NationStates Jolt Archive

This is resolution 10:

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

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

shall NOT be intercepted by the government, unless there is serious evidence of a planned or committed crime. This evidence shall be reviewed and approved by the Judiciary before eavesdropping, phone tapping, network traffic monitoring, and other kinds of interception of communications is allowed.

This is why it should be repealed:

This needs to be repealed because each government should have the right to decide if they 'spy' on their citizens in order to find out about planned crimes. It says that the government can only intrude people's privacy if there is already evidence of a planned crime. How would you get the evidence of a planned crime without intruding people's privacy in the first place!? Also, if, somehow, you do get evidence, this evidence must be approved by the Judiciary before you can intrude their privacy. This may take too long and the crime could have already been committed by then. As far as I'm concerned, all this resolution does is higher the crime rates in the UN. It has to be repealed. Anyone with me?

I would strongly support a repeal of this resolution. It will help us combat the evil of terrorism, organized crime, sexual privacy and communism. Somehow.

Are you seriously saying that there is no evidence admissable in your nation's courts other than via electronic eavesdropping?
Remember that evidence can include witness statements, things a person has declared public (such as public radio/TV broadcasts, letters to newspaper editors etc.) and a variety of other things. If you are relying solely on phone taps and other electronic means, then your security is in dire straits.

Are you seriously saying that there is no evidence admissable in your nation's courts other than via electronic eavesdropping?
Remember that evidence can include witness statements, things a person has declared public (such as public radio/TV broadcasts, letters to newspaper editors etc.) and a variety of other things. If you are relying solely on phone taps and other electronic means, then your security is in dire straits.

I'm not saying that intruding people's privacy is the only way (I understand that that is what I made it sound like previously), but it helps for a governemnt to be allowed to when they feel it to be necessary. As Gruenberg said, it can help to stop terrorism acts and organised crime.

For example, an experienced robber may be planning to rob a bank with his partner in crime. Before resolution 10 passed, they would probably have met in some street to discuss their actions. However, because of resolution 10, they would arrange their crime over the phone or over the internet because they know that the government is powerless to find out about it. Therefore, they may do the crime and then get away with it because no-one knew anything about their planning, so nobody has a clue as to who stole from the bank. If this is repealed, they would have to go back to arranging it in public somewhere face-to-face. This way the government are much more likely to find out because people may overhear them talking or because they were caught on CCTV. The ones who are still stupid enough to arrange it over the phone or internet are much more likely to be caught.

The fact is that resolution 10 just decreases the chances of the government finding out about organised crime and terrorism, so it must be repealed.

If I understand you correctly, what you are advocating is totalitarianism. From what you have said so far, the government should always be monitoring phone lines, internet connections and various other forms of electronic communication.

If you are not a totalitarian state, how will this make any difference? How does your government know which phone lines to tap? Which sites to examine? At what times?

I believe Gruenberg was being ironic. Hence the 'somehow'.

I didn't say that I would always monitor phone lines etc. I said the criminals would be more likely to be caught. Gruenberg, were you being ironic or not?

What I'm saying is that resolution 10 just lowers the chance of catching criminals. My nation feels that it is more important to catch criminals than giving the public too much privacy. Resolution 10 has given the public far too much privacy, so it needs to be repealed because the resolution must have increased crime.

Please ignore what it says about my nation's privacy laws because I answered the issue incorrectly and will rectify that situatiuon as soon as possible. Repealing this resolution would be a start.

My nation feels that it is more important to catch criminals than giving the public too much privacy.
Well, I feel differently. As does Darsomir, where such statements you have made would probably have you being declared heretic. People need some degree of privacy, some protection from their goverment.

Well, I feel differently. As does Darsomir, where such statements you have made would probably have you being declared heretic. People need some degree of privacy, some protection from their goverment.

I agree that people need some privacy and protection from the government, but resolution 10 gives them far too much. If it is repealed, we could work on a replacement that gives a good balance and inbetween the repeal and replacement, each government would be allowed to choose how much privacy they give.

Compadria, with all due respect to the honourable delegate, is not about to sign up to this authoritarian, one could say reactionary madness. I would remind him of the saying of a famous philosopher, who remarked "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it".

We've no objection to tough security laws where appropriate, as can be witnessed by the fact that crime is virtually non-existent in Compadria, yet we also possess some of the strongest privacy laws of our region. We do not view the two as irreconcilable, merely that the best way to combat crime is not rampant intrusion in a citizens personal affairs, but measured carefully taken steps done with the full and constant assent of the judiciary, which must be neutral and the understanding of the principal of "innocent until proven guilty" requiring that undue intrusion shall not be considered in keeping with the traditions of a free state.

The resolution itself needs strengthening and clarification, not weakening. Let us address the points of our worthy opponent:

This needs to be repealed because each government should have the right to decide if they 'spy' on their citizens in order to find out about planned crimes. It says that the government can only intrude people's privacy if there is already evidence of a planned crime. How would you get the evidence of a planned crime without intruding people's privacy in the first place!?

Firstly, let us consider the concept of the "right to spy". What right has the government to spy on its citizens and subjects? The state is suboordinate to them and must remember that without their consent, it cannot exist. Constant evesdropping breeds fear, threatens liberty and democracy where they exist and creates a climate of reticence and hesitation, which will only destroy the bonds of societies with its intolerant suspiscion.

