NationStates Jolt Archive

http://img415.imageshack.us/img415/1504/randr7nr.jpg

Reveal & Repeal (randr.dompody.com): Official Resolution

Written by Adolf Barham, co-authored by Reveal & Repeal forums:

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

Original resolution:

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.


And even though kenny (and Gruen, probably) will be pissed, here's my proposed replacement:

UN Privacy Protection Statute

RECOGNIZING Resolution #(139?), Repeal “Stop Privacy Intrusion,” and its call for a replacement,

UNDERSTANDING that individuals have a fundamental right to privacy,

NOTING, therefore, that the United Nations must respect this right,

BELIEVING that the United Nations must prohibit governmental privacy intrusions, unless doing so would harm the public good,

1. DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution, the following:
a. “privacy” as the fundamental right of a nation’s citizens and organizations to be secure in their communications and possessions;
b. “privacy impeding devices” as any type of wiretap, governmental seizure of property, or interception of communications used to arrest criminals;
c. “warrant” as a document which, if attained, allows a government or governmental organization to use a privacy impeding device on an individual or organization within their own nation,

2. ABOLISHES the use of privacy impeding devices by any UN government without a warrant,

3. ESTABLISHES the United Nations Privacy Activism Committee (UNPAC), which will create a definition of "probable cause," based on the input of every willing UN nation,

4. AUTHORIZES UNPAC to certify judges in a UN nation based on their knowledge of UNPAC's definition of probable cause, and how to utilize it,

5. AUTHORIZES UNPAC-certified judges to do the following:
I. Distribute warrants to UN governments, based on probable cause;
II. Oversee the correct use of these warrants;
III. Execute Section 6 of this resolution, if necessary.

5. STATES that, if any UN nation claims receiving a warrant would be too time consuming, said nation may be exempt from Section 2, provided that said nation applies for a warrant through a UNPAC-certified judge within twenty-four (24) hours of implementing a privacy impeding device,

6. FURTHER STATES that, if a nation attempts to use Section 5, but has their application for a warrant denied, UNPAC will notify the individual or organization that their privacy has been impeded, and UNPAC will also revoke said nation’s ability to use Section 5 of this resolution for a period of three (3) months.

Compadria will be voting enthusiastically for this repeal, viewing its proposed replacement as infinitely superior and an excellent means for true and comprehensive privacy rights to be enacted throughout the U.N.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

For reference
Resolution #10: Stop Privacy Intrusion:
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong

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.

Implemented: Tue Apr 22 2003

Thanks Forgottenlands, I forgot to add that to the first post.

*adds*

The Empire of Forgottenlands cannot lend its support to this proposed repeal as we cannot endorse the clause claiming it severely hampers police in investigations. While the clause draws a WTF when coupled with the other elements of the proposal (its optional yet hampers investigation capabilities), the mere fact it is stated cannot be supported by this government. The right of the innocent person is held above the need to find the guilty.

That said, we are eager to see the repeal come up for editing and possibly passing. We are hesitant about it in its current form but feel that after a period of editing, it is likely to be a workable proposal. Should this proposal be defeated, we do encourage reveal and repeal to attempt again with more consideration for the rights of the individual in mind.

Forgottenlands,

As that does no opperation, its statement, regardless of your possition on it, should not impact your decision. The only phrase which actually DOES something is this: 'REPEALS Resolution #10 "Stop Privacy Intrusion."', which obviously you have no problem with.

Forgottenlands,

As that does no opperation, its statement, regardless of your possition on it, should not impact your decision. The only phrase which actually DOES something is this: 'REPEALS Resolution #10 "Stop Privacy Intrusion."', which obviously you have no problem with.
So you're saying your arguments, and those of any repeal, are totally irrelevant.

And you started a forum for the purpose of drafting repeals? Wow.

Lol, very true Dankism. That's what I don't quite get with some people. I've said before that the reasoning behind a repeal doesn't actually matter as long as you agree that the resolution should be repealed. So vote for my repeal! Please:)

I see what you mean Gruenberg, but as long as the arguments make sense (which they do), it doesn't quite matter how they are worded or how many arguments there are. The arguments are only there to persuade people to vote for the repeal. If someone already agrees that it should be repealed, it shouldn't matter.

The purpose of the unoperative clauses is to provide reasoning for why one should be in favor of the repeal. If, then, a nation agrees with the repeal but doesn't like one of the points laid out, why is it wrong to say 'vote for this, even though you don't like that one reason, the others are true.'

If someone came to you and said, "Slavery is wrong because it harms a peron's freedoms and, oh yeah, it hurts my barn animals," wouldn't you still say slavery is wrong because of his first point, even if you don't care about his barn animals?

The purpose of the unoperative clauses is to provide reasoning for why one should be in favor of the repeal. If, then, a nation agrees with the repeal but doesn't like one of the points laid out, why is it wrong to say 'vote for this, even though you don't like that one reason, the others are true.'
That's not what you said, though.
As that does no opperation, its statement, regardless of your possition on it, should not impact your decision.
You are telling him your argument "should not impact [his] decision". Of course it fucking should - that's what it's there for.

A repeal is an argument against a resolution. By voting for it, you are supporting that argument, and I will not demean myself by supporting arguments I, my nation, and our corporate backers disagree with.

If someone came to you and said, "Slavery is wrong because it harms a peron's freedoms and, oh yeah, it hurts my barn animals," wouldn't you still say slavery is wrong because of his first point, even if you don't care about his barn animals?
Slavery isn't wrong. There is nothing in the Holy Texts condemning it. ;)

The arguments are only there to persuade people to vote for the repeal. If someone already agrees that it should be repealed, it shouldn't matter. I see that you haven't argued against what I said Gruenberg.:rolleyes:

although I think slavery is inhuman, slavery is decided by the nation whether it will be done or not...so nations are free to do slavery

While the operative clauses are all that applies to a nation's laws, each argument given for each repeal and resolution brings a sentiment that, when passed, is understood as agreed upon by the UN membership. I don't know how many times someone has tried to suggest that the fact that UNR #49 states that nations have sovereignty as being proof my claims that they aren't sovereign from the UN is crap. People use passed sentiments regardless of their actual effect upon national law to argue that such a belief is supported by the majority of UN members. We cannot endorse a proposal or repeal that expresses any sentiments we disagree with. We can support a proposal or repeal that includes sentiments we're neutral on so long as there is ample other reasons to support it. We have decided the sentiments expressed in this repeal are against our beliefs. Forgottenlands has always held the belief that a single bad sentiment in any proposal, no matter how good or important, is unsupportable. We have voted consistently against or abstained on any proposal or repeal that even implies national sovereignty as an argument. We find it insulting that one would suggest our method is invalid because one feels his idea is too important to turn away.

We remind the representative from Dankism that he has every right to suggest his concept is better, but that the use of the term should is not a suggestion but rather telling us how to make our decisions when casting our vote. We will not tolerate such arrogance.

I do not know what decision to make, whether to agree or disagree because I do believe people have a right to have their own privacy, but furthermore it is a common mistake in the wording and I think therefore should not be repealed because of it. Although proposals are asked to look like a real proper document.

Forgottenlands, where has my proposal implied a natsov argument?

I will now explain every clause in my repeal:

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

A fluffy goes a long way

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,

True 'we propose that legislation is passed by each UN member...

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

True, if someone hasn't realised that the resolution is very ineffectual and they try to do what the resolution says, they are not allowed to intrude on people's privacy unless they have serious evidence of a planned or committed crime. So they have serious evidence, but they still can't act until the judiciary passes their evidence. This may take too long, by which time the crime has taken place and someone is dead or the king's jewels have been taken or three dwarves have been dwarfnapped. Yes, it hampers nation's abilities to catch criminals

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

True, a big loophole meaning that it doesn't enforce anything. If they hadn't already seen the first loophole that passing the legislation is only a suggestion, they can define phone tapping as tapping on a phone and can define mail as armour made of rings, chains or plates meaning that they can still intercept phone conversations and open up envelopes sent.

