UN's business. The internet is just billions of lines of code and data. Created by nerds with nothing better to do. Its only data traveling though cables and fiber optic lines, and none of the UN's business.

You are joking i hope. :p Seeing as you are using the internet to play this game and are therefore endorsing those nerds with nothing better to do.

I think that this is none of the UN's business. The internet is just billions of lines of code and data. Created by nerds with nothing better to do. Its only data traveling though cables and fiber optic lines, and none of the UN's business.

Of course it's the UN's business. We're talking about a crime that is international by nature which could potentially have devastating effects on international economies. Any problem that requires international cooperation is the business of the UN.

As for it being "data traveling though cables and fiber optic lines", well, for a start it, it's very important data that is vital to most business on the planet. Secondly, by that argument we could say that humans are just products of varying genetic coding, so why should the UN care about them?

The aims of this proposal are simple:

1) To make these computer crimes officially illegal.
2) To foster international cooperating to a) apprehend these criminals and b) develop systems to protect ourselves from computer crime and make these widely available.
3) To make sure that confidential information stored about people is stored safely and responsibly.

Nothing more, nothing less.

:gundge:

Here comes the bottom line:

You fools have recently passed a resolution that prohibits extradiction over capital offenses.

Scince I will have my legal advisors twist this stupid (as well) resolution to my own kingdom's usage even if you wanted to extradite a computer hacker--you won't be able to.

Chew on that ;)

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

OF COURSE THE CRIME IS BAD!!!!!!! but i dont think that the UN should enforce these kind of crimes. I think that is it up to the Nations of the UN to do that, and not the UN itself. The UN should discourage these activities, but it shouldnt get involved with actually rooting it out. I'm just trying to say this resolution could have implications that could infringe on our civil rights. And i do support some aspects of this resolution, such as making hacking and all that stuff illegal. But I think that the UN should not be able to enforce this. For me this is about a much wider spectrum of topics than just computer crimes.

:gundge:

Here comes the bottom line:

You fools have recently passed a resolution that prohibits extradiction over capital offenses.

Scince I will have my legal advisors twist this stupid (as well) resolution to my own kingdom's usage even if you wanted to extradite a computer hacker--you won't be able to.

Chew on that ;)

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

Actually, it says we can't use military force if (a) you refuse extradition and (b) the maximum sentence is the death penalty.

If the maximum sentence is anything less, we can use military force.

:)



If the maximum sentence is anything less, we can use military force.

The City by the Live Sea will not take a chance that this won't be a capital offense thereby we invoke the right to refuse extradition in accordance with the resolution that was just passed (which we tried to get a negative ruling on but the majority of the UN thought that that would be a cool idea).

So in summary by the right to protect our own citizens we can refuse extradition--you guyses rules :fluffle:

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

OOC: ***deep sigh*** This... ***deeper sigh*** This resolution just proves that people should be required to demonstrate basic knowledge of a resolution's main topic before they vote on it. "Oh boy, hackers are banned, what a great resolution!" Sheesh.

Actually, it says we can't use military force if (a) you refuse extradition and (b) the maximum sentence is the death penalty.

If the maximum sentence is anything less, we can use military force.

Actually, it never says we can't use military force. It just says you don't have to be scared of us.

We have given this proposal our approval.Now, let drink!

funded by voluntary donations? :p

Actually, it never says we can't use military force. It just says you don't have to be scared of us.
You're not stupid. I know you're not. Most of your posts show some thought, sometimes quite deep. You usually spell things very well. We disagree on almost everything, but I know you're not stupid. You know you're not stupid.

So, please, don't use a silly argument that's beneath you. I don't like you a bit, but I do respect you enough to say that such an approach is beneath you.

You know damn well what "without fear of military reprisal" means, yet you've chosen somehow to latch onto the idea that if you wiggle and squirm enough, you can twist yourself out of exactly what the proposal mandates. Being someone who is obviously educated, you have seen the phrase "without fear of" before in legal documents and you know how it works. Please.

Look, I know you don't like the proposal. I know you're mad it passed. We all encounter things we don't like in this game. Impose economic instead of military sanctions. Keep your fugitives in your borders. Leave the UN. Get resolution 103 repealed. Do any of those, but don't use that silly ass argument. You're better than that.

You wanna knock my proposal some more? That's cool. Let's go do it over at my resolution's thread. I don't want to be rude by hijacking Gwen's.

You're right, it is beneath me, but, since most people that vote here see basic concepts they like or dislike and immediately agree or disagree with them, there is a very remote chance that I will ever convince people to vote against your resolution or others like it. The current resolution on the table is a perfect example of what I mean. People see "hackers...virus...banned," and don't even consider the adverse implications that the resolution can have. As a result, all that I can do to protect myself and my nation is to find petty, minor things that let me get around resolutions I disagree with. Whether or not I know what you meant by the final statement of your resolution is irrelevant; if I can use what it actually says to get around it, I am going to do just that. My apologies.

Yeah, its one of those things that burns you, but I've finally come to accept it. A lot of people do vote based on split second decisions, some vote because their friends/allies tell them to, some don't even read the proposal, and some vote with just a gut emotional response - which is worst of all to me.

In that aspect, I think the NSUN is a lot like real life election voting.

Fair enough. Whoa, I think we agree on something. Who'd have thought?

That said, real-life voters don't have a say in international politics - thank god. That's left to the informed people that are appointed by who they vote for, people that are (hopefully) experts in their respective fields.

I oppose this bill and have voted against it.

The funding should be manded by government spending, not by voluntary donations. This is a ridiculous element to the bill.

I'll probaply vote FOR.

Really, how can anyone vote against this resolution?

People who did, what are the reasons?

Really, how can anyone vote against this resolution?

People who did, what are the reasons?

Seriously? Have you tried reading the thread? This resolution is soooo bizarre in so many ways. Really, how can anyone vote for this resolution? People who did, what are the reasons?

Urge to leave the U.N.… rising…

:confused: :sniper:

After careful consideration of the arguments put forward by respected UN Member Nations, as well as internal studies on the long term effects on the Tazikh Economy, Tazikhstan casts its vote against this resolution.

We appreciate the intent of this Resolution and agree that computer crime is an important issue, yet feel that the "cons" outweigh the "pros" in this case.

The Tazikh Government would again like to extend its gratitude to the advice offered by all Nations on this topic.

Ambassador Imran Zaric of the Democratic Republic of Tazikhstan.

Roparth has considered this issue and agree that computer crime is an important issue. However Roparth believes that to secure it's borders, aggressive steps may be needed to be taken to ensure the safety of the King and his subjects that may or may not put it at odds with this resolution.

Therefore Roparth has to reject this proposal but maintains its commitment to work with it's international neighbours for a more secure digital communications network.

You're not stupid. I know you're not.
You know damn well what "without fear of military reprisal" means, yet you've chosen somehow to latch onto the idea that if you wiggle and squirm enough, you can twist yourself out of exactly what the proposal mandates.
You wanna knock my proposal some more? That's cool. Let's go do it over at my resolution's thread. I don't want to be rude by hijacking Gwen's.

Hey St Uriel:

Even though you are right and I think your bill was completely dumb, The City by the Live Sea is now going to take full twisting and spinning of it to continue it military defense research...And there isn't anything anyone can do short of sending in the UN peacekeepers to stop us.

Now as for this resolution, it looks like it is going to pass. It tells me that there are definately to many liberal/socialist nations belonging to the UN. The problem is that too many Nations that believe in freedom for all don't want to be part of the UN because of resolutions like this and the last one that was passed.

It disgusts me to be associated with such simpletons but the fact of the matter is the only way to keep my voice alive is to be part of this mamby pampy bunch of wimps that want someone else to tell them what to do.

In disgust,

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

In an effort to protect people who unknowingly access restricted areas, I propose the following change in wording:

current wording : 2) Computer hacking, defined as the intentional unauthorised access to, or unauthorised use, theft, manipulation or damage of information stored electronically.


Proposed wording : 2) Computer hacking, defined as the intentional unauthorised access to, or intentional unauthorised use, theft, manipulation or damage of information stored electronically.


I realize this wording will put the burden to prove intent back on the State, but it should protect those that accidently access data, and freely admit to it.

Thanks,

The Confederacy of Tierlornen

Oroesia has yet to decide on this matter, however, Oroesia agrees that computer crime is an issuse. For now, we want to look over the arguments for a while.

Sira Basurin, Ambassador of Oroesia

In an effort to protect people who unknowingly access restricted areas, I propose the following change in wording:

current wording : 2) Computer hacking, defined as the intentional unauthorised access to, or unauthorised use, theft, manipulation or damage of information stored electronically.


Proposed wording : 2) Computer hacking, defined as the intentional unauthorised access to, or intentional unauthorised use, theft, manipulation or damage of information stored electronically.


I realize this wording will put the burden to prove intent back on the State, but it should protect those that accidently access data, and freely admit to it.

Thanks,

The Confederacy of Tierlornen


Well, that is already the case with most crimes anyway- that intent must be proven. Also, the proposal as a whole tends to emphasise the importance of intent, so even if it is not as explicit in that subdivision of the sentence, the spirit of the law would be enough. I would even argue that the use of 'intentional' in that sentence applies to the whole sentence, not just in reference to access. In saying that, it is much more difficult to accidentally destroy data than it is to accidentally access it.

The Liberal people of Offensive Liberals can not withstand such an attack on the freedom of the individual!
We, and our people, disagree that it exsist a need for a Computer security act. This is just another way for powerhungry nations to seize controll over the privazy of the people! :mad:

Further more there exists groups in our country who has a much more militant view on how to promote Liberal thoughts than our government. If this act is approved it will just provide another argument for these groups to arm :mp5: themselves and spread the word of Liberalism around the globe by the use of deadly force. :sniper:

Our government is doing its best to keep these groups at ease but we fear that passing acts like this will soon lead to the unleash of the fury of more militant Liberals.
We will not stand silent in this matter! :gundge:

The goverment of Offensive Liberals

How many heroes of how many movies would be punished under item 2? I would like to see this item admitting a defence of actions undertaken 'in the public interest' or to prevent a greater crime. Like someone hacking into a missile system to prevent Dr. Badguy blowing up the human race, for example. (Before you ask.. Happens all the time. Don't you ever go to the movies?)

I apologise if this point has been raised before and I've missed it. It's a long thread.

People with a licence to kill tend to have a licence to do pretty much anything they want. Including hacking computers.

Really, how can anyone vote against this resolution?

People who did, what are the reasons?
Seriously? Have you tried reading the thread? This resolution is soooo bizarre in so many ways. Really, how can anyone vote for this resolution? People who did, what are the reasons?

Urge to leave the U.N.… rising…

:confused: :sniper:

Alright, here are the reasons why people are voting for or against this resolution, since neither of you understand. Don't worry, you're not the only ones. Here I go.