Secondly, the point regarding evidence of a planned crime. We feel the delegate does not differentiate between ordinary surveillance and investigation and "spying". What persons do in public places and what acts they may committ there can warrant suspscion being aroused and lead to further investigation, with strong judicial restraint and oversight and only with a secure evidence and motive for doing so being necessary conditions to allow this investigation to take place. This is perfectly effective and can reduce crime just as much as rampant spying. Yet which will yield a happier citizenry?

Also, if, somehow, you do get evidence, this evidence must be approved by the Judiciary before you can intrude their privacy. This may take too long and the crime could have already been committed by then. As far as I'm concerned, all this resolution does is higher the crime rates in the UN. It has to be repealed. Anyone with me?

Taking too long is not an excuse, it is an essential part of ensuring that innocent people are not treated to warrantless intrusion and intimate surveillance purely on whim. If your security services are so incompetent that they cannot assemble material and present it for judicial clearance quickly enough to prevent crime, then that is your problem, not an excuse to attack essential liberties enshrined for all civilians under the auspices of the U.N.

Crime can be tackled better not just through law enforcement, but social measures to address its root causes, rehabilitation of criminals and a strong campaign of anti-crime publicity to emphasise the pointlessness of crime ultimately. It will not be solved by kicking upon another door to tyranny.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Well, I feel differently. As does Darsomir

So maybe we should revert to letting the separate nations determine their own policies about this matter independently?

Crime can be tackled better not just through law enforcement, but social measures to address its root causes, rehabilitation of criminals and a strong campaign of anti-crime publicity to emphasise the pointlessness of crime ultimately. It will not be solved by kicking upon another door to tyranny.

OOC: Actually, within this game's mechanics, tyranny does seem to be a[nother] potentially-viable way of doing away with crime... ;)

Would anybody be interested to see a repeal drafted if I get the time to create one?

Would anybody be interested to see a repeal drafted if I get the time to create one?
Yes. Very much so. I'd even help you telegram for it.

And no, I was not being ironic.

The United Nations,

UNDERSTANDING the privacy protections in Resolution #10, "Stop Privacy Intrusion,"

CONSIDERING that Resolution #10, "Stop Privacy Intrusion," does not enforce anything due to the wording used in that it only suggests that each UN member passes the legislation, making the resolution ineffectual,

NOTING that Resolution #10, "Stop Privacy Intrusion," severely hampers the ability of governments in the NSUN to catch criminals,

ALSO NOTING that Resolution #10, "Stop Privacy Intrusion," does not define many of the terms it contains, making it vague,

FURTHERMORE NOTING that Resolution #10, "Stop Privacy Intrusion," does not define "other kinds of interception of communications," nor what "serious" evidence of a planned or committed crime means, making it even more vague,

BELIEVING that an improved replacement that doesn't go too far in protecting people's privacy, should be made,

REPEALS Resolution #10 "Stop Privacy Intrusion."

Co-Authored by: Reveal and Repeal

Gruen: We're trying some editing on R&R, if you're interested in geting this passed you could help...

Adolf: I edited yours, check it out:

http://s9.invisionfree.com/Reveal_and_Repeal/index.php?showtopic=23&st=0

I have edited my repeal at the bottom of page 1 in this thread. Gruenberg, join up to the reveal and repeal forum: we are trying to arrange a telegram campaign. It is 918pm saturday in england where I live at the moment, so when is the best time to propose it? Talk on R&R if you can.

OOC: I'm going to be afk today and tomorrow, sorry. I'll try to add some comments as soon as possible.

Gruenberg, Dankism told me that the best time to propose a proposal is 9pm GMT. So far, he hasn't told me why (do you know?). Anyway, therefore I will propose my repeal at 9pm Sunday. Would you be interested in taking part in a telegram campaign once I propose it tomorrow. Dankism and me will take part. Anyone else interested, please say. We would like as many people as possible.

Thanks

I can TG on Monday and Tuesday, but not today. As for submission, 9pm is not the best time - as I said on R&R, it's when the update finishes, which will probably be in a couple of hours.

Thanks for the help. I've posted the details of who telegrams which delegates on R&R. Are they okay with you?

There is no need for this thread any more because Dankism has started a new one called SUBMITTED: Repeal Stop Privacy Intrusion.

Since I started the thread, do I have to delete it? If I do, how do I delete it?

There is no need for this thread any more because Dankism has started a new one called SUBMITTED: Repeal Stop Privacy Intrusion.

Since I started the thread, do I have to delete it? If I do, how do I delete it?

No, you can't delete it. You can request that a mod lock it, or just let it slip off of the page of topics.

Privacy is not just for individuals, it is also for corporate interests. Your laws are not our laws, we have a different legal system, therefore what you consider criminal is not what we consider criminal. We do not want people peering into our internal affairs and messing with our commercial interests. Foreign companies checking into our corporate activities are conducting industrial espionage whether it is on the individual level working for a company or company wide inspections. Privacy intrusion protection protects our industries from industrial espionage, criminal prosecution by foreign bodies and similar activities. It also protects our military interests. Too many people peer into our activities copying our inventions is a problem.