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

(committed? so the crime has already been committed and they're not allowed to intrude on people's privacy!. Wow) Anyway, apart from that big error, they haven't defined other types of communication or what serious means. What constitutes serious evidence? 'A tip from your 3 year old child or a known murderer swearing an oath that he will kill your wife

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

If people take this proposal seriously ignoring the loopholes, it does go too far in that it hampers a nation's chances of catching criminals. Anyway, you can see the replacement now thanks to Dankism

REPEALS Resolution #10 "Stop Privacy Intrusion."

If you agree with this statement, vote FOR

I am not saying your proposal has a NatSov argument. Just indicating that sentiments expressed in proposals that counter my beliefs have long held my opposition.

We have mixed emotions about this matter.

For one, we disagree, at varying extents, with Dankism's replacement proposal and would not approve of such a replacment if proposed. We would also be the first to admit that this is not the best repeal ever submitted, though we wholeheartedly thank R&R member Adolf Barham for bringing attention to the forum in the form of a co-authorship.

It is true that the only clause that enforces anything in a repeal is the very motion of repealing a resolution, however I have wittnessed time and time again when repeals are posted here that a member "agrees to repeal, just not with this repeal", and I agree with it. Many active members here in the UN would agree, at varying extents, to repeal most every resolution, based on loopholes, possibly better replacements, etc. The job of the repealer is to find the reasoning for repealing--the first R of Reveal and Repeal. We would not need the argument section of the repeal function unless the reasoning for repeal factored into decisions of whether to repeal a resolution with a certain repeal.

That being said, I agree with the reasoning for repealing in this proposal and agree that SPI needs to be repealed. I admit that the writing could be more mature, though we will be voting for this repeal.

although I think slavery is inhuman, slavery is decided by the nation whether it will be done or not...so nations are free to do slaveryNot if they are in the UN they can't...

The right to own someone else isn't, necessarily, made illegal by the UN.

The right to force them to do work because you own them.....those lines are a bit more blurry.

The right to sell slaves is revoked.

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,



My problem is in the first CONSIDERING you state "does not enforce anything" then in the NOTING you say it "severely hampers". Since it enforces nothing then explain how it can severely hamper anything. As if a nation has laws on the books that enforce collection of information and this enforces nothing to stop them from doing this then nothing is severely hampered by it.

As for the proposed replacement. We feel that having to go outside our own legal system to get warrants to collect information will cause problems and allow criminals to get away with certain crimes thus costing the lives of our citizens.. and damage to their property and we believe we must protect them first above all else and they understand that and have voted on our laws dealing with this subject thus would prefer to see the UN deal with international criminals that we end up dealing with on a local level since the UN can't on the international level due to such proposals as the one suggested that protect criminals and give them more rights than honest citizens..

My problem is in the first CONSIDERING you state "does not enforce anything" then in the NOTING you say it "severely hampers". Since it enforces nothing then explain how it can severely hamper anything. As if a nation has laws on the books that enforce collection of information and this enforces nothing to stop them from doing this then nothing is severely hampered by it.

I know that that seemed quite strange, but what it means is:

Some nation could have worked out the loophole and ignored it altogether. However, nations who haven't seen the loophole would have had their ability hampered to catch criminals as I explained in my previous post.

The ruling as it is in Breel is like this:

1. The right of privacy is NOT to be intruded, unless absolute PROOF of criminal intent is given to the Supreme Court.

2. The Supreme Court, and ONLY the Supreme Court can give permission to surveilance of people, no matter what.

3. If the police, military or intelligence agency is discovered surveiling people without permission from the Supreme Court, the officer in charge of the surveilance will loose his/her job.

4. If ANY newspaper/magazine/photographer is discovered survying people (like a paparazzi) the media in issue will be stopped and it's assets confiscated. Any paparazzi found in Breel will be expelled from Breel, no matter his/her nationality.

Breel values its citizens privacy, and want the intelligence agencies under govermental control. Also, we do NOT want an American/Sovjet situation, where the intelligence agencies control the population.

The ruling as it is in Breel is like this:

1. The right of privacy is NOT to be intruded, unless absolute PROOF of criminal intent is given to the Supreme Court.

Admirable, but is this really praticable on a national scale? There must be several thousand cases a year of that variety, don't the justices get tired?

2. The Supreme Court, and ONLY the Supreme Court can give permission to surveilance of people, no matter what.

Ditto above point.

3. If the police, military or intelligence agency is discovered surveiling people without permission from the Supreme Court, the officer in charge of the surveilance will loose his/her job.

Fair enough.

4. If ANY newspaper/magazine/photographer is discovered survying people (like a paparazzi) the media in issue will be stopped and it's assets confiscated. Any paparazzi found in Breel will be expelled from Breel, no matter his/her nationality.

How alarmingly anti-press and freedom of speech. Are you saying no reporters are allowed in your nation? And confiscated to whom?

Breel values its citizens privacy, and want the intelligence agencies under govermental control. Also, we do NOT want an American/Sovjet situation, where the intelligence agencies control the population.

So is it For or Against?

I urge For, the resolution being repealed is weak and ineffective and the cause of privacy would be greatly served by a more comprehensive and watertight replacement.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I urge For, the resolution being repealed is weak and ineffective and the cause of privacy would be greatly served by a more comprehensive and watertight replacement.
Why should "privacy" be worth trumpetting as a cause? What about security? Is that not something worth considering?

The Empire of Sithya reserves the right to ensure that public safety and political stability is maintained. If this requires the intrusion of privacy, so be it.

We are not interested in being lectured by the so-called "free" nations on this matter - we know of many democracies which spy on their citizenry for the purposes of counter-terrorism. We are at least open and honest about this necessity, rather than hiding this fact from our citizens.

We are thus in favour of repealing the act to stop privacy intrusion...it is an unrealistic, unnecessary and unenforceable measure.

Lol, very true Dankism. That's what I don't quite get with some people. I've said before that the reasoning behind a repeal doesn't actually matter as long as you agree that the resolution should be repealed. So vote for my repeal! Please:)
OOC: And therein lies the difference. I do not believe that this resolution should be repealed. It is simple and to the point. And no, I'm not that fond of the proposed replacement. (Aside from the fact that I've never been fond of 'repeal and replace' as an ethos. Far too risky).

IC: Her Holiness Aristhia sees no reason to remove Stop Privacy Intrusion from the books of the UN. She has directed me to vote AGAINST this repeal attempt.

Johannes,
UN Representative for Her Holiness Aristhia

Atheistus is a small nation, new to the UN, but we feel we must speak out against the repeal of resolution #10. The privacy of our citizens is of the upmost importance, and we feel this should be an important cornerstone of the United Nations as well.

The resolution gives vague promises that a replacement bill will be forthcoming. But how long will that take? And, in the meantime, what will member states be doing to take advantage? No, my friends, this is dangerous territory.

Finally, I must question the true intent of this resolution. I think the following sentence is very telling: Resolution #10, "Stop Privacy Intrusion," severely hampers the ability of governments in the NSUN to catch criminals. I would hate to see Resolution #10 repealed by nations who will abuse their privileges and start spying on their political enemies. Furthermore, I must add that Atheistus does not spy on our private citizens...and remarkably, our nation has crime well under control.

Join with us, fellow nations, and vote AGAINST the resolution.

Why should "privacy" be worth trumpetting as a cause? What about security? Is that not something worth considering?

Security for whom?

The individual? A well structured society will have security for the individual without needing to infringe upon his privacy with a lack of actual evidence.

The government? No, the government's security is not something worth considering.

Lol, very true Dankism. That's what I don't quite get with some people. I've said before that the reasoning behind a repeal doesn't actually matter as long as you agree that the resolution should be repealed. So vote for my repeal! Please:)

I see what you mean Gruenberg, but as long as the arguments make sense (which they do), it doesn't quite matter how they are worded or how many arguments there are. The arguments are only there to persuade people to vote for the repeal. If someone already agrees that it should be repealed, it shouldn't matter.

I think I would disagree with your assertion that your arguments make sense. I would rather call them excessive nit picking. The real reason for your repeal is so that you can put in a replacement resolution which in effect does the exact same thing, only worse, by establishing a committee and a UN judical system who will lord over national sovergenty by telling nations what they can and cannot do.