Against: People are against this resolution for many reasons. First of all, it is poorly worded or explained in various places; for instance, it says that the ISCI is going to be supported by funding, OOC however the resolution will result in a significant impact on the economy, hence the "significant" rating. ICAnother major problem is that this resolution is nearly impossible to enforce, because it is quite easy for good hackers to disguise the location from which they create their viri or hack into their targets; in effect, they could simply mask the source as coming from another nation and thereby position themselves beyond the jurisdiction of any UN resolutions. What's worse is that if this could somehow be prevented, many, less technologically apt hackers may move to non-UN nations and redouble their efforts out of spite. Finally, this resolution bans the government from hacking into the systems of terrorist organizations and the like and destroying whatever plans they may have been plotting, unless they recieve permission from the owner of the computer. "Gee, Akhmed, whom I spotted get into the car of a known terrorist leader, watched drive seven blocks, and saw get out; whom I witnessed scanning hundreds of unknown documents into a computer that may result in thousands of deaths; may I please take a look at your computer?" Hell, no, Akhmed ain't lettin' me look at his computer, and, under the provisions of this resolution, I can't make him.

For: People that are for this resolution see the words "hackers... virus... identity theft... prohibit," and immediately assume that it's a good thing.

And here are the reasons why people are voting for:
1) It officially outlaws computer crimes.
2) It fosters international cooperation between national security agencies/police forces and the ICSI in order to better track, stop, and prevent computer crime. I'm not trying to say it will disappear altogether- of course not. But crime always happens and the best you can hope to do is reduce it.
3) It fosters international cooperation in the development of defences against computer crime. We may not be able to stop people trying, but we can make it damn difficult for them. By promoting these security devices we can help make computer systems safer.
4) The proposal would mandate that all organisations storing confidential information about people must make efforts to keep this information safe.

Reasons why Rogue Newbie's arguments are fallacious:

it says that the ISCI is going to be supported by funding, OOC however the resolution will result in a significant impact on the economy, hence the "significant" rating.
Yes, there will be costs. Even if the ICSI is largely funded by donations, it will still cost a lot of money to develop and install the security devices needed to keep information secure and computer systems safe from attack. I am not denying that there will be costs.

Another major problem is that this resolution is nearly impossible to enforce, because it is quite easy for good hackers to disguise the location from which they create their viri or hack into their targets; in effect, they could simply mask the source as coming from another nation and thereby position themselves beyond the jurisdiction of any UN resolutions.
Increased funding and international cooperation can help develop more sophisticated tracking techniques. If good hackers can disguise their location, good security experts can find them. There are two sides to every coin. Furthermore, we are also helping to develop protection against these hackers with this proposal. By constantly raising the game, we can make it increasingly difficult for computer criminals to cause the same amount of damage.


Finally, this resolution bans the government from hacking into the systems of terrorist organizations and the like and destroying whatever plans they may have been plotting, unless they recieve permission from the owner of the computer.
It doesn't. And this is where national interpretation of the proposal comes into it. The proposal would largely refer to an individual's practice, as well as the state in normal circumstances. However, as with non-computer law, if there are suspicions of criminal activity, certain rights to privacy are foregone. If there is suspicion of terrorist activity, then the state can decide that that provides authorisation to investigate. [In real life, the police cannot just gain access to anyone's computer- but if there are valid reasons to suspect that an individual is involved in terrorism or child pornography (for example) then the individuals are no longer protected by the right to privacy.

And here are the reasons why people are voting for:
1) It officially outlaws computer crimes.

Good.

2) It fosters international cooperation between national security agencies/police forces and the ICSI in order to better track, stop, and prevent computer crime. I'm not trying to say it will disappear altogether- of course not. But crime always happens and the best you can hope to do is reduce it.

Unless the verbiage has changed then it just encourages, which in affect does nothing. It's a great thought but it doesn't force any of the nations to cooperate.

3) It fosters international cooperation in the development of defences against computer crime. We may not be able to stop people trying, but we can make it damn difficult for them. By promoting these security devices we can help make computer systems safer.

Pretty much the same applies here as to what I said above. You also have the friction of some regions have better defenses than others and thus bickering about it unless the ICSI oversees all research and forces everyone to share, which I do not think it does. You also must know the hackers are always a step ahead of the people trying to defend against them.

4) The proposal would mandate that all organisations storing confidential information about people must make efforts to keep this information safe.

Isn't this already mandated by anyone in the confidentiality busienss?



Yes, there will be costs. Even if the ICSI is largely funded by donations, it will still cost a lot of money to develop and install the security devices needed to keep information secure and computer systems safe from attack. I am not denying that there will be costs.

Isn't it though more effiecent for nations to do it on their own instead of pooling money together to try and protect all UN computers?


Increased funding and international cooperation can help develop more sophisticated tracking techniques.

This is true, but only to an extent. For one thing you probably won't have people donating more than the bare minimum, so it won't be like the ICSI will have the uber-awesome pool of money you may think they will. Also international cooperations, again it's just encouraged you can't/didn't force it so you probably won't be seeing much of that. Also hackers are always ahead of whatever it is you're trying to develop to stop them.

If good hackers can disguise their location, good security experts can find them.

Thats not true now, and even if what I said doesn't apply(somehow) it won't be true after. Few of any hackers ever get caught, and it's generally because they get careless.

There are two sides to every coin.

That doesn't really apply when the majority of the battle is one sided.

Furthermore, we are also helping to develop protection against these hackers with this proposal. By constantly raising the game, we can make it increasingly difficult for computer criminals to cause the same amount of damage.

The protectors never raise the game, it's the other way around almost universally.


It doesn't. And this is where national interpretation of the proposal comes into it. The proposal would largely refer to an individual's practice, as well as the state in normal circumstances. However, as with non-computer law, if there are suspicions of criminal activity, certain rights to privacy are foregone. If there is suspicion of terrorist activity, then the state can decide that that provides authorisation to investigate. [In real life, the police cannot just gain access to anyone's computer- but if there are valid reasons to suspect that an individual is involved in terrorism or child pornography (for example) then the individuals are no longer protected by the right to privacy.

But does your proposal allow for that?

Unless the verbiage has changed then it just encourages, which in affect does nothing. It's a great thought but it doesn't force any of the nations to cooperate.
Well it doesn't force them to cooperate. I don't think you can force someone to cooperate if they're unwilling to. But it is in everyone's best interests to cooperate here- the sharing of resources and technologues to better defend oneself.

Isn't this already mandated by anyone in the confidentiality busienss?
Not officially. Voluntarily perhaps. But it shouldn't be voluntary. I would not be happy if my bank started publically displaying me account details, or if they had no protection against hackers whatsoever.

Isn't it though more effiecent for nations to do it on their own instead of pooling money together to try and protect all UN computers?
They do do it on their own. Bringing their own systems up to scratch is their own responsibilty. The only international costs are the voluntary cooperation with the ICSI. But they do have to pay for their own defences and security systems to be compliant with the legislation.

This is true, but only to an extent. For one thing you probably won't have people donating more than the bare minimum, so it won't be like the ICSI will have the uber-awesome pool of money you may think they will. Also international cooperations, again it's just encouraged you can't/didn't force it so you probably won't be seeing much of that. Also hackers are always ahead of whatever it is you're trying to develop to stop them.
I didn't envisage it as a super wealthy organisation when I was writing the proposal, just one that gets by. And I think corporations especially may be interested in donating to the cause in that the ICSI is responsible for promoting and educating people/companies about the need for protection and the security packages available. That sounds like advertising to me... Unbiased advertising, but it's got to benefit the software company. This whole proposal will.

Thats not true now, and even if what I said doesn't apply(somehow) it won't be true after. Few of any hackers ever get caught, and it's generally because they get careless.
Or maybe because not enough resources are made available to properly investigate these things. I admit, I do not know any statistics on the number of computer criminals to be caught so I can't comment.

The protectors never raise the game, it's the other way around almost universally.
They can make it more difficult to penetrate the defences of a system. And I'm sure that if people can develop new ways to get into a system there are always going to be people who can develop new ways to stop them.

But does your proposal allow for that?
I personally think it does, and that will be how Gwenstefani interprets it. How your nation does it up to you. But I think there is some flexibilty in every resolution.

/~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
|The Republic |
| of Arakaria |
| ___CASTS __ |
| ___________ |
| ___ YEA ___ |
| ___________ |
| __ Elect __ |
| _Jan Kras _ |
\~~~~~~~~~v.1~/

I feel this resolution is not needed. The UN should not waste resources in helping countries with enforcement of their laws. Secondly the only countries helped by this resoulution will be thoses who already have the money and resources to combate such threats. If those countries want to get together outside of the United Nation to work on an internet police orgianzation so be it, but do not waste UN time or money on this, the UN has more important uses for its money. So, my vote for what its worth is against this reslution.

:rolleyes:

OK,

By the time CBLS wakes up, this resolution will be passed. The stupid leaders will say...and newbies this has to be the best one yet..."yeah no more hackers" :p

The idiots will say hey I followed everyone else and we won...imagine that (now what should I do???) :confused:

And the nations that have over 50% tax rates didn't even notice another tax increase :rolleyes:

But the bottom line is that nothing really will be accomplished except for some new UN committee is now formed

Congratulations for obtaining red tape over nothing :upyours:

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

:rolleyes:

OK,

By the time CBLS wakes up, this resolution will be passed. The stupid leaders will say...and newbies this has to be the best one yet..."yeah no more hackers" :p

The idiots will say hey I followed everyone else and we won...imagine that (now what should I do???) :confused:

And the nations that have over 50% tax rates didn't even notice another tax increase :rolleyes:

But the bottom line is that nothing really will be accomplished except for some new UN committee is now formed

Congratulations for obtaining red tape over nothing :upyours:

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

Indeed. And not every nation has the same Tech level.

Zatarack UN Representative Yce

And here are the reasons why people are voting for:
1) It officially outlaws computer crimes.

Fair enough.

2) It fosters international cooperation between national security agencies/police forces and the ICSI in order to better track, stop, and prevent computer crime. I'm not trying to say it will disappear altogether- of course not. But crime always happens and the best you can hope to do is reduce it.

Actually, it would probably be increased because of all the hackers you will piss off with this resolution.

3) It fosters international cooperation in the development of defences against computer crime. We may not be able to stop people trying, but we can make it damn difficult for them. By promoting these security devices we can help make computer systems safer.

Again, hackers will just be pissed off and work twice as hard, and they'll always have the numbers on whatever you throw at them.

4) The proposal would mandate that all organisations storing confidential information about people must make efforts to keep this information safe.

They already do that, unless they're just plain stupid.

Reasons why Rogue Newbie's arguments are fallacious:

Yes, there will be costs. Even if the ICSI is largely funded by donations, it will still cost a lot of money to develop and install the security devices needed to keep information secure and computer systems safe from attack. I am not denying that there will be costs.
Many of your resolution's advocates are all-but-denying this, however, and massively confusing the people considering this proposal. Also, the resolution does not imply that any funding costs will be forced, but rather says that they will:
be funded by voluntary donations by states, organisations, businesses or individuals.