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you are going to have to come up with a better excuse than "It doesn't screw my nation as it's supposed to" in order to get me to agree that it needs to be repealed. (A process which ironically screws my nation ... darn literal UN Gnomes.) As long as resolution #10 remains in place the posibility of a UN court telling my nation's courts what they can and cannot consider as legal evidence will not be made into UN law.

Therefore I vote NO and will encourage others to do likewise.

Actually, I see nothing wrong in the original resolution. Fine, it's vague. The replacement is more vague ("based on probable cause" is the only justification for a warrant). And the arguments don't make sense. To add to the problem, passing this resolution would enshrine "BELIEVING that an improved replacement that doesn't go too far in protecting people's privacy, should be made," into UN law, something that Ceorana does not wish to happen. As such, Ceorana urges all members to vote no on this resolution. (Our actual vote will depend on our region's, which is looking like it might go towards the against side as well.)

The government? No, the government's security is not something worth considering.Oh, and what about the security of the nation? :rolleyes:

(Our actual vote will depend on our region's, which is looking like it might go towards the against side as well.)Congrats on your election as delegate, Ceo. May your inbox ever overflow with spam. [Cackles evilly.]

Security for whom?

The individual? A well structured society will have security for the individual without needing to infringe upon his privacy with a lack of actual evidence.
Yes, individual security. Terrorists have a habit of killing individuals; at least in Gruenberg, we care enough about our citizens to wish to stop this from happening, where possible.

Oh, and what about the security of the nation? :rolleyes:

Yes, because the security of the nation is not seperated from the coupling of the security of the individual and security of the government considerations.

Yes, individual security. Terrorists have a habit of killing individuals; at least in Gruenberg, we care enough about our citizens to wish to stop this from happening, where possible.

And Police Forces have a tendancy to become overzealous and rather an alternate group of terrorists without judicial oversight.

Not that you exactly have a judiciary that is exactly seperated from your executive.

What is everyone else voteing. i not sure is this good or bad this new UN pole.

And Police Forces have a tendancy to become overzealous and rather an alternate group of terrorists without judicial oversight.
I do not understand what this sentence means. Could you rephrase, please?

Not that you exactly have a judiciary that is exactly seperated from your executive.
Separation of powers is irrelevant to this discussion. You should be thankful the Sultan is so gracious as to devote sufficient time and energy to the running of our nation that he oversees both judicial and executive powers. Some lazier leaders could do well to take from his example.

Separation of powers is irrelevant to this discussion. You should be thankful the Sultan is so gracious as to devote sufficient time and energy to the running of our nation that he oversees both judicial and executive powers. Some lazier leaders could do well to take from his example.

I was merely acknowledging that your system is different enough to render this resolution as ineffective. Your sultan's decision to centralize power into a single person and create a one-world system within your nation I certainly find a bit humorous. Whether it is a commendable decision or not is questionable and certainly depends on one's values - especially the areas of corruption, dictatorship, and justice - but I certainly don't disagree that the level of work required to do such a job well is certainly commendable. Whether he does the job well or put in enough effort, I cannot ascertain.

Yes, because the security of the nation is not seperated from the coupling of the security of the individual and security of the government considerations.Huh?

Slavery isn't wrong. There is nothing in the Holy Texts condemning it. ;)

One of the most sensible things I've heard all day.

National Security is the security of both the government and the individual - it makes no distinction between them and acts as an umbrella for both terms. Perhaps the only exception is that individual security often relates to both internal and external threats while national security only worries about the external threats to the individual (though both for government security).

Voting AGAINST.

The idea of my nation being compelled to appeal to a UN Judiciary Commission in order to serve a search warrant makes my sphincter tighten.

Yes, individual security. Terrorists have a habit of killing individuals; at least in Gruenberg, we care enough about our citizens to wish to stop this from happening, where possible.

And we'll be addressing that (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=482245) soon enough, I hope.

And even though kenny (and Gruen, probably) will be pissed, here's my proposed replacement:

UN Privacy Protection Statute

RECOGNIZING Resolution #(139?), Repeal “Stop Privacy Intrusion,” and its call for a replacement,

Okay so far...

UNDERSTANDING that individuals have a fundamental right to privacy,

Debateable whether that's actually "fundamental", especially considering cultural variation...

NOTING, therefore, that the United Nations must respect this right,

If it is "fundamental" then "yes" ... but that doesn't necessarily mean that the UN has any business forcing the separate nations to respect it too...

BELIEVING that the United Nations must prohibit governmental privacy intrusions, unless doing so would harm the public good,

That depends on what conclusion one draws from the previous lines, and also on one's views concerning national sovereignty... although of course, at least at this stage, you're still leaving "the public good" for the national governments to define...

1. DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution, the following:
a. “privacy” as the fundamental right of a nation’s citizens and organizations to be secure in their communications and possessions;

So this resolution guarantees property rights too?

b. “privacy impeding devices” as any type of wiretap, governmental seizure of property, or interception of communications used to arrest criminals;

So confiscating weapons from somebody who's used them in the commission of crimes would be a "privacy impeding device"?

c. “warrant” as a document which, if attained, allows a government or governmental organization to use a privacy impeding device on an individual or organization within their own nation,

No problem, given that your definition is only "for the purposes of this resolution".

2. ABOLISHES the use of privacy impeding devices by any UN government without a warrant,

Wouldn't it normally be government agencies (or even agencies of local goverments, rather than of the national ones), rather than the governments themselves, that used these devices? Maybe you should say something like "FORBIDS any UN government to authorise the use of privacy impeding devices, within its territories, without a warrant" instead?

3. ESTABLISHES the United Nations Privacy Activism Committee (UNPAC), which will create a definition of "probable cause," based on the input of every willing UN nation,

As I've said before, I doubt the feasibility of creating a definition by that method, no matter what the resolution says. What sort of time-limit for UNPAC getting the definition created were you thinking of? The government of St Edmund would not even consider approving any proposal along these lines unless its definition of "probable cause" was actually contained within the resolution's own text, rather than left for a UN committee to create afterwards: To use an old expression, "We won't buy a pig in a poke"...
(OOC: and if the definition isn't in the resolution, how are we the players ever supposed to know what it is or how well our nations are complying with it?)

4. AUTHORIZES UNPAC to certify judges in a UN nation based on their knowledge of UNPAC's definition of probable cause, and how to utilize it,

No approval possible without seeing the definition first...

5. AUTHORIZES UNPAC-certified judges to do the following:
I. Distribute warrants to UN governments, based on probable cause;
II. Oversee the correct use of these warrants;
III. Execute Section 6 of this resolution, if necessary.

If one accepts the preceding sections, which we don't, then that would seem unarguable.

5. STATES that, if any UN nation claims receiving a warrant would be too time consuming, said nation may be exempt from Section 2, provided that said nation applies for a warrant through a UNPAC-certified judge within twenty-four (24) hours of implementing a privacy impeding device,

Reasonable, in this context.

6. FURTHER STATES that, if a nation attempts to use Section 5, but has their application for a warrant denied, UNPAC will notify the individual or organization that their privacy has been impeded, and UNPAC will also revoke said nation’s ability to use Section 5 of this resolution for a period of three (3) months.

Gives UNPAC far too much power: Denying one warrant lets it then remove an entire nation's right to use warrants, for a significant length of time?!? With no right of appeal against that decision?
FORGET IT! :mad:

Sorry, not a fundamental right.

This government is here to protect the people that live in the country in which it serves. It is a fundamental thing. As much as security and intrusion re two opposites. Security is null and void if you have something to hide that puts lives at risk. Security is null and void if certain types of characters are misusing the powers given unto them for either a political or social end. Time and time again have newspapers spied on several individuals causing disconcern for that individual and giving no basis of a complaint. I also don't want to see the police intruding on civilians lifestyle to gain a comprimising edge that bears no concern to termination of life, properganda or tarnishment of high ranking figures. If you trusted the police to be able to police themselves then there would be no reason to have higher agencies to police the police. Unfortunately, these senior agencies are in place and so legislation is so supported.