Just to remind you what it is that you wrote.

Increased funding and international cooperation can help develop more sophisticated tracking techniques. If good hackers can disguise their location, good security experts can find them. There are two sides to every coin. Furthermore, we are also helping to develop protection against these hackers with this proposal. By constantly raising the game, we can make it increasingly difficult for computer criminals to cause the same amount of damage.
And then they'll just move, like I already said. Congratulations on your attempt to ignore half of my point.


It doesn't. And this is where national interpretation of the proposal comes into it. The proposal would largely refer to an individual's practice, as well as the state in normal circumstances. However, as with non-computer law, if there are suspicions of criminal activity, certain rights to privacy are foregone. If there is suspicion of terrorist activity, then the state can decide that that provides authorisation to investigate. [In real life, the police cannot just gain access to anyone's computer- but if there are valid reasons to suspect that an individual is involved in terrorism or child pornography (for example) then the individuals are no longer protected by the right to privacy.
Actually, it does. Apparently you don't even understand what you wrote; this resolution prohibits the things that you list. When something is prohibited, it is completely illegal. OOC For instance, Clinton lied under oath, which is illegal. He wasn't exempt for being part of the government - not saying I agree with why he was put on the stand, so don't start arguing with me about that. IC The resolution is completely lacking a clause for governmental use of such technology. All it allows is research.

I'm sorry, but your resolution is majorly flawed. It should be rejected and resubmitted with massive edits to be more flexible.

:rolleyes:

OK,

By the time CBLS wakes up, this resolution will be passed. The stupid leaders will say...and newbies this has to be the best one yet..."yeah no more hackers" :p

The idiots will say hey I followed everyone else and we won...imagine that (now what should I do???) :confused:

And the nations that have over 50% tax rates didn't even notice another tax increase :rolleyes:

But the bottom line is that nothing really will be accomplished except for some new UN committee is now formed

Congratulations for obtaining red tape over nothing :upyours:

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand


Thats a NARFING good explanation!!! you should use it all the time for all of the world's problems!!! :) :D :cool:

I don't support it because you don't define how companies have to protect their data, like I say that a firewall is ok, but you may say you need 2 firewalls, checkups every week, and encryption to be legal. I have a loophole right there :headbang: :)

I am appalled at the amount of support for this resolution. In principle, it's a nice idea. But it is terribly impractical. Since when have security threats as described in this resolution been the result of a nationally sponsored act as the text seems to imply? Not to mention the extreme ambiguity in much of the suggested mandated cooperation and establishment of international agencies.

Out of curiosity, why if there is mandated cooperation between existing national agencies does there need to be duplicitous function in the form of a newly established international agency? It bleeds revenue and makes the national agencies that much less effective.

Frankly, it's just good practice to protect assets. For any service provider or a business that fails to protect themselves there is a competitor that will and who will have a huge advantage. This alone will accomplish the level of security this resolution aspires to but falls well short of.

Legislate this at an international level? This makes no sense. Especially in light of the fact that innovation in this field will far outstrip any legislative changes to counter any perceived threats.

this act is a bad idea
personally i want the people of my country to
be able to hack into you guys withiout interference
if we let these things progress naturally a whole system of defense and
counter-defense will evolve
it will solve the problem naturally and not waste money.

Based on mathematical formulas and the proportional growth of votes, I say that this election is already over and that while the opposition has the right to voice themselves, it is irrelevant. Their resistance is futile. Thank you. You may now continue debating. :mp5:

Ilkland and the region of Redwood see several problems with the current proposal.

1.) Most spam problems are not originating within the networks of the NSUN, but rather rogue nations (puppet or otherwise) which rely on chaos as a form of order. Furthermore, those nations are outside the sway of UN resolutions thus solving nothing.

2.) The art and pracitce of espionage are effectively eliminated by this measure. If it can be construed that research of another nation infringes on these slippery principles, then a nation can be removed from the UN for doing no harm.

3.) The cost of implimentation is huge, the result is already being persued by my nation, and rigidities make my nation's lawyers more excited than its citizens.


For these and personal reasons, my humble votes have been cast against.

ENCOURAGES international cooperation between national law enforcement agencies, as well as the voluntary co-operation of the computer and Internet industry, in an attempt to reduce computer crime and improve the security of global computer networks and systems

I think this is a bad idea. This kind of encouragement is just a short stepping stone to the an internet dictatorship in a region.

Despite what you think, there are only very few major centers of internet traffic in the world, and all these centers tend to control most of the major providers.

This kind of international law encouragement allows bigger nations with private exporting services to enforce their laws on other nations, which I think is a bad idea. Pretty soon, NationX will be shutting down international websites that export NationX-style cryptography, use NationX chosen brand names, or NationX intellectual property, even when they were bought by citizens who were from countries that do not believe in NationX's laws.

A parallel of this is already happening in the American region.

Actually, it does. Apparently you don't even understand what you wrote; this resolution prohibits the things that you list. When something is prohibited, it is completely illegal. OOC For instance, Clinton lied under oath, which is illegal. He wasn't exempt for being part of the government - not saying I agree with why he was put on the stand, so don't start arguing with me about that. IC


Murder is prohibited. But in war situations, it is not.

Citizens have a right to privacy, until they are suspects of crime.

There are many many examples of situations in which certain rights, or certain laws, can be overruled.

Murder is prohibited. But in war situations, it is not.

Citizens have a right to privacy, until they are suspects of crime.

There are many many examples of situations in which certain rights, or certain laws, can be overruled.

1: War is international, prohibition of murder is not. Murder is the act of killing someone against the law, so after a legal declaration of war it just becomes "killing." Not the same thing, choose your words carefully, next.
2: Citizens have a right to privacy until an invasion of privacy more serious than someone looking around a room - murder, theft, defacement of property, et cetera - occurs that overrules it in vitality. AKA, a citizen's privacy is only invaded in upholding a more important case of privacy invasion. You're not suggesting we hack people to stop them from hacking, so it's a bad analogy.

Keep trying.

Oh, I like how you ignored the rest of my reply, entirely. That, right thurr, is good debatin', mmmhmmm.

By the way, I missed the following comment, earlier. My apologies, it is worthy of addressing and so I shall address it.

I didn't envisage it as a super wealthy organisation when I was writing the proposal, just one that gets by. And I think corporations especially may be interested in donating to the cause in that the ICSI is responsible for promoting and educating people/companies about the need for protection and the security packages available. That sounds like advertising to me... Unbiased advertising, but it's got to benefit the software company. This whole proposal will.

Okay, let me explain something to you. You see, hackers are people. Not strange alien beings living in heat-resistant plastic tubing thirty feet below ground. The hackers will immediately know what software is being produced it you educate people on it, or advertise it, and they will figure out ways to get around it in no time. (OOC: First of all, I take it that in your first sentence you're actually saying that giving it a significant rating was an accident. Second of all, an example of my last in character statement lies with Norton. In many cases, Norton fails to stop the most serious viri from entering your system, because hackers are familiar with it and know how to get around it. Back to IC now.)

Face it, your resolution does things you didn't intend it to do, and if you turn around and shoot it down with me perhaps we can stop it. I know it was an accident. Other nations that are intelligent enough to read the forums know it was an accident. You're forgiven. Now you can propose a new resolution that isn't completely insane.

Oh, I like how you ignored the rest of my reply, entirely. That, right thurr, is good debatin', mmmhmmm.
There was nothing new there that I hadn't already responded to elsewhere. I'm also at work right now and shouldn't be replying to you at all so brevity is key. Besides, you getting sarky and petulant is not a very good example of "good debatin'" either.


1: War is international, prohibition of murder is not. Murder is the act of killing someone against the law, so after a legal declaration of war it just becomes "killing." Not the same thing, choose your words carefully, next.
2: Citizens have a right to privacy until an invasion of privacy more serious than someone looking around a room - murder, theft, defacement of property, et cetera - occurs that overrules it in vitality. AKA, a citizen's privacy is only invaded in upholding a more important case of privacy invasion. You're not suggesting we hack people to stop them from hacking, so it's a bad analogy.

They are not bad analogies. They are examples of situations in which govenrments can and do choose to override certain laws or rights in the interests of national security. As with every law, every nation can choose to do this. And I am open to that concept. Gwenstefani will interpret the law so that in the interests of national security, or in the case of crime prevention/suspicion of criminal activity, the government can issue authorisation in lieu of the individual. You can interpret it as rigidly or as flexibly as you like.


Face it, your resolution does things you didn't intend it to do, and if you turn around and shoot it down with me perhaps we can stop it. I know it was an accident. Other nations that are intelligent enough to read the forums know it was an accident. You're forgiven. Now you can propose a new resolution that isn't completely insane.
Face it, IT technology is one of Gwenstefani's largest industries. We're going to benefit from this resolution immensely. I still think it's worthwhile for everyone though. Just especially me. I have no interest in shooting it down. I think it will be a benefit to the international community.

Besides, I think you're mainly bitter because of the failure of your own proposal.

(OOC: First of all, I take it that in your first sentence you're actually saying that giving it a significant rating was an accident. Second of all, an example of my last in character statement lies with Norton. In many cases, Norton fails to stop the most serious viri from entering your system, because hackers are familiar with it and know how to get around it. Back to IC now.)


No, you are mistaken. It is significant because the cost to governments and businesses to update their systems to adequate levels of security to comply with this proposal will be significant. The ICSI is not meant to be the main cost of this propsal and is in fact a minor part of it on the whole.

Rogue Newbie, this resolution provides ample capacity for governments to hack criminals' computers and use viruses.

PROHIBITS the following practices:

1) The use, spread, and creation without proper safety precautions*, of computer viruses and other similar malicious programs including worms, Trojans, or any other program which damages, or otherwise adversely affects, computer systems; or destroys, damages, manipulates or steals information without authorisation

So when this passes, your government simply has to grant whoever it deems necessary the ability to authorise such things. The resolution does not say that this authorisation must come from the owner of the affected system. Authorisation simply implies that it must be cleared by someone entitled to clear it.

This excludes security specialists in their attempts to find new ways of defending against viruses, so long as they are creating and using such programs solely for that purpose, and do not use them without the authorisation of the owners of the computer system. They still may not spread them, and they must use proper safety precautions* (*to prevent spread and/or direct damage to computer systems or data in them without the express permission of the owners).

All this says is that rather than gaining general authorisation (e.g. from the head of government, or whoever you choose to grant the power), security specialists have this other option.

2) Computer hacking, defined as the intentional unauthorised access to, or unauthorised use, theft, manipulation or damage of information stored electronically.

Again, simply grant judges the power to authorise hacking in the form of a search warrant.

Oroesia has heard enough arguments.

The Dictatorship of Oroesia finds this resolution full of holes and unflexible.

NAY

Sira Basurin,
ambassador of Oroesia

This is an extreme invasion of privaqcy, remember that a lot of times in name of security and moral security governments invade the privacy or overule the choice of their people ( in real world look at FCC in USA ).