Voted Yes in this respect

Atheistus is a small nation, new to the UN, but we feel we must speak out against the repeal of resolution #10. The privacy of our citizens is of the upmost importance, and we feel this should be an important cornerstone of the United Nations as well.

The resolution gives vague promises that a replacement bill will be forthcoming. But how long will that take? And, in the meantime, what will member states be doing to take advantage? No, my friends, this is dangerous territory.

Finally, I must question the true intent of this resolution. I think the following sentence is very telling: Resolution #10, "Stop Privacy Intrusion," severely hampers the ability of governments in the NSUN to catch criminals. I would hate to see Resolution #10 repealed by nations who will abuse their privileges and start spying on their political enemies. Furthermore, I must add that Atheistus does not spy on our private citizens...and remarkably, our nation has crime well under control.

Join with us, fellow nations, and vote AGAINST the resolution.


I believe that the replacement offered will solve your problems though. No nation would be able to spy on their political enemies because the Un would not give their permission. You say that your nation has a low crime rate - maybe this is because your citizens are all law abiding citizens. Think of the other nations where being unable to intrude on people's privacy to investigate a crime has caused the deaths of innocent people.

A rather large sweaty postman walks unnoticed into the Conference Room, holding a discolored letter with a near-blinding red ribbon rapping it to keep it nice and safe. He walks behind the tables, stopping once to make sure he was going to the correct seat. He finally found the seat after walking like a cross-eyed penguin, and found a seat where a name card sat reading:

Ace Livantis
Dictator
Rogue Nation of Evil Satanic OzMonkeys

He sat the letter down, smiled, and began to walk away, tripping twice over his shoelaces out of utter stupidity.

When the letter was opened, and the following was read quietly and unwillingly:

Dear UN board:
--Greetings from RNoESOM! I could not attend this meeting, sadly, due to many disasters! Unusual things are happening currently, and soon I hope to pass a bill outlawing these acts that SHOULD be crime. But enough of that, to the nub of the issue.
--My Cabinet (yes, dictators have cabinets just like a democracy...mine, anyway) My Cabinet has finally decided that after a long discussion, we will vote against this resolution. I think if the authorities believe an issue is underway, they have every right to barge right in at anytime, whether the householders may be making love, caring for children, on vacation, making meth, or smoking crack. This bill should nat be passed, and in fact, I believe warrants should be outlawed. If you have read thus far, thank you. YOu will hear from me when the next bill is underway, thank you.

Sincerely,

Ace Livantis
Dictator
RNoESOM

Get rid of the horrific colour before I tear my eyes out, please.

ooc: that better, much?

Howsabout not using colour at all, mmmkay?

Why should "privacy" be worth trumpetting as a cause? What about security? Is that not something worth considering?

Straw Man. I'm not arguing against security, rather I'm arguing for a balance between essential rights of privacy within which the individual can operate hopefully under the assumption that the state will not pry unduly or without judicial oversight into his personal affairs.

Indeed, security would be strengthened by strong privacy laws. Individuals would view the state as a partner in maintaining the social order and requiring their co-operation in order to fight crime. Citizens would be motivated to be more vigilant and community minded. Additionally, the absence of a manic reaction-based crime fighting approach (more powers, more police) would lead to tackling of the real causes of crime and thus remedy crime more incrementally, but at the same time permanantly. Attacking poverty, want, deprivation, lack of education, unemployment and social disillusionment will do more to remedy the evils of the world than truncheons and wire-taps, though these do have a place in law-enforcement.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Straw Man.
College boy, eh?

I'm not arguing against security, rather I'm arguing for a balance between essential rights of privacy within which the individual can operate hopefully under the assumption that the state will not pry unduly or without judicial oversight into his personal affairs.
That's an awfully long way of admitting that you're wrong. Yes, you are arguing against security, in that if I claimed privacy intrusion were necessary for security reasons, you would still seek recourse to arguments about individual privacy rights. I am not saying that you are completely negating the concerns of security, but I am pointing out that you clearly argue that privacy ultimately trumps security. And that's a perfectly valid stance to hold (although it is wrong).

So, to ask again: why should privacy trump security? Why is not individual liberty in the form of not being killed by terrorists a right worth protecting more fully than individual liberty in the form of holding private conversations (on state communications lines, even!)?

Citizens would be motivated to be more vigilant and community minded.
No, they wouldn't, if they knew their vigilance would land them in jail for invasion of privacy.

OOC: This strikes me as a really silly argument. Historically, police states like East Germany and Soviet Russia have inculcated this kind of feeling to a much greater degree than less authoritarian nations have.

Additionally, the absence of a manic reaction-based crime fighting approach (more powers, more police) would lead to tackling of the real causes of crime and thus remedy crime more incrementally, but at the same time permanantly. Attacking poverty, want, deprivation, lack of education, unemployment and social disillusionment will do more to remedy the evils of the world than truncheons and wire-taps, though these do have a place in law-enforcement.
Wow, have you got a new speech-writer or something Otterby? Or just get a new Thesaurus for Otterfest or something? Because those are some fancy sentences. All complete bullshit - but then that's why they need to be so fancy, I suppose. Unless you'd care to back your wild, untruthful assertions with anything approaching evidence?

I voted for the repeal of privacy invasion. The law will further allow me to be an ironfist consumerist, and beacuse I dont believe in prisons, ( I kill the ones who break my many laws. ) I want to intrude on more citizens privacy so no one will dare attempt to usurp anyone in power beacuse we will have dirt, and grounds for execution, on anyone who tries.

College boy, eh?

Well it did fit the definition.


That's an awfully long way of admitting that you're wrong. Yes, you are arguing against security, in that if I claimed privacy intrusion were necessary for security reasons, you would still seek recourse to arguments about individual privacy rights. I am not saying that you are completely negating the concerns of security, but I am pointing out that you clearly argue that privacy ultimately trumps security. And that's a perfectly valid stance to hold (although it is wrong).

Your definition of security is one that I find quite bizzarely narrow. You seem to feel that any attempt to limit the ability to pry into the private affairs of citizens is "against security", which is not what I'm arguing at all. No one's arguing against security here, what we're arguing against is intrusion and privacy invasion, which isn't automatically security.

So, to ask again: why should privacy trump security? Why is not individual liberty in the form of not being killed by terrorists a right worth protecting more fully than individual liberty in the form of holding private conversations (on state communications lines, even!)?

Well, there's a nice quote from Jefferson that I'll put forwards:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

EDIT: And here's another one.

Delay is preferable to error.

Your embracing of Hobbes view on the role of the state has led to you taking it to a flawed extreme, because I am not arguing against security, rather I am arguing against privacy infringement that is done arbitrarily, without judicial oversight and without any kind of regulation. Of course, wire-tapping terrorists and those who help them is fine, but there is a proper route to be followed so that the innocent are not the subject of random, needless and intrusive searches. The question is not whether the intrusion is wrong/right per se rather that if it is done then it should be done with maximum safeguards in place so that a proper rational exists, judicial oversight is in place and it is done with respect for the right of a citizen not to have their privacy intruded unless they are suspected of and strong collaborating evidence exists to back up this suspicion, of criminal activity.


No, they wouldn't, if they knew their vigilance would land them in jail for invasion of privacy.

I didn't mean that kind of vigilance, I meant that citizens would be willing to co-operate with the authorities willingly and not view them as authoritarian ogres.

Wow, have you got a new speech-writer or something Otterby? Or just get a new Thesaurus for Otterfest or something? Because those are some fancy sentences. All complete bullshit - but then that's why they need to be so fancy, I suppose. Unless you'd care to back your wild, untruthful assertions with anything approaching evidence?

Coming from a man who's being misrepresenting my argument, accusing me of "complete bullshit" is pretty bloody rich to be honest. Perhaps you should get a new speech-writer, because the present discourse isn't doing the image of Wenaist diplomats any favours.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

IC: Who are Jefferson and Hobbes?

OOC: Seriously, mixing IC and OOC references into an IC post?

Though we certainly agree with the premise that the privacy of all citizens deserves respect, we agree also that the text of the existing Resolution is fairly ambiguous. The Socialist Republic wishes to note its objection to the section of repeal text that states Stop Privacy Intrusion "severely hampers the ability of governments in the NSUN to catch criminals," but because we agree with the effect of the proposal the Alphin casts its vote in favor.

-Triumvirate of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

The proposal in question should be repealed but only to ratify a new proposal with the same intent as the first, because the first "stop privacy intrusion" was flawed and was not able to be upheld in a court of law.

I believe that the replacement offered will solve your problems though. No nation would be able to spy on their political enemies because the Un would not give their permission.And therein lies the problem.

On the one hand, we have a proposed repeal that purports to ensure that the United Nations "doesn't go too far in protecting people's privacy," and on the other, we have a replacement document endorsed by the repeal's sponsors which does exactly that, posing significant problems for the Federal Republic should it ever decide to return to the United Nations.

The Constitution of the Federal Republic endows upon the president certain wartime powers extending beyond the usual reach of legislative oversight. These include the authority to employ surveillance techniques not commonly used for normal peacetime policing operations, allowing law enforcement to identify, target, track, monitor and bring to justice persons who may pose significant national-security threats. These rarely exercised powers are necessary to protect the people of Omigodtheykilledkenny, who by their ratification of our Constitution deemed such war powers as imperative to their nation's security and survival whenever external forces may seek to destroy it.

Enter the United Nations, bearing a predictable hubristic presumption that it should override members' domestic laws where necessary, desiring to supercede our constitution and impose upon our people, in the name of "protecting their privacy," directives they neither endorsed nor ordained. The proposed replacement serves to emasculate our people and their laws by creating UN agents from their federal judges with specific powers to impede federal investigations. The legislation requires that no special domestic security operations should commence without a UN-certified warrant, and in the absence of such authorization empowers UN bureaucrats to compromise the national security of member states. Under these circumstances agents are charged with informing surveillance targets that their "privacy" is at risk, and revoking certain governmental investigatory powers for a three-month interim.

The repeal sponsors do this out of concern for citizens' "privacy," a "right" I humbly remind the members of this honorable assembly does not exist in wartime, where residents of a nation are suspected of plotting against the government and its people with terrible designs to achieve certain political objectives by murdering innocent civilians. The people of the Federal Republic never designated the United Nations as watchdogs over their leaders' nation's security, and they will not stand for UN impediments upon their safety, not even in the interests of "protecting their privacy."

Should the repeal we discuss here pass this body, the alarming proposal I have outlined will be put on a fast-track toward international law. The nimble-minded civil libertarians in this body may not hold their own nation's security in high regard, but rest assured we do (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON), and we will work tirelessly to insure that the rights and freedoms their people enjoy are not all destroyed by acts of sheer negligence by the United Nations.

We oppose the repeal of Resolution #10: Stop Privacy Intrusion.

Sincerely,
Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

The people of Dementropy see this as a non-issue.

While I cannot speak for every nation, most people (with few exceptions) abide by the laws of their respective societies. We do not invade the privacy of the individual unless such actions warrant such a response. As a matter of fact, complete intrusion into the private lives of individuals may only cause a backlash against a stifling monitoring system.

Citizens must, at the very least, have the illusion or strong belief that they are free to live their lives as they so choose, but to keep in mind that with action comes responsibility. There is no need to dole out consequences before the offending act takes place.

But the aforementioned is merely where Dementropy stands on this issue.

Repealing this resolution (#10) does not make any sense in the light of progress. We are not saying that Resolution #10 was progressive from the start, by any means. This is analogous to most intelligent people knowing that the bite of a cobra will kill a person, and drawing up a resolution so that no person willingly wears a hat with a cobra in it.

Governmental privacy intrusion, to the extent that Resolution #10 combats it, does not make it a clearly effective resolution, but rather a document that climbed through the proper procedure to declare common sense - and repealing said Resolution would not only be stating that the U.N. recognizes a country's ability to have no common sense (and allow for it), but also would be a huge waste of resources that could better be used for passing resolutions that can not only progress the nations of our region, but may also lead to an enlightenment of the entire world.

After reading the proposal and the comments offered by my fellow United Nations leaders, I will be voting against. There have been many sound arguments and some excuses, but looking only at the proposal that will be passed and ignoring any future promises that may or may not succeed, the current United Nations proposal only seeks to repeal a passed United Nations proposal without offering a satisfactory replacement to that proposal in the same document. Future documents are a figment of our imaginations. Reading what is put forth before us is not a proposal that I can support.
--Thanks

Against. The original is good enough for us.

I am a blind man in a sign language school. Watch how I abstain.

IC: Who are Jefferson and Hobbes?

OOC: Seriously, mixing IC and OOC references into an IC post?
OOC: I don't see any problem with acknowledging that Jefferson and Hobbes existed in Gruenberg's NS history. There are Christian nations, so presumably Jesus did, and Nazi nations, so presumably Hitler did, and Communist nations, so presumably Marx did.

OOC: I don't see any problem with acknowledging that Jefferson and Hobbes existed in Gruenberg's NS history. There are Christian nations, so presumably Jesus did, and Nazi nations, so presumably Hitler did, and Communist nations, so presumably Marx did.

Agreed. I whip out references and quotes from people all the time. They just happen to be obscure enough to slip under the radar.

Your definition of security is one that I find quite bizzarely narrow. You seem to feel that any attempt to limit the ability to pry into the private affairs of citizens is "against security", which is not what I'm arguing at all. No one's arguing against security here, what we're arguing against is intrusion and privacy invasion, which isn't automatically security.
That's not what I'm saying, though. Weren't you just on at me for misrepresenting your arguments? I don't think any limitation on privacy intrusion is against security; I just feel the limitations in both this resolution and the replacement proposal are against security, because they assume terrorists will be kind enough to drop everything and wait 24 hours before continuing their plans. In our experience, that has not been so.

I don't think you understand, but I'll try repeating again: I came in to you trumpetting privacy as a fairly absolute right, and the quotations from Jefferson - a man with whom I admit I am not familiar - you use below indicate that in the unfortunate event of liberty and security not exactly running hand-in-hand, you would favour the former. I am not taking issue with that; I am asking for explanation of it, because I don't understand why liberty should be more important than not being blown up.

Your embracing of Hobbes view on the role of the state has led to you taking it to a flawed extreme, because I am not arguing against security, rather I am arguing against privacy infringement that is done arbitrarily, without judicial oversight and without any kind of regulation. Of course, wire-tapping terrorists and those who help them is fine, but there is a proper route to be followed so that the innocent are not the subject of random, needless and intrusive searches. The question is not whether the intrusion is wrong/right per se rather that if it is done then it should be done with maximum safeguards in place so that a proper rational exists, judicial oversight is in place and it is done with respect for the right of a citizen not to have their privacy intruded unless they are suspected of and strong collaborating evidence exists to back up this suspicion, of criminal activity.
If a known terrorist is released from jail, it is in our interest, and those of our people, to monitor his conversations. If we obtain evidence of a crime, but evidence that would be inadmissible in court for various reasons, we should anyway monitor all relevant communications so as to stop that crime. The only people with anything to fear are those who are committing crimes anyway.

I didn't mean that kind of vigilance, I meant that citizens would be willing to co-operate with the authorities willingly and not view them as authoritarian ogres.
I disagree, simply because the populace doesn't need know about all this.

Coming from a man who's being misrepresenting my argument, accusing me of "complete bullshit" is pretty bloody rich to be honest. Perhaps you should get a new speech-writer, because the present discourse isn't doing the image of Wenaist diplomats any favours.
Well I'm sorry if you feel I've misrepresented your argument.

But I take it you won't be providing any evidence? In which case (especially in light of how important you obviously consider evidence) maybe you'd care to retract your lies?

6. FURTHER STATES that, if a nation attempts to use Section 5, but has their application for a warrant denied, UNPAC will notify the individual or organization that their privacy has been impeded, and UNPAC will also revoke said nation’s ability to use Section 5 of this resolution for a period of three (3) months.