I voted against

This is an extreme invasion of privaqcy, remember that a lot of times in name of security and moral security governments invade the privacy or overule the choice of their people ( in real world look at FCC in USA ).

I voted against

HOW is this proposal an invasion of privacy? if anything it protects privacy.

Hmm... I approve this. But, I wonder what affect this will have on our cyber-piracy trade? Cyber-piracy is a big part of Brandouneia's economy, as well as all other types of piracy.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts their vote FOR this resolution as we feel that computer crimes are a truly international issue.

I have reviewed this proposal and agree that it has some issues, and I must raise issue with this:
2) Computer hacking, defined as the intentional unauthorised access to, or unauthorised use, theft, manipulation or damage of information stored electronically.

Hacking is by definition not authorized
But Hacking is not inherently wrong or illegal, but this proposal would make it so. Hacking is the act of modifying something to do something else that it was not designed to do. Under this proposal if I modify a game to display an image of a political leader instead of say, bowser, due to the fact I did not get authorization from the creator I am now in violation of this. I do not see a definition of unauthorized that would protect my law abiding high moral citizens from being wrongly persecuted. If this law was in place years ago, apple and Microsoft would not exist, due to the fact they were hacking the early computers that existed then.

I must vote against this and encourage everyone to change their votes to protect their citizens and businesses.

I think you'll find that the -ise spelling is an accepted alternative, at least in UK English, according to my Concise Oxford Dictionary

Good point, I wasn't thinking about that, although I didn't notice anything else there that would draw my attention to that fact.

I do apologize and did proceed to edit that point.

Within your own country is one thing, but between companies, that's where this has it's big effect.

2) Computer hacking, defined as the intentional unauthorised access to, or unauthorised use, theft, manipulation or damage of information stored electronically.

Hacking is by definition not authorized (interesting that it is misspelled in an official proposal…)

I think you'll find that the -ise spelling is an accepted alternative, at least in UK English, according to my Concise Oxford Dictionary

But Hacking is not inherently wrong or illegal, but this proposal would make it so. Hacking is the act of modifying something to do something else that it was not designed to do. Under this proposal if I modify a game to display an image of a political leader instead of say, bowser, due to the fact I did not get authorization from the creator I am now in violation of this. I do not see a definition of unauthorized that would protect my law abiding high moral citizens from being wrongly persecuted. If this law was in place years ago, apple and Microsoft would not exist, due to the fact they were hacking the early computers that existed then.

When you pass this into your own national laws, say that access to and manipulation of information is authorised if:

A - the system it is stored on belongs to you and you did not obtain the information illicitly
B - the owner of the system allows you to do it, s/he obtained the data legally, and the data is not confidential (i.e. details of private citizens that you don't have a right to without the consent of those citizens)
C - a judge authorises it by issuing a warrant

RESPONSE TO GWENSTEFANI

There was nothing new there that I hadn't already responded to elsewhere. I'm also at work right now and shouldn't be replying to you at all so brevity is key. Besides, you getting sarky and petulant is not a very good example of "good debatin'" either.

Very well done, you managed to completely discard my calling you out by claiming that you had responded to my specific points elsewhere, when you could have, just as easily, quoted relevant answers in response to said points, and made yourself sound all the more intelligent.

They are not bad analogies. They are examples of situations in which govenrments can and do choose to override certain laws or rights in the interests of national security. As with every law, every nation can choose to do this. And I am open to that concept. Gwenstefani will interpret the law so that in the interests of national security, or in the case of crime prevention/suspicion of criminal activity, the government can issue authorisation in lieu of the individual. You can interpret it as rigidly or as flexibly as you like.

Actually they are bad analogies, because the laws are not being overridden in the interests of international security, but in the interests of other things; in your first example, the laws are overridden in the interests of proper definition, seeing as killing is not illegal, only murder is, and killing is what's done in war; in your second example, privacy rights were violated in the interest of upholding privacies that were previously violated in a much more malicious manner. Neither had anything to do with national security. Nice try, though.

Face it, IT technology is one of Gwenstefani's largest industries. We're going to benefit from this resolution immensely. I still think it's worthwhile for everyone though. Just especially me. I have no interest in shooting it down. I think it will be a benefit to the international community.

You're not going to benefit, and you're still dodging the point that hackers will just work together in groups much larger than any you can think to create, driven by their spite at this proposal, and redouble their efforts, just creating more problems for you and creating greater costs for everyone.

Besides, I think you're mainly bitter because of the failure of your own proposal.

Now you've proven that you have absolutely no idea what is going on around you. My proposal never failed, seeing as I haven't proposed it yet. Good job making yourself sound uneducated. I expressly asked people that disagreed with it to comment, so that I can make it more foolproof than this resolution and others similar to it. Again, nice try.

No, you are mistaken. It is significant because the cost to governments and businesses to update their systems to adequate levels of security to comply with this proposal will be significant. The ICSI is not meant to be the main cost of this propsal and is in fact a minor part of it on the whole.

Right, but nowhere do you indicate why the non-ICSI aspects of this resolution will cost such a dramatic amount, and its advocates claim, as a general rule, that the costs are minimal, which is completely misleading.

RESPONSE TO _MYOPIA_

So when this passes, your government simply has to grant whoever it deems necessary the ability to authorise such things. The resolution does not say that this authorisation must come from the owner of the affected system. Authorisation simply implies that it must be cleared by someone entitled to clear it.

Okay, first of all, authorization does not automatically imply that it is something given by the government. Second, in the case of the security specialists, the only party permitted to continue research of such activity by this resolution in principle or in practice, the resolution limits their reach to systems whose owners give them permission to act upon. In effect, the only systems that security experts are going to be practicing on are government-run systems that may or may not have a clue as to what the mainstream hackers are up to at that time.

All this says is that rather than gaining general authorisation (e.g. from the head of government, or whoever you choose to grant the power), security specialists have this other option.

Same response as above; they can only practice on the systems of owners that give them permission to practice on them.

Again, simply grant judges the power to authorise hacking in the form of a search warrant.

And then other companies in UN nations will just say that they have the power to authorize such actions, too, since, by the expressly stated provisions of this resolution, they do - no specific group is given the power to grant this mysterious authorization of activity - and the only thing that will stop these rogue companies will be government action that both can and already does occur without this pointless bill. The resolution doesn't mandate that specific government action, so rogue nations that are against it can simply ignore it, in which case we now have hackers from all non-UN nations, UN rogue nations that are against this bill, and other UN nations (if they are smart enough to disguise the source of their activity), and they're all really pissed off at this stupidity.

Okay, first of all, authorization does not automatically imply that it is something given by the government.

No, of course not, but you're free to interpret it as I have suggested.

the security specialists, the only party permitted to continue research of such activity by this resolution in principle or in practice

Rubbish. Anyone can continue research, as long as they have proper authorisation to create viruses (as set out in the first sentence) - and you can decide what constitutes authorisation, since it isn't specified.

the resolution limits their reach to systems whose owners give them permission to act upon. In effect, the only systems that security experts are going to be practicing on are government-run systems that may or may not have a clue as to what the mainstream hackers are up to at that time.

Even if security specialists were restricted this way (in fact they can just get authorisation under the terms of the first section of the clause), why is it a bad thing that they're restricted to unleashing viruses etc. only if the owner of the system agrees? By the way, I expect that private computer security companies, if they felt the need to have people create and test viruses, would set up their own systems to practice on.

And then other companies in UN nations will just say that they have the power to authorize such actions, too, since, by the expressly stated provisions of this resolution, they do - no specific group is given the power to grant this mysterious authorization of activity

Only governments get to interpret resolutions. When the UN passes a resolution, all member states pass appropriate legislation so that they're in compliance (that's what the compliance ministry telegram says). You can RP the details of that legislation, such as interpretations of what consitutes authorisation.

this pointless bill.

I disagree. The first three clauses may be somewhat redundant, but they're laying groundwork for the later stuff. The bit forcing organisations to protect private citizens' details is not pointless, nor is having an established agency through which we can coordinate security efforts.

Yes, there are loopholes through which nations can squeeze to get out of doing what the resolution demands. But that's true of almost all the resolutions the NSUN passes.

No, of course not, but you're free to interpret it as I have suggested.

Rubbish. Anyone can continue research, as long as they have proper authorisation to create viruses (as set out in the first sentence) - and you can decide what constitutes authorisation, since it isn't specified.

Wow. You don't even know what you just said, do you? If you go with that interpretation, then any rogue government in the UN can completely ignore this resolution by giving authorization abilities to everyone. That just creates more noncompliant governments that hackers can run to or use as a propogation site, so viri are still being released by the thousands, and, as I've said numerous times, now, the hackers' efforts will redouble in retaliation for this resolution.

Even if security specialists were restricted this way (in fact they can just get authorisation under the terms of the first section of the clause), why is it a bad thing that they're restricted to unleashing viruses etc. only if the owner of the system agrees? By the way, I expect that private computer security companies, if they felt the need to have people create and test viruses, would set up their own systems to practice on.

Again, you seem not to understand the situation. Security teams, governments, and various companies can only guess at what the hackers are producing - they cannot truly test their abilities against what the hackers may have waiting for them.

Only governments get to interpret resolutions. When the UN passes a resolution, all member states pass appropriate legislation so that they're in compliance (that's what the compliance ministry telegram says). You can RP the details of that legislation, such as interpretations of what consitutes authorisation.
Again, governments can just ignore this legislation and allow, or worse, indirectly promote hackers and thereby worsen the situation of global internet services by creating a breeding-ground for pissed-off hackers.

I disagree. The first three clauses may be somewhat redundant, but they're laying groundwork for the later stuff. The bit forcing organisations to protect private citizens' details is not pointless, nor is having an established agency through which we can coordinate security efforts.

Both of those are pointless, because these agencies cannot know what hackers are actually planning. They can only make semi-educated guesses. And private citizens will already be protecting what information they may have as well as any government agency could, unless they're retarded, which is their fault and not worth the UN's money.

Wow. You don't even know what you just said, do you? If you go with that interpretation, then any rogue government in the UN can completely ignore this resolution by giving authorization abilities to everyone.

Indeed. It's the same with pretty much every resolution that seeks to dictate domestic laws, because we simply can't go into the detail that real international law does, and because we don't have the same capacity for enforcing a regular interpretation. We just have to RP that it is rare for nations to take advantage.

the hackers' efforts will redouble in retaliation for this resolution.

Doubtful. The only way I think this will happen is that the ICSI will become a target for hackers, but it'll end up being the best-protected organisation anyway.

Again, you seem not to understand the situation. Security teams, governments, and various companies can only guess at what the hackers are producing - they cannot truly test their abilities against what the hackers may have waiting for them.

How does this change that? Authorisation can still be granted for law enforcement to hack hackers' computers - and that's about all that could be done that this resolution even comes close to affecting.