Kirmania believes that the proposed replacement is more appropriate, with the exception of Section 6. We agree that nations need to be discouraged from abusing Section 5, but believe that there must be a better means. E.g. If there was indeed a major threat to a nations sucurity on the part of a few of its citizens, but the investigators made a mistake in the object of their investigation, an issue in need of urgent attention may be hampered for 3 months to the detriment of the nations security.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to hold those officials responsible for execution of activities covered by Section 5 and 6 more accountable, rather than an entire nation.

Otherwise Kirmania believes the replacement is much better than the current resolution, and being delegate for Glenbrookia will support the repeal subject to the approval of the region.

Security for whom?

The individual? A well structured society will have security for the individual without needing to infringe upon his privacy with a lack of actual evidence.

The government? No, the government's security is not something worth considering.

Here since government would not exist without individuals then how can it be secure if the individuals that create that government are not secure?

Also how do you term a bomb going off as far as invading somebodies privacy? Or a crazy gunman entering a building where a group is holding a private affair and killing a bunch of them. Who has the duty to protect the individual? To me it would be the individual through election of governments that work to do this through laws.. that protect all concerned; and deal with criminals who follow no laws.

I don't think you understand, but I'll try repeating again: I came in to you trumpetting privacy as a fairly absolute right, and the quotations from Jefferson - a man with whom I admit I am not familiar - you use below indicate that in the unfortunate event of liberty and security not exactly running hand-in-hand, you would favour the former. I am not taking issue with that; I am asking for explanation of it, because I don't understand why liberty should be more important than not being blown up.

Surely that's simply a question of belief? What makes a Capitalist nation better than a Socialist one, than a Facist one, than an Anarchy, than a Libertarian, than a Police-State etc. That's the whole point, each NS State as a whole has different beliefs. I'm sure in Gruenberg there's a few libertarian-socialists, but not as a whole. A libertarian will put privacy ahead of security 9/10 of the time. That's just the way it goes.

As a member of the United Nations, I feel it is my duty for the first time since we joined in February to come to these Forums to voice my opinion for the current resolution.

As you will see, we have voted for this resolution, as we believe the current legislation impedes the abilities of our security forces to protect the country. The argument is clear, and we understand it, but there have been questions raised over how far this gives control to those who are planning violent, terrorist, or illegal activities, within our nation.

Fyee can obviously introduce new rules and legislations fictionally, as we have already done so, (identity cards for all, biometric scanning, new schools, new hospitals, a brand new funding scheme for sports, a new olympic style annual competition and designing of a new world class Fyee Motor Sports Academy), but we would like to say that if this particular piece of legislation comes through (as it looks likely to do), then we would like to radically reform it when it comes into force in our country, as we do not believe what is detailed in it is right.

What Fyee believes is that there should be permission granted to the police and the appropriate authorities within Fyee to tap phone calls, track internet meetings, and bug suspects, so we can track them.

I have been Prime Minister of this country for about 8 months now, and I am proud of what we are doing. As a country, and in light of global events in the last twelve months we feel it our duty sometimes to come up with new revised legislation, which defends our country. We do not wish to have this legislation passed in our country, only to have a terrorist group commit mass murder in our country because we were unable to track them and keep aware of what they were doing, because the United Nations passed rules saying we could not tap their phone calls, follow their e-mails, communication, etc.

Clear cut action needs to be taken.

Yours,

The leader of the Free Land of Fyee.

Slavery isn't wrong. There is nothing in the Holy Texts condemning it.
One of the most sensible things I've heard all day.
Absolutely - banning slavery is a desecration of the Blessed Free Market.

Sorry, not a fundamental right.
Rights are what society grants to individuals, so in that regard there is no such thing as a 'fundamental' right. However, is privacy a right that should be granted on a comparable level to, say, security? Yes, I think so.

OOC: Gru - I get uneasy about requests for evidence, as it's very hard to provide it in character. The person demanding evidence effectively scores points for little effort as there is no counter short of using real life examples, in which case the player is compromised, especially if they're RPing a nation that has divergent views from their own.

Does that make sense? 'Cos halfway through I got the distinct impression that my grasp of the English language went walkies.

I don't think you understand, but I'll try repeating again: I came in to you trumpetting privacy as a fairly absolute right, and the quotations from Jefferson - a man with whom I admit I am not familiar - you use below indicate that in the unfortunate event of liberty and security not exactly running hand-in-hand, you would favour the former. I am not taking issue with that; I am asking for explanation of it, because I don't understand why liberty should be more important than not being blown up.

That might be an interesting debate, but it is probably somewhat off topic as a tangent. I would be definitely interested in discussing it in the future, however.

...and the quotations from Jefferson - a man with whom I admit I am not familiar...

OOC: Bloody Brits. :p

We, the people of Kivisto, have whatever liberties are granted to us by The Master, in much the same way that the UN has whatever power the member nations grant it.

As a representative of Kivisto, I would be more fully in support of this repeal were it not for the impending replacement attempt. We have accepted that the law-abiding citizens have naught to fear from being observed by the government, and are comfortable in the knowledge that the level of surveillance maintained by the police throughout Kivisto is one of the major reasons that our crime rate is as low as it is.

We fear that, with the replacement put forward, the UN, through UNPAC, would be delving into areas of micromanagement that should make the average Int/Fed faint. If UNPAC needs to be petitioned for each and every search warrant to be granted to every single member nation, the logistics become mind-boggling, to say the least. We in Kivisto have managed to work around such issues by passing internal legislation to simplify police searches (no need to get into the nitty-gritty right now), but that would hardly ease the work load that UNPAC would be faced with. It's simply impractical.

We, in the Incorporated States of Makibishi, strongly support this repeal... and strongly oppose the suggested replacement.

The United Nations should NOT become the administrator of intranational law; this leads invariably to increased bureaucracy, inefficiency, and corruption. What you propose is a new, international organization that's sole purpose is to be consulted at multiple points during most any investigation of any sort... slowing down the judicial process to the point as which criminals essentially have a guaranteed free escape. This is such an abysmal idea that we would like to go on the record as saying that regardless of the outcome of the vote, we will not be following it's dictates.

OOC: Gru - I get uneasy about requests for evidence, as it's very hard to provide it in character. The person demanding evidence effectively scores points for little effort as there is no counter short of using real life examples, in which case the player is compromised, especially if they're RPing a nation that has divergent views from their own.

Does that make sense? 'Cos halfway through I got the distinct impression that my grasp of the English language went walkies.
OOC: It makes sense. But at the same time, given I'm making the request, I was and am content to settle for:
- RL evidence - the stats just come from a country I've never heard of (Ah-meh-ree-kah?)
- RPed evidence - so long as it's not "I have no crimes committed ever at all ever" wank

What I'm saying is if people say "poverty and ill education are the root causes of crime, and addressing them will solve all crime", and if they are attacking another attempt to fight crime using that line, they should back it up.

Oh, and you do realize the bolded bit applies fairly squarely to, um, me?

I have clearly stated all the loopholes in the original resolution meaning that many nations (the ones who exploit these loopholes) are allowed to and do just intrude on their citizen's privacy whenever they please, however they want, by any means they want. I believe that this is wrong, so it should be repealed and replaced by Dankism's proposal which has no loopholes.

On the other hand, if a nation hasn't seen the loopholes and tries to follow the original resolution, it badly hampers their chances of catching criminals as they have to go through the phases of gaining evidence of a crime by other means and getting it approved by a judiciary. Dankism's replacement solves this problem by allowing a nation to act as soon as they have enough evidence, but to ensure that this privilege isn't abused, they request a warrant within 24 hours of the government acting on their evidence.

This, basically sums up my arguments in a nutshell, so I'd like to know how you can disagree with my arguments stated in this post.

Edit: It's been half an hour and no-one seems to have argued against my arguments, despite most people being online. Does that mean that you agree with them and can't think of anything to say? Hmmmmm. Anyway, please tell me if you agree with my arguments or if you don't, why?

Oh, and you do realize the bolded bit applies fairly squarely to, um, me?
Ha, yeah. The point was intended more generally, but the irony didn't escape me.

Anyone going to answer?

Anyone going to answer?
I'm not, because your arguments are not those presented in the repeal itself, which is the issue at stake. Furthermore, Dankism's replacement sucks, so no way am I voting for this (although we may cast our vote for as a matter of formality once it's clear the repeal will fail).

I'm not, because your arguments are not those presented in the repeal itself, which is the issue at stake. Furthermore, Dankism's replacement sucks, so no way am I voting for this (although we may cast our vote for as a matter of formality once it's clear the repeal will fail).

1. You just did answer.
2. My arguments are the same in the post and the repeal: hampers catching criminals, loopholes.
3. I don't like you casting your vote a certain way, just because something has practically already lost or passed. You should vote on how you really would like to vote.

Because of my point 2, you really should change your mind and vote for unless you can come up with a reason why not.

Anyone else changed their mind yet?

Anyone going to answer?

If you insist.

The original resolution has its flaws, I won't argue that. I'm not entirely against a repeal, either. What I am concerned about, however, is the proposed replacement. As I previously mentioned, that level of micromanagement is simply impractical to a functioning bureaucracy. With the threat of having to petition the UN for every single search warrant, and then waiting for all the red tape and approvals to clear, it will unnecessarily bog down our entire judicial system and we would be forced to oppose.

On another note, you stated your case once. If there are any who wish to reply, they will. They may be looking at other threads. They may have stepped away from the computer without logging out. They may be in the process of composing a proper response. Be patient. They'll get to you. There are others who may not care to respond to you. I'm sure they have their reasons. Pestering the masses for a response while you sit waiting is not the best way to carry on a rational debate.

1. You just did answer.
2. My arguments are the same in the post and the repeal: hampers catching criminals, loopholes.
3. I don't like you casting your vote a certain way, just because something has practically already lost or passed. You should vote on how you really would like to vote.

Because of my point 2, you really should change your mind and vote for unless you can come up with a reason why not.

Anyone else changed their mind yet?


Do you actually expect belittling and antagonizing them will win you their vote?

If you insist.

The original resolution has its flaws, I won't argue that. I'm not entirely against a repeal, either. What I am concerned about, however, is the proposed replacement. As I previously mentioned, that level of micromanagement is simply impractical to a functioning bureaucracy. With the threat of having to petition the UN for every single search warrant, and then waiting for all the red tape and approvals to clear, it will unnecessarily bog down our entire judicial system and we would be forced to oppose.

On another note, you stated your case once. If there are any who wish to reply, they will. They may be looking at other threads. They may have stepped away from the computer without logging out. They may be in the process of composing a proper response. Be patient. They'll get to you. There are others who may not care to respond to you. I'm sure they have their reasons. Pestering the masses for a response while you sit waiting is not the best way to carry on a rational debate.

Okay, sorry about antagonising everyone and being annoying.

Anyway, if it is the replacement that you have a problem with, but you agree with the repeal, then vote for the repeal and then talk to Dankism about changing the replacement. I'm sure he will listen and adjust accordingly.

Anyone going to answer?

Yet you complain about it infringing too much on the powers of police to do their work.

OOC: Bloody Brits. :p

Hey most US Citizens aren't all that familiar with Jefferson either, other than having heard of him and that he was a "founding father." This is perhaps a good thing, perhaps the Jeffersonian ideal is better than the reality of Jefferson, a man who actively supported the chaos of the French revolution and was constantly in debt, so much so that he thought having a revolution every so often so that debt could be forgotten was a good thing.

Yet you complain about it infringing too much on the powers of police to do their work.

I explained that, if a nation has not seen the loopholes, then the police or some law enforcement squad would not be able to intrude on people's privacy - even if they get an urgent call warning about a suspected terrorist - until a judiciary has passed their evidence. How can this be allowed. This must be repealed and replaced (if not by Dankism's proposal, then a revised proposal) but the fact remains that the origianl resolution is useless.

And if people haven't noticed the flaws in many other resolutions, they could find many other preposterous ways of interpretation that result in them doing something stupid.

It reads like you don't know what you're talking about and it was written by two different people who aren't talking to one another and tossed their arguments in the same bin. It contradicts itself without acknowledging the contradiction and explaining it (yes, you have a fully justifyable explaination - but it's not in the text of the repeal). 5 years from now, people won't remember this debate and the arguments you present here. When we have a UN that's consistently worried about quality of the proposals they pass, this proposal fails to make the cut.

I have clearly stated all the loopholes in the original resolution meaning that many nations (the ones who exploit these loopholes) are allowed to and do just intrude on their citizen's privacy whenever they please, however they want, by any means they want. I believe that this is wrong, so it should be repealed and replaced by Dankism's proposal which has no loopholes.

Here are basically some of the arugments I have been using in another forum.

Understanding that Resolution #10 must be seen in the light of pre-resolution formating. The resolution indeed "does something." "Propose" would be a part of the preamble to the resolution and is a "pre-approval" clause. As written at the passage of the resolution all member UN nations were in effect required to pass legislation as specified by the resolution. There is nothing optional about it.

I have serious questions on whether or not it "severely hampers the ability of governments in the NSUN to catch criminals." The most compelling arguments seem to be the part of "face-to-face conversations" but then again those arguments seem to wierd out the definition of "intercepting." There is also a question of the "government" in terms of the goverment's military at times of war. (It's called espionage by the way.) But that's the "enemy" not "criminals" so my point still stands.

And if people haven't noticed the flaws in many other resolutions, they could find many other preposterous ways of interpretation that result in them doing something stupid.

It reads like you don't know what you're talking about and it was written by two different people who aren't talking to one another and tossed their arguments in the same bin. It contradicts itself without acknowledging the contradiction and explaining it (yes, you have a fully justifyable explaination - but it's not in the text of the repeal). 5 years from now, people won't remember this debate and the arguments you present here. When we have a UN that's consistently worried about quality of the proposals they pass, this proposal fails to make the cut.

If I put my explanation in the text of the repeal, would many people here vote for it?

The Theocracy of Drewmm is voting FOR the repeal of Resolution #10.

Our High Priest retains the right to find out information from our citizens in the name of our God, to protect the safety and religion of our country. Any UN move to regulate that right of the High Priest is steping beyond the bounds of UN power. As such, we will oppose any and all replacement resolutions for Resolution #10.

We have also been urged by members of our region to vote FOR this repeal as the delegate from the International Allied States.

--Heter Terar, Priest Delegate to the United Nations

If I put my explanation in the text of the repeal, would many people here vote for it?

If you put that into the text of the repeal and not posted the drafted replacement, I actually think this proposal would've passed. As it is, you read it through and the first words out of your mouth are "Whisky,Tango, Foxtrot?"

When we started discussing the proposal on one off-site forum, my first comment was that that was the very line that I felt would kill the proposal. Personally, I think it was a dumb line to put in in the first place when you've got a libertarian, left-leaning UN which has voted against a Counterterrorism measure and repealed the "Fight the Axis of Evil" resolution. They seem to have this tendancy to put privacy above security.

Our country is concerned with the replacement as well, which is why we will be voting against the repeal when we get around to it.

Our country is concerned with the replacement as well, which is why we will be voting against the repeal when we get around to it.

Just tell Dankism your problems with the replacement and he would most likely change it accordingly. Therefore, if you agree that this should be repealed vote for and try to get the replacement changed.

Procrastnia, we'd like to hear any and all input on our proposed replacement.

Not just Procrastnia. Anyone who is not voting for my repeal because they don't like the replacement, vote for my repeal and have your views heard on how you would like the replacement changed.