Both of those are pointless, because these agencies cannot know what hackers are actually planning. They can only make semi-educated guesses.

They can however facilitate the spread of information about new styles of attack, so that once something's been done, it'll be easier to protect against repeats (in such a large world, it is difficult to spread this information). They can also coordinate law enforcement, acting as a helpful link between national agencies, much like RL Interpol. That too is very helpful given the number of nations in the UN.

and private citizens will already be protecting what information they may have as well as any government agency could, unless they're retarded, which is their fault and not worth the UN's money.

But they might be being negligent with others' data that is entrusted to them. A private company might be cutting costs by failing to take proper precautions to protect confidential data it holds on its customers, say. This forces them to protect it. And governments themselves could sometimes do with help in protecting essential systems and data.

Indeed. It's the same with pretty much every resolution that seeks to dictate domestic laws, because we simply can't go into the detail that real international law does, and because we don't have the same capacity for enforcing a regular interpretation. We just have to RP that it is rare for nations to take advantage.

You can't be suggesting that we need to roleplay every stupid resolution's fallacies and loopholes as rare occurrences, that's just bad roleplaying. People should take the time to cover these points in their resolution before presenting it officially, and, quite frankly, this resolution did a terrible job of that.

Doubtful. The only way I think this will happen is that the ICSI will become a target for hackers, but it'll end up being the best-protected organisation anyway.

Are you kidding? Hackers aren't stupid, they aren't going to hack the most difficult organization to hack in the UN. They're going to choose easy targets to create large-scale problems for the organization and mess with their heads indirectly. Besides, hackers don't target anti-hacker organizations right now, while it might seem advisable, so why would they switch modes when my first explanation is easier and more efficient?

How does this change that? Authorisation can still be granted for law enforcement to hack hackers' computers - and that's about all that could be done that this resolution even comes close to affecting.

Because now authorization must come from the owner of the computer.

They can however facilitate the spread of information about new styles of attack, so that once something's been done, it'll be easier to protect against repeats (in such a large world, it is difficult to spread this information). They can also coordinate law enforcement, acting as a helpful link between national agencies, much like RL Interpol. That too is very helpful given the number of nations in the UN.

Like I said, there will always be more hackers than security specialists, and they'll always be one step ahead of the game. Besides, they could easily intercept any and all information that is being spread in this manner by hacking into less protected systems that will be informed.

But they might be being negligent with others' data that is entrusted to them. A private company might be cutting costs by failing to take proper precautions to protect confidential data it holds on its customers, say. This forces them to protect it. And governments themselves could sometimes do with help in protecting essential systems and data.

That is a fair point, but this one success in the resolution does not outweigh its problems. A better resolution would be one requiring the leaders of international companies to use all available means to protect confidential information that relates to people other than themselves. We can't just allow resolutions like this to come into being under the assumption that it's "the best we're gonna get." We have to learn from poorly written resolutions like this and propose new resolutions that highlight the finer points and remove the mistakes.

This resolution is an invasion of our rights on the fair use of computers!

There is no provision to stop a nation from saying that another nation's software isnt malliciously attacking their computers, when it clearly isn't. There is no guarantee that this resolution cant be used maliciously by a country who wishes to get another countrie's IT ndustry bogged down in international court

What scares me, is that so many people are voting yes to this proposal. If you want the IT industry to survive in your country, then I suggest you vote no.

Like I said, there will always be more hackers than security specialists, and they'll always be one step ahead of the game. Besides, they could easily intercept any and all information that is being spread in this manner by hacking into less protected systems that will be informed. Not necessarily. Perhaps in RL this is true, but that's because exigency lines up with factors that support hackers. In "Mynation" it could easily be argued that this is not the case.

Not necessarily. Perhaps in RL this is true, but that's because exigency lines up with factors that support hackers. In "Mynation" it could easily be argued that this is not the case.

Well if we're not going to have some degree of realism here, and ignore the facts of various topics, we can just say that hackers in this world are 97% four-year-old, mentally retarded chimps operating from stolen laptops in cardboard boxes located within the deepest reaches of outer space. But only a complete moron with no real argument for his side would try to use that as an excuse to oppose this resolution.

Well if we're not going to have some degree of realism here, and ignore the facts of various topics, we can just say that hackers in this world are 97% four-year-old, mentally retarded chimps operating from stolen laptops in cardboard boxes located within the deepest reaches of outer space.

Easy now. I'm not saying that "Mynation"'s claim to a different situation (or, using my previous language, different exigency and reactions to that exigency) is baseless. "Mynation" can have perfectly legitimate and realistic reasons for not conforming to the RL, western tendencies of computer hacking (in other words, that there "are always more hackers than security specialists"). And even if "Mynation" didn't have a good explanation for having fewer hackers, it'd still be allowed to say that it had fewer hackers.

At this point, its probably too late to table this bill, but I think that it really could have been tweaked more. I won't repeat anything that has already been said, except for one point I think hasn't gotten enough attention. This proposal is going to cost every nation a serious amount money, even though the proposal itself implies that it has no cost beyond the donations. This is simply deceptive. It has been said that this proposal will benefit every country, but I put forth The Shadow-Kai as a counter-example. The IT sector is vital to our economy. Illegal computer use is well under control, and while we do get attacked from the outside, its nothing we can't handle without the UN. My taxpayers and businesses shouldn't have to suffer to change all our software. Someone who owns a computer who wants to protect it will find a way just fine without us getting in the way, if they wouldn't anyway, then that is thier fault. If a company is neglegent with other's information, then it won't take long for word to get around. The company will either shut down or have to increase its security if it wants to ever attract customers again.

I initially thought this was a good proposal, the more I read into it however, the more I dislike it. I vote nay, and greatly regret having endorsed it at one time.

while the idea behind this legislation and to a certain degree embodied within those words are positive and constructive towards a nation's general wellbeing, there are a few problems to be addressed perhaps not for this legislation as the closing date is today, but for future reference.

The idea from which the act stems and the format, wording and structure of the act are equally important. As such, drafters should firstly place a little more emphasis on their act's format. Examples are lengthy to give but i would direct you to any law site within your country. Have a look at a few legislations and see their format, how they state definitions, goals, etc etc. Second, the wording is slightly problematic. Saying things like "not steal... malicious"etc and using words of such character is not a very useful way of enacting legislation because these words are always open to interpretation which means they cannot be applied effectively. I suggest you skip the verb and go straight onto the result such as "one shall not cause damage to others computers using their own computers and other devices concocted electronicly". Lastly, the structure of this act has a few errors. International law is not binding like domestic law within countries so a provision should be made within the act to describe what should happen if a country subscribes and what should happen if a country doesnt subscribe. Also, be wary of the constitutionality of the act if your country or the country enacting the law; in conjunction with the first point most international law has no bearing on the constitutionality of domestic law, and also the implementation of international law into domestic law such taht to bring domestic effect from the international law should also be alluded to.

The Dominion of Prestantia agrees with the above concerns, especially the lack of enforcement mechanisms. Additionally, the United Nations has never to our knowledge attempted to control the multiple (many benign) uses of computer and information technology. This resolution creates an unprecedented and frankly unwelcome standard for domestic laws relating to a field that is inherently nigh impossible to govern, and despite the strength of our government, even we do not believe that such legislation will have a significant impact other than to curtail the flexibility of the individual and business community. The overwhelming support for this resolution is disturbing, and we hope that votes will change before the deadline.

Vicarius Patriae
United Nations Ambassador, Dominion of Prestantia

Easy now. I'm not saying that "Mynation"'s claim to a different situation (or, using my previous language, different exigency and reactions to that exigency) is baseless. "Mynation" can have perfectly legitimate and realistic reasons for not conforming to the RL, western tendencies of computer hacking (in other words, that there "are always more hackers than security specialists"). And even if "Mynation" didn't have a good explanation for having fewer hackers, it'd still be allowed to say that it had fewer hackers.

Gee, and I suppose this definition is going to account for the pure fact that, while security specialists and hackers are both nerds as a general rule, hackers do what they do for free and because it gives them power, whereas security specialist get paid government wages. OH, I KNOW, let's just pretend that the government pays them millions of dollars (or whatever currency) a year, just so that it makes sense for there to be a lot of them! And now we're gonna fund their massive wages with this brilliant bill! Please.

You can't be suggesting that we need to roleplay every stupid resolution's fallacies and loopholes as rare occurrences, that's just bad roleplaying. People should take the time to cover these points in their resolution before presenting it officially, and, quite frankly, this resolution did a terrible job of that.

I am. Domestic laws in reality are very much more detailed than anything we can create (due to lack of expertise and character limits on proposals). It simply is not possible in many cases (especially more complicated domestic law issues) to produce a resolution that can't be evaded through careful interpretation.

Are you kidding? Hackers aren't stupid, they aren't going to hack the most difficult organization to hack in the UN. They're going to choose easy targets to create large-scale problems for the organization and mess with their heads indirectly. Besides, hackers don't target anti-hacker organizations right now, while it might seem advisable, so why would they switch modes when my first explanation is easier and more efficient?

Well the hope is that there will be fewer easy targets, and that with international coordination it will be easier to track down those doing damage.

Because now authorization must come from the owner of the computer.

I'm sick of arguing this. What you're saying simply isn't true. As I've explained repeatedly, it's easy to grant authorisation powers to whoever you feel needs them.

1) The use, spread, and creation without proper safety precautions*, of computer viruses and other similar malicious programs including worms, Trojans, or any other program which damages, or otherwise adversely affects, computer systems; or destroys, damages, manipulates or steals information without authorisation.

As long as they have proper authorisation, they can do what they like.

This excludes security specialists in their attempts to find new ways of defending against viruses, so long as they are creating and using such programs solely for that purpose, and do not use them without the authorisation of the owners of the computer system.

To me, this means that security specialists can either work under the allowances of the first bit I quoted, or if the government has decided not to authorise it, the owners of the system must still be able to authorise it.

Like I said, there will always be more hackers than security specialists, and they'll always be one step ahead of the game. Besides, they could easily intercept any and all information that is being spread in this manner by hacking into less protected systems that will be informed.

The ICSI could provide their security systems to national law enforcement agencies if it was needed.

security specialist get paid government wages.

Whatever happened to private computer security companies? You don't think organisations like McAfee and Norton employ experts?

Gee, and I suppose this definition is going to account for the pure fact that, while security specialists and hackers are both nerds as a general rule, hackers do what they do for free and because it gives them power, whereas security specialist get paid government wages.

Which is my point. You're making unbased assumptions to oppose this resolution (security specialists and hackers are both nerds, etc.). People in "Mynation" have just as much right to make unbased assumptions (to support the resolution) as you--such as "if we outlaw suspenders and star trek hackers will cease to exist, etc."

OH, I KNOW, let's just pretend that the government pays them millions of dollars (or whatever currency) a year, just so that it makes sense for there to be a lot of them! And now we're gonna fund their massive wages with this brilliant bill!

You've just pointed out the flaw in your argument. Money, not feelings of personal empowerment, is the primary economic motivating factor in most capitalist economies. As you point out, security specialists, not hackers, get money for what they do. Put in that light, it makes sense that there are fewer hackers than security personnel.

But more importantly, you're making unbased assumptions, and saying everyone else has to hold with them--in the name of "realism". You're going to have to start understanding that what's "real" to you isn't necessarily "real" to others, or, perhaps the most condemning, it isn't "real" absolutely. Otherwise, there'd be a 'right' and a 'wrong' in politics (which there isn't). A person's reality is determined by the lens through which he or she views the world. You can't force everyone to look through your lens, and accept your reality--especially when your lens is based on assumptions like "hackers and security specialists are both nerds..."

YOU MUST REJECT THIS RESOLUTION IN ORDER THAT ITS PURPOSE AND IMPLICATIONS CAN BE DEBATED
This is a right-hearted resolution designed to fix a very real problem. My fear is that attempting to fix this problem in this fashion will lead to other, possibly greater, largely unforeseen, problems over time. Specifically:

- The act seeks to PROHIBIT certain things without specifying the consequences of a failure to comply. In any case, I contend that damages caused by 'computer crime' as defined, would be recoverable under the existing provisions of most sovereign states existing legislative framework

- We need analysis of the costs of MANDATING business to comply with tis broadsweep legislation and the quantification of the expected benefits. We need to see practical guidelines for implementation and we need the reaction of business to this proposal. The market will ensure that those firms that do not make adequate security provision for their data do not succeed

- How will the act be policed? By whom? At what cost? What if a member state is regularly in breach?

This act simply will not work and you must vote against it.

- URGING and ENCOURAGING are precisly what the proposal should be confined too and the ESTABLISHMENT of the ICSI is not objected too

This point has likely been made, but I'll register that my region have voted against this bill as it limits our ability to use computer viruses and other techniques as a weapon of war.

Hacking or otherwise limiting a national computer network is a legitimate tactic in modern warfare, and this resolution would force us to eliminate its use.

W.

The people of Darkumbria request the dismissal of this proposal. Reject this attempt to police the unpoliceable. This is a vain attempt to take the defense of your nation's information out of your hands and put it in to the hands of the universe. Worthless, as it has no teeth.

This point has likely been made, but I'll register that my region have voted against this bill as it limits our ability to use computer viruses and other techniques as a weapon of war.

Hacking or otherwise limiting a national computer network is a legitimate tactic in modern warfare, and this resolution would force us to eliminate its use.

W.

Fortunately the resolution makes it possible to do these things with "authorisation". You can very easily pass a domestic law "authorising" your military forces to use these methods of attack.

- The act seeks to PROHIBIT certain things without specifying the consequences of a failure to comply. In any case, I contend that damages caused by 'computer crime' as defined, would be recoverable under the existing provisions of most sovereign states existing legislative framework

Nations get to decide what sentences to give to those found guilty of computer crimes.

- We need analysis of the costs of MANDATING business to comply with tis broadsweep legislation and the quantification of the expected benefits. We need to see practical guidelines for implementation and we need the reaction of business to this proposal. The market will ensure that those firms that do not make adequate security provision for their data do not succeed

We're not just talking about protection of the businesses' data. We're mainly talking about protecting any private information businesses may hold electronically about their consumers. For instance, Amazon has an obligation to properly protect my payment details and my recent purchases.

- How will the act be policed? By whom? At what cost? What if a member state is regularly in breach?

Such things are generally considered unnecessary in NSUN resolutions as nations are forced automatically to comply with resolutions by the UN gnomes. As to enforcement on individual citizens, that's up to national law enforcement.

I reject this law, not beause of its objective, which i think is acceptable, but because of its future consequences. By boosting military and police budget, is giving the goverment more power to even control de information problems we are fighting, we have not to address this problem as a counter attack, but as a preventing one, we have to teach and increase our morals and ethics, and people (supposin they are not stupid) will generate their own ways to protect from hacking problems, which i might add, are going to exist all the time because of the progression of technology (for every security system, theres gonna be a hacking program), so, in order to adress this correctly we need to modify our strategy in order to make it compatible with the issue (which is a Nash equilibrium solution) instead of making it "law against".
Please modify the law, cause i think is a good one, but lacks of long term vision, re-estructure it in order to prevent criminal actions, by educating, and increasing morals and ethic estandars, help the society create an institution to prevent it and to punish it if the it's the case, make people identify with the problem instead of making the goverment the all supreme power to fight for all, we have a voice, we are the nation, let us take actions as well, dont let the goverment grow beyond its limits.

Please reply, eager to keep talking, good luck to you all UN marginal members that dont agree, u know, "external costs and decision making cost".

Truly thoughts of the economists of the Republic of Ahih.

As the official UN Delegate for the region of Realiiity, I want to voice our disapproval of this Computer Securities Act.

Although the Act is well thought out and well written, there are many elements that could either be misinterpreted, or misused.

1) The use, spread, and creation without proper safety precautions*, of computer viruses and other similar malicious programs including worms, Trojans, or any other program which damages, or otherwise adversely affects, computer systems; or destroys, damages, manipulates or steals information without authorisation. This excludes security specialists in their attempts to find new ways of defending against viruses, so long as they are creating and using such programs solely for that purpose, and do not use them without the authorisation of the owners of the computer system. They still may not spread them, and they must use proper safety precautions* (*to prevent spread and/or direct damage to computer systems or data in them without the express permission of the owners).
What exactly are these safety precautions? How will they be implemented? Are there varying degrees of precautions for different levels of dangerous viruses? What if someone creates a secondary program, sneaks it onto the computer of the head IT person which causes the virus to be sent out unknowing to the one creating it? This could be a trogan or similar program...it would have no direct affect on the computer or it's programs. All of them would remain unaffected. The only program that would be "affected" is the one to activate and spread the virus, and that would only be run...not changed. Who's fault would that be? Would it be the fault of the head of IT, or would it be the fault of the one who created the program? Would it be no one's fault? Both? How would this be resolved? How would the spread be stopped? How should a virus be stored? Should it be in a virtual safety lock box? What type of encryption should it contain? Should it be stored on the same server as regular information? Should they be on a special server not connected to the network?

2) Computer hacking, defined as the intentional unauthorised access to, or unauthorised use, theft, manipulation or damage of information stored electronically.

How about unintentional use? Say someone is on a system and does not realize that they are logged into a non-secure area? (Again...this brings into question the specific definitions of safety precautions.) This could potentially lead to the unintentional distribution of a malicious program.

3) Identity theft, defined as any unauthorised attempt to use or steal elements pertaining to another individual’s identity, including credit card details.
You have a very high security job, and I [your boss] have just ordered you to collect the information of a fellow employee. You have now been authorized to collect this information. I then tell you to set up an account using this information, pretending that it was you. After a few weeks, I am very happy with your job performance, so I tell you to make a purchase using the information stored within "your" new account. This purchase will be for you, and only you may take collection of the product ordered. It is my gift to you. What has just occured is highly unethical and what I did, was indirectly identity theft (although I did not actually see or use the information for myself). You, however did, but you were just following orders.

My point is that it doesn't have to be unauthorized to be theft. It is ANY use of someone else's information.

MANDATES that any business, organisation (either governmental or non-governmental) must take security measures to protect any confidential data contained in them, especially that data that pertains to information about their customers or members of the public. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, password protection of systems, data encryption, firewall installation, and virus scanning software, etc.

URGES all UN nations to implement security measures or legislation to protect these computer networks and the information contained on them through the promotion of, and education on, such measures, including encryption, password protection, firewalls, virus scanning software, and the use of secure operating systems, etc.

The word "mandates" bothers me. So does "urges" Those should be reversed. Also, funding should be available to businesses so that they can realistically implement these measures. Clients should be well informed of what could happen if they fail to use the security measures that are available to them and if they refuse, they should wave their right to collect any damages from their security company.


3) create and co-ordinate education programmes on computer crime prevention

and which shall be funded by voluntary donations by states, organisations, businesses or individuals.

If you want to have an effective program, you cannot make it voluntary funding. I agree that organisations, businesses or individuals may donate voluntarly, but state funding should never be voluntarly. One of the first funding items to stop during times of financially hard times are not only Voluntary donations, but also seemingly "unneeded" expenses. No matter how much sense it makes to keep them around, people would rather gamble with reality than keep themselves safe.

Just a quick question: What if your nation has no computer system anyway. Here in Tranquill we feel such things only cause trouble.

Redwil

*gaveling sound*

The SECRETARY-GENERAL. It having attained to the appropriate hour on the twenty-fifth day of May, 2005, voting is now closed on the resolution currently at vote. The Clerk will designate the resolution.

The READING CLERK. United Nations Resolution #104. Computer Crimes Act, proposed by Gwenstefani, a resolution to significantly iimprove world security by boosting police and military budgets.

The SECRETARY-GENERAL. The decision of the United Nations has been rendered thusly: The resolution Computer Crimes Act was passed 11,811 votes to 4,053, and implemented in all UN member nations. The member nations of the United Nations will be immediately informed of the outcome of this vote.

All officers of the United Nations shall see that member nations comply with the orders of this body as expressed in the resolution just passed.

Which is my point. You're making unbased assumptions to oppose this resolution (security specialists and hackers are both nerds, etc.). People in "Mynation" have just as much right to make unbased assumptions (to support the resolution) as you--such as "if we outlaw suspenders and star trek hackers will cease to exist, etc."

Okay, my assumptions are unbased because they're realistic; that makes sense, I suppose. So I can say that there is no such thing as a hacker in "Mynation," which should cause all monetary affects related to stopping hackers in "Mynation" null and void. Right? So all I'd have to pay for is this committee, which is by donation, so that's null and void as well. Right? Wrong. Unfortunately, you can't do that.

You've just pointed out the flaw in your argument. Money, not feelings of personal empowerment, is the primary economic motivating factor in most capitalist economies. As you point out, security specialists, not hackers, get money for what they do. Put in that light, it makes sense that there are fewer hackers than security personnel.

You are completely missing my point. Security specialists work set hours, even when they don't want to, for whatever the government decides to pay them. Hackers, on the other hand, do it for enjoyment, and because they like the power it gives them. They also take breaks whenever the hell they want, and therefore are more motivated to succeed when they actually do work. Also, saying that hackers don't get money for what they do is the most uneducated thing that I have heard you argue yet. Hackers steal very respectable sums of money all the time, and get away with it, to boot. Hackers don't just make viri for fun all the time, my friend.

But more importantly, you're making unbased assumptions, and saying everyone else has to hold with them--in the name of "realism". You're going to have to start understanding that what's "real" to you isn't necessarily "real" to others, or, perhaps the most condemning, it isn't "real" absolutely. Otherwise, there'd be a 'right' and a 'wrong' in politics (which there isn't). A person's reality is determined by the lens through which he or she views the world. You can't force everyone to look through your lens, and accept your reality--especially when your lens is based on assumptions like "hackers and security specialists are both nerds..."

That's where you're wrong, because the factors that cause hackers to be more prominent and successful than security specialist are absolute. Besides, I said in general after "hackers and security specialists are both nerds..." You should learn to quote people fairly, because if you quote them in an unfair manner and they catch you on it, it can come back to bite you in the arse.

Agreed, but I have something I would like to see added to it:

The prohibition of pop-ups as they slow down your internet, are unwanted additional windows, and can also have spyware and/or viruses included in them that automatically download themselves. If a company wants to advertise, they may do so on a website, and pop-ups should be illegal.


POP-UPS :mp5:

I win, I win!!!

*ahem*

That is to say, the Tragic Kingdom of Gwenstefani is most please to note the passage of our proposal.

Congratulations, but in all fairness, the vast majority of voters probably read the title and scanned the provisions, and never even bothered coming to the forums to see if they fully understood the resolution. If you named a law, "Gay Marriage Rights," on this site, and it mandated in some obscure sentence in the bill that all newborn babies would be butchered, it would probably pass and nobody would notice the kill all children clause. It's not the winning that matters, it's the debate.

Oh great, now every nation must share confidential information.

Oh great, now every nation must share confidential information.

No, now all companies and states must *protect* confidential information. And they can voluntarily share information on computer security techniques.

*sigh*

It's ok though. At least now I can stop arguing with the illiterate.

Congratulations, but in all fairness, the vast majority of voters probably read the title and scanned the provisions, and never even bothered coming to the forums to see if they fully understood the resolution. If you named a law, "Gay Marriage Rights," on this site, and it mandated in some obscure sentence in the bill that all newborn babies would be butchered, it would probably pass and nobody would notice the kill all children clause. It's not the winning that matters, it's the debate.

You just keep telling that to yourself. In future, you should raise your issues with proposals before they are submitted. I posted this one in the UN forum weeks in advance of submitting it. I addressed most, if not all of the issues raised then, as well as concerns raised in other forums. There were several drafts. And then came the arduous task of convincing 152 delegates to endorse it- proposals do not just get passed. It takes effort.

I also believe most of your problems with my proposal can easily be solved by national interpretation of the resolution, as both _Myopia_ and myself discussed, and as my nation will do. In the case of crimes or wartime scenarios, the government/legal system may grant authorisation, overriding that of the individual.

Remember, in real life, official international documents like this can span hundreds and hundreds of pages to iron out any loopholes and flaws. In NS, we have a severe limit placed on the length of proposals. They need to be kept fairly simple and brief. So in order to go into minute detail on particular points of a proposal, one has to do this within the context of national, or even regional law. But not in the UN.

And I have always found your arguments about hackers leaving their countries of residence to set up base and join forces in a non-UN member to dedicate their lives to bringing down the people responsible for the heinous computer crimes act somewhat ridiculous and far-fetched, especially from someone claiming to be taking a realistic perspective.

Regardless, the proposal is now a resolution, the debate is over- unless you submit a repeal. Note, however, that the votes were 3:1 in favour of the Computer Crimes Act, and the majority has spoken.

If I were immature, I'd say "nyah nyah". But I'm above that. (I may edit that out tomorrow...)

Congratulations, but in all fairness, the vast majority of voters probably read the title and scanned the provisions, and never even bothered coming to the forums to see if they fully understood the resolution. If you named a law, "Gay Marriage Rights," on this site, and it mandated in some obscure sentence in the bill that all newborn babies would be butchered, it would probably pass and nobody would notice the kill all children clause. It's not the winning that matters, it's the debate.
You just love to rain on other people's parade, don't you? I will grant that some people just scanned the title and voted for it, but Gwen's proposal was passed by a margin of 2.9 to 1. Another way of saying it would be that out of all votes cast, 74.5% of the votes were FOR the resolution and 25.5% were AGAINST it. That's really insulting to say that most people who voted for resolution 104 were idiots or just didn't read it. I hate to break it to you, Newb, but everyone who disagrees with your neocon perspective is not wrong, or an idiot, or uninformed. Once again, sorry you didn't get what you wanted, but the sour grapes won't help things.

On a more pleasant note - congratulations, Gwen!

Congratulations, but in all fairness, the vast majority of voters probably read the title and scanned the provisions, and never even bothered coming to the forums to see if they fully understood the resolution. If you named a law, "Gay Marriage Rights," on this site, and it mandated in some obscure sentence in the bill that all newborn babies would be butchered, it would probably pass and nobody would notice the kill all children clause. It's not the winning that matters, it's the debate.

There's always one, Eh? :rolleyes:

Congratulations to my esteemed UN colleague on getting this passed.
A job well done.

Okay, let me make this clear to the people that seem to think my point was just vengeful and baseless. 15864 votes were cast for or against this resolution, in all. Of these votes, many came from delegates who happened to have a lot of endorsements, and the people that were endorsing them may or may not have even known they voted, so that's a lot of uninformed people right there. Secondly, amidst all of these votes, the thread on the discussion of this bill reached just under 2400 views. Now, the amount of times it was viewed is probably a large multiple of the number of different people that actually viewed it, since most that did view it, did so numerous times. For instance, I probably viewed it thirty times in my eighteen replies. However some only viewed it once or twice, I'm sure, so I'll say the multiplier is probably close to 6 or 7. You know what? Let's make it 5. Or even 4. If each nation viewed this thread an average of 4 times, that means that about 600 different people viewed this thread, and that's being extremely generous. Now, that means that about 600/15864, 3.8%, of the votes cast were cast by people that actually took the time to see what both sides of the argument were before casting their votes. So I'd say that the title and basic premise meaning everything in these bills is a pretty good generalization.

BUT

1) That is true of all proposals.

2) When my other proposal, Res 92: Humanitarian Intervention, was passed, it passed by a much smaller margin (under 2:1). This is because it was more controversial. The fact that this proposal passed 3:1 shows that it is widely acceptable and approved of. It's pretty much impossible to get much better than 3:1.

It is extremely arrogant and unfounded of you to suggest that because people disagree with you then they are misinformed or stupid.

2) When my other proposal, Res 92: Humanitarian Intervention, was passed, it passed by a much smaller margin (under 2:1). This is because it was more controversial. The fact that this proposal passed 3:1 shows that it is widely acceptable and approved of. It's pretty much impossible to get much better than 3:1.

It proves that they read the title of the proposal and hit APPROVE!

It is extremely arrogant and unfounded of you to suggest that because people disagree with you then they are misinformed or stupid.
Opinion!

It proves that they read the title of the proposal and hit APPROVE!

Opinion! yourself.

BUT

1) That is true of all proposals.

Exactly, so why say "I win, I win," like there is a reason to be impressed with yourself?

2) When my other proposal, Res 92: Humanitarian Intervention, was passed, it passed by a much smaller margin (under 2:1). This is because it was more controversial. The fact that this proposal passed 3:1 shows that it is widely acceptable and approved of. It's pretty much impossible to get much better than 3:1.

No, that means the controversy was much more visible in Res 92, not that there was more of it to begin with.

Opinion! yourself.
20,000 or so UN nations. About 3/4 voted on this resolution. Maybe 40 different people posted in this thread.

Ok so maybe I cannot prove that they just read the title, but they damn sure don't read the forum and they damn sure do not debate.

20,000 or so UN nations. About 3/4 voted on this resolution. Maybe 40 different people posted in this thread.
Ok so maybe I cannot prove that they just read the title, but they damn sure don't read the forum and they damn sure do not debate.

Greetings.

We are wondering how exactly you have proved that these people don't read the forum. We would also modify the second part to read "...damn sure do not debate in this forum."

Exactly, so why say "I win, I win," like there is a reason to be impressed with yourself?


If I'm being entirely honest, I mainly said it to piss you off.

But it does take alot of effort to get a proposal made into a resolution. Dealing with you and a few notable others has been extremely effortful*.

How many UN resolutions have you written?


(* Read "irritating".)

Greetings.

We are wondering how exactly you have proved that these people don't read the forum. We would also modify the second part to read "...damn sure do not debate in this forum."

A very good point. I know that I have debated it on at least 5 forums. And most large regions discuss the issue before the delegate votes.

It is extremely arrogant and unfounded of you to suggest that because people disagree with you then they are misinformed or stupid.

By the way, its hardly unfounded when its supported by statistics that people are uninformed or minimally informed due to the fact that they don't even come to the forums and consider the issue from every angle. Also, just because something is "extremely arrogant" doesn't mean that it isn't extremely true.

If I'm being entirely honest, I mainly said it to piss you off.

Obviously, and you succeeded. So I responded with an arrogant comment that (while statistically-supported) was aimed to piss you off - and I succeeded. Notice I didn't point that out after Uriel's proposal passed, because he didn't act like he was two years old and completely oblivious to reality when it happened.

But it does take alot of effort to get a proposal made into a resolution. Dealing with you and a few notable others has been extremely effortful*.

How many UN resolutions have you written?

Like I said, for many resolutions this is not the case. The liberal tendencies of the overwhelming majority on this site and the fact that 96% of people don't even think about both sides of an issue before voting makes it very easy to pass some resolutions. Examples: gay marriage, abortion, things that people hate happening to them (such as being hacked or getting a virus).

OOC In case you didn't notice, I've only been here about two weeks, so I have not passed any resolutions yet. However, I have been working hard to make my own bill acceptable to both sides before I propose it, which is difficult because the lefties on this site seem to think international defense measures and counterterrorism are bad concepts. If I would have promoted the abortion bill on this site, or something of that nature, it would have passed just as easily if not moreso.

Greetings.

We are wondering how exactly you have proved that these people don't read the forum.
16,000 or so people voted. 2,469 views in this thread. Proved.

16,000 or so people voted. 2,469 views in this thread. Proved.
And you might want to bear that that's 16,000 votes not nesscarily 16,000 voters, remember that delegates get an extra vote for each endorsement they have.

And you might want to bear that that's 16,000 votes not nesscarily 16,000 voters, remember that delegates get an extra vote for each endorsement they have.
I seriously doubt that Gwenstefani 31
Rogue Newbie 21
ElectronX 20
_Myopia_ 9
Fatus Maximus 7
The City by the Live S 7
Wegason 6
Saint Uriel 4
Nintytopia 4
Darkumbria 4
The Smelly Hippys 4
Vastiva 3
Tazikhstan 3
Rizembul 3
Powerhungry Chipmunks 3
Self-Organization 2
Draconomia 2
Roathin 2
The Shadow-Kai 2
Flibbleites 2
Zatarack 2
Oroesia 2
Groot Gouda 2
[NS]Alisle 2
Super Me 1
Oden the Great 1
Chaotic ideas 1
Eloina 1
Fair Progress 1
Libecq 1
Ecopoeia 1
[NS]Lucci 1
Tierlornen 1
Elija 1
ZoSonica 1
3urope 1
The Yoopers 1
Big fat tanksss 1
Frisbeeteria 1
Xiochin 1
Avarin 1
Mace Squid Jam 1
D-schznit 1
Vertbaitim 1
Goobergunchia 1
Diamond Realms 1
ForeStarnia 1
Cobdenia 1
Evil British Monkeys 1
Ezekiel II 1
Homieville 1
Deadstuff 1
imported_Miss 1
Kingladn 1
Roparth 1
Arakaria 1
Ahih 1
Constitutionals 1
Sphinx the Great 1
Gurdien 1
Seocc 1
Ilkland 1
Veedra 1
Heirophant 1
Venerable libertarians 1
Primagenia 1
A Courpt Mind 1
Villestania 1
Oatesworth 1
Aklal 1
Prestantia 1
Snoogit 1
Dominus Gloriae 1
Southampton Moor 1
Neoscelus 1
The 2ndAmendment 1
Waterana 1
Koroser 1
Offensive Liberals 1
Lyncoya 1
Errth 1
Catterwaal 1
Universal Divinity 1
Atlantean Dysthopia 1
Gabrones 1
Texan Hotrodders 1
Codec 1
Wolfish 1
Brandouneia 1
Tranquill 1
Jhonland 1
Enegue 1
Swensopia 1
The Most Glorious Hack 1
Sigma 13 1
Adrianopoli 1
Juggalando 1
Jenifnotardy 1
Blessed Isles 1

have all the voting power int he UN.

16,000 or so people voted. 2,469 views in this thread. Proved.

Greetings.

In the interest of exactitude, we point out that you have merely shown that 2469 accesses to the forum were completed. You have shown that there are at most 2469 readers who use the direct medium (as opposed to those who might have read the forum in print or by looking over someone else's shoulder in a room full of audiovisual automata).

Perhaps the flaw lies in your use of the phrase, "...maybe I cannot prove that they..." - as you then use 'they' again in the same line twice more. This made us uncertain as to which 'they' you were referring to, who do not read more than the title, and who do not debate the proposal.

We point out that a first-level automaton, and conceivably a zeroth-level automaton, with calcular appurtenances, would be able to detect the lack of proof on your part, and perhaps even the lack of a clear subject of proof. We therefore stand appalled at your lax attitude to proof and convey our desire that you be more exact in your use of language.

Hint: Vastiva [19 votes] + 18 members of the region = 37 votes in favor.

Keep the math up. Many of us know very many people who vote. The mathematics work easily enough.

And there's the sheep factor.

Flibbleites 2

Actually, I had 3 edorsements when voting ended thereby giving me 4 votes.

have all the voting power int he UN.No, that would be the Pacifics and the Rejected Realms.

Well, it passed, but it's sort of ridiculous.

We have this in the real world, and it doesn't really work worth a damn.

In gaming terms, who is going to pay for this? This---- ESTABLISHES the International Computer Security Institute (ICSI) whose tasks shall be to:

1) monitor international computer crime and work with law enforcement agencies to prevent it

2) promote and encourage the development of new security systems to help prevent computer crime

3) create and co-ordinate education programmes on computer crime prevention

and which shall be funded by voluntary donations by states, organisations, businesses or individuals.-------- alone will be ubercostly, or won't get funded. Worse yet, the more powerful or wealthy a nation is, the more they can influence this ICSI via donations. It has the potential to turn into a rich nation's personal intelligence-keeping organisation.

Further, it gives governmental entities virtually unlimited access to what should be private information. I mean c'mon, "Monitor international computer crime"? How're they gonna do that exactly? It'll be a vast web of encroachment on civil rights. Bad idea. Controlled by rich nations who agree with said encroachment, totally unguaranteed to be scrupulous. Worse idea.

Way to be, UN.

There is an easy way around this. Don't connect your computers to those of another nation. It's very hard for them to get the information if they can't access your computers.

You mean detatch my citizens from the freedoms of the internet.

There is an easy way around this. Don't connect your computers to those of another nation. It's very hard for them to get the information if they can't access your computers.

Okay, in essence you can roleplay that this resolution does absolutely nothing by giving every citizen in your nation the ability to authorize hacking and spreading of viri and saying that you will donate nothing to the committee, so it doesn't really affect anything. Realistically, however, it automatically increases your nation's taxes due to game mechanics, so you're paying for stuff that may or may not affect you, as well as being forced to fund a committee that is supposed to run on donation. Basically, you're screwed, and even if you were using loose interpretations to support what you want your government to be able to do, it really isn't going to change the fact that your economy took a thrashing from this bill.

Hint: Vastiva [19 votes] + 18 members of the region = 37 votes in favor.

Keep the math up. Many of us know very many people who vote. The mathematics work easily enough.

And there's the sheep factor.

Exactly, Vastiva, you are completely correct. You have 18 additional votes from people in your region who endorsed you long ago that most likely don't care or don't realize which way you're voting, and you can tell those 18 people to go ahead and support it, which they will most likely do just because they figure you'll be siding with the side that they would pick if they actually took the time to scan the forums. The sheep factor is a major part of what I'm referring to with my calculations on the approximate number of people that actually consider both sides of the argument - that was about 4%, by the way, in case you missed it.

Forbath, after looking at this bill, are you sure the internet really has freedoms?

Rogue, I'm not a UN member. My UN puppet was deleted when my nations when pop due to inactivity and so far my attempts to get in the UN are stymied by required time. In any case, I've managed to build my economy to the point it is quite the power house, capable of even dealing with what the UN can throw at it.

I tend to agree with Forbath,

This resolution places unnecessary strain on the economies of lesser nations who can't afford it as it is. They must hook up their computers and lose money, or refuse and face the response of citizens who claim their rights have been infringed upon. And if they do hook up their right to privacy will most likely be infringed upon anyway.

DemonLordEnigma:

I view access to the internet a freedom in and of itself. Once a person gets on, there isn't much freedom, you're right. And this bill lessens the few freedoms that ARE on the internet, as I've said. Further, it uses the internet to allow an international organisation to encroach on national freedoms. I won't unplug because I'm not willing to have my citizens give up their freedom of access.

This resolution places unnecessary strain on the economies of lesser nations who can't afford it as it is. They must hook up their computers and lose money, or refuse and face the response of citizens who claim their rights have been infringed upon. And if they do hook up their right to privacy will most likely be infringed upon anyway.

Exactly spot on.

DemonLordEnigma:

I view access to the internet a freedom in and of itself. Once a person gets on, there isn't much freedom, you're right. And this bill lessens the few freedoms that ARE on the internet, as I've said. Further, it uses the internet to allow an international organisation to encroach on national freedoms. I won't unplug because I'm not willing to have my citizens give up their freedom of access.

I was thinking more along the lines of setting up your own, separate, internet. Use entirely new protocols for it, and maybe a new system for connecting. Your citizens will be free to set up what websites they want, and at the same time they can't be monitored by outsiders.

Really, I can't put up an effective arguement for supporting this resolution. I agree with you too much. Luckily, the system I use is so alien that I'm not worried about it.

Rogue, I'm not a UN member. My UN puppet was deleted when my nations when pop due to inactivity and so far my attempts to get in the UN are stymied by required time. In any case, I've managed to build my economy to the point it is quite the power house, capable of even dealing with what the UN can throw at it.

Fair enough. However, when voting in the UN, you have to consider if a bill is worth it to everyone, not just you. The poorer nations may not be able to afford to waste the kind of money this resolution calls for on an indefensible, completely ignorable bill. If something will only be worth it to you, it will be better and less costly to handle something on your own, instead of calling upon the entire UN to do it.

My primary job is to look after my nation first. That usually means looking after others as well, as certain things that affect others can also affect me. I've been known for arguing against resolutions I feel to be a waste of time, resolutions that cause more problems than they solve, resolutions that create unnecessary committees (guess what this one does), and for resolutions that benefit my nation in such a way that I feel the cost is worth it. Considering my nation traded raw materials in its past form and in its current form has religious reasons for leaning certain ways, you can bet that I'll be looking out for the smaller guys in a way. They can be my best customers and good allies later on.

Sometimes, to gain the option of benefits, I must benefit others first. It may not always work out, but it is worth the risk.

I was thinking more along the lines of setting up your own, separate, internet. Use entirely new protocols for it, and maybe a new system for connecting. Your citizens will be free to set up what websites they want, and at the same time they can't be monitored by outsiders.

Really, I can't put up an effective arguement for supporting this resolution. I agree with you too much. Luckily, the system I use is so alien that I'm not worried about it.


I like your idea. And, the system that I use is fairly esoteric as well, so I probably won't really have a problem. I just like bitching. (Yes, I voted, so I can.) Actually, I think maybe my nation is a bit too esoteric, tech-wise, because I'm finding it's difficult for other nations, MT or FT, to interact with me in role-play. (There should be a new category of tech: ET, "Esoteric Tech") So I'm considering going more mainstream, at which point this resolution becomes a problem for me.

My primary job is to look after my nation first. That usually means looking after others as well, as certain things that affect others can also affect me. I've been known for arguing against resolutions I feel to be a waste of time, resolutions that cause more problems than they solve, resolutions that create unnecessary committees (guess what this one does), and for resolutions that benefit my nation in such a way that I feel the cost is worth it. Considering my nation traded raw materials in its past form and in its current form has religious reasons for leaning certain ways, you can bet that I'll be looking out for the smaller guys in a way. They can be my best customers and good allies later on.

Sometimes, to gain the option of benefits, I must benefit others first. It may not always work out, but it is worth the risk.

Also fair, but my point is that you could leave the stuff that only benefits you to intranational policy, and leave international policy to what will help everyone.

Rogue Newbie - you should note that this isn't the only place people debate UN resolutions and proposals. There are very many, quite possibly hundreds, of off-site forums connected to NationStates, set up by regions, alliances, role-players, and other groups. Just because they haven't debated here doesn't mean they haven't debated there.

True, but it's extremely likely that the vast majority of their members are the same people that debate here, and it's even more likely that the people who debate these issues elsewhere are people of almost equal idealogies. When you debate a topic with other people that tend to side with you, it hasn't nearly the effect that debating with people who are vehemently against you has.

True, but it's extremely likely that the vast majority of their members are the same people that debate here, and it's even more likely that the people who debate these issues elsewhere are people of almost equal idealogies. When you debate a topic with other people that tend to side with you, it hasn't nearly the effect that debating with people who are vehemently against you has.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. I imagine there are plenty of people who prefer to avoid this forum and debate mostly off-site. I think there are also many off-site groups which are not ideological in basis - some are regions which are not ideological groups, especially the feeder regions and some I imagine will be roleplayers or defender/invader alliances, who are united by their activities in the game not their politics.

For those who said that hackers were always one step ahead:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4579623.stm

Obviously this is just one example. However, it does show that the development of new technology can prevent hacker attacks. Undoubtedly, hackers will find ways around this, but similarly, security experts can develop new systems. Computer crime can be prevented.