Alright, here are my problems with the replacement:

UNDERSTANDING that individuals have a fundamental right to privacy,
No, they don't.
NOTING, therefore, that the United Nations must respect this right,
Given it doesn't exist, I hardly see why.
BELIEVING that the United Nations must prohibit governmental privacy intrusions, unless doing so would harm the public good,
Why? Even if one does believe in a right to privacy, why is a necessarily national concern worthy of UN attention?
2. ABOLISHES the use of privacy impeding devices by any UN government without a warrant,
I wonder if the awkward wording of this would be enough to wank around, but for the moment let's assume not. You are banning:
- all forms of communications monitoring, including simply overhearing a conversation - so no undercover cops for us UN nations
- requisition by military forces in a time of emergency or war
- nationalisation of industry
- recovery of contraband
- eminent domain (nice subtle one that - good job you're not libertarian, or I'd suspect it deliberate)
3. ESTABLISHES the United Nations Privacy Activism Committee (UNPAC), which will create a definition of "probable cause," based on the input of every willing UN nation,
You are saying some fluffed up pile of bureaucratic shit can create one single legal definition to cover the exigencies of 30,000 nations, billions of peoples, millions of legal, moral and cultural traditions, different technological levels, etc., and can do so in any kind of vaguely useful timeframe? Horseshit they can. There's a reason this sort of thing should be delegated to the lowest level possible - so it can actually get done.
4. AUTHORIZES UNPAC to certify judges in a UN nation based on their knowledge of UNPAC's definition of probable cause, and how to utilize it,
This is the one that would oblige us to resign if this pile of shit ever got anywhere within a thousand kilometres of passing. Some UN committee is going to certify our judges? No, sir. We are willing to cede sovereignty to the degree of compliance with international law; we are absolutely fucking not willing to cede our sovereign rights to implement national law, and control of our judiciary is a part of that.
6. FURTHER STATES that, if a nation attempts to use Section 5, but has their application for a warrant denied, UNPAC will notify the individual or organization that their privacy has been impeded, and UNPAC will also revoke said nation’s ability to use Section 5 of this resolution for a period of three (3) months.
Just no.

There's also my own assessment (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10971462&postcount=57) of the replacement, which the repeal sponsors have conveniently ignored.

So basically Gruenberg, are you just against the idea of any resolution stopping privacy Intrusion? Because if so, then you vote for my repeal, unless you can explain to me why the original resolution is good.

So basically Gruenberg, are you just against the idea of any resolution stopping privacy Intrusion? Because if so, then you vote for my repeal, unless you can explain to me why the original resolution is good.

Perhaps because it's so vague and uselesshe doesn't have to do anything but to repeal it leaves the door open which will force him to actually respect the privacy of his citizens

If it would take a resolution to force Gruenberg to respect his citizen's privacy, then that is the whole idea - to stop nations like Gruenberg who abuse the power of intruding on people's privacy.

So basically Gruenberg, are you just against the idea of any resolution stopping privacy Intrusion? Because if so, then you vote for my repeal, unless you can explain to me why the original resolution is good.
No.

1. I don't like some of the arguments in your repeal.
2. I don't want the replacement to have a chance of passing, because I like the UN, and don't want to resign. If this repeal passes, the replacement will go ahead however much I rant and rave about it.
3. All those loopholes, that you yourself were pointing out? The original resolution isn't so good - that's why it's preferable to a replacement that covers the gaps.
4. You just said "you vote for my repeal", which, petty as it is, pretty much rules me out from ever casting my nation's vote for it.

Rich as it coming from me, you seriously need to work on your PR skills.

EDIT: Yeah, this is a puppet, sorry.

If it would take a resolution to force Gruenberg to respect his citizen's privacy, then that is the whole idea - to stop nations like Gruenberg who abuse the power of intruding on people's privacy.
Oh well now I can't fucking wait to vote for the repeal!

Not just Procrastnia. Anyone who is not voting for my repeal because they don't like the replacement, vote for my repeal and have your views heard on how you would like the replacement changed.

No, because the people of Cluichstan are against any replacement.

No, because the people of Cluichstan are against any replacement.

So you're against a replacement, meaning that surely you want a repeal of the original.

If you don't want a repeal because it is so poor and has many loopholes, then you also are exploiting the privilege of being allowed to intrude on people's privacy and we are trying to stop people like you.

If you don't want a repeal because it is so poor and has many loopholes, then you also are exploiting the privilege of being allowed to intrude on people's privacy and we are trying to stop people like you.
Again, I'm baffled as to how you think this'll make him vote for the repeal.

"You're bastards! Vote for the Anti-Bastard Act now, you bastards!"

So you're against a replacement, meaning that surely you want a repeal of the original.

If you don't want a repeal because it is so poor and has many loopholes, then you also are exploiting the privilege of being allowed to intrude on people's privacy and we are trying to stop people like you.So you are of the opinion that sovereign nations take measures to assure the safety and security of their own people only by the United Nations' good graces? Any nations who actually take their people's security seriously will simply resign if your shit proposal passes, as Gruenberg has already indicated it would. So much for your little campaign to protect citizens' "privacy."

So you're against a replacement, meaning that surely you want a repeal of the original.

If you don't want a repeal because it is so poor and has many loopholes, then you also are exploiting the privilege of being allowed to intrude on people's privacy and we are trying to stop people like you.

Talk about jumping to conclusions. Cluichstan has a superb civil rights record (OOC: check for yourself on the NS site, if you don't believe me). We would welcome a repeal, but not with a replacement -- especially not with the putrescent mess that is currently planned as a replacement lurking in the wings. Your attempt at casting aspersions on the Cluichstani government and your unfounded accusations of repression are a disgrace to this austere body.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: Now STFU!

As I've said before, you should vote for the repeal and then campaign against a replacement - I am not going to take a lot of action in the replacement, I just suggested that there should be one, because there should be a resolution properly protecting people's privacy (I am disgusted by Cluichstan's views that there should be no resolution protecting people's privacy).

Anyway, I'm off to bed.

As I've said before, you should vote for the repeal and then campaign against a replacement - I am not going to take a lot of action in the replacement, I just suggested that there should be one, because there should be a resolution properly protecting people's privacy (I am disgusted by Cluichstan's views that there should be no resolution protecting people's privacy).

Anyway, I'm off to bed.
We are campaigning against the replacement: we're blocking its chances of seeing daylight by voting down the repeal. Once a proposal reaches quorum, it's basically impossible to kill - yours being a rare exception. And please, stop telling us how we "should vote". It's arrogant and presumptious. And I should know.

Good night!

As I've said before, you should vote for the repeal and then campaign against a replacement - I am not going to take a lot of action in the replacement, I just suggested that there should be one, because there should be a resolution properly protecting people's privacy (I am disgusted by Cluichstan's views that there should be no resolution protecting people's privacy).

Anyway, I'm off to bed.

And the people of Cluichstan are disgusted by your repeated attempts at micromanaging their lives and their society.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

So you're against a replacement, meaning that surely you want a repeal of the original.

If you don't want a repeal because it is so poor and has many loopholes, then you also are exploiting the privilege of being allowed to intrude on people's privacy and we are trying to stop people like you.

Sheesh, use some bloody logic. Your long term goals conflict with the benefits that your short term goal would give them. Kill the arrogance. Kill the "I know how you should vote better than you do" attitude. All you're doing is making us more interested in putting you on ignore.

Uh, yeah. As much fun as it is to be repeatedly ignored by this repeal's sponsors, the Federal Republic feels it has more important things to do with its time. Like sitting at home and banging its thumb with a hammer. Best of luck. :rolleyes:

If it would take a resolution to force Gruenberg to respect his citizen's privacy, then that is the whole idea - to stop nations like Gruenberg who abuse the power of intruding on people's privacy.

Words fail me, so I will quote Churchill instead.

We will fight them in the streets and fields, on the seas and oceans, on the landing grounds and in the air. We will defend our land, whatever it costs, we will never surrender.

Of course Churchill never imagined having to defend his island from armed and opressive UN resolutions. :p

The old resolution was really really vague. We should repeel it and go with the new one.

Words fail me, so I will quote Churchill instead.



Of course Churchill never imagined having to defend his island from armed and opressive UN resolutions. :p

The United Nations has no army. At best, they can send a strongly worded letter. And if Tzorsland or any other nation still does not comply, presumably they can send another strongly worded letter.

I could never vote for this repeal.:) If this means that some of my citizens have to die to protect the freedoms of public then so be it....:mp5: And anyways, who's job would it be to separate threats that would be carried out from "empty" treats? You can't just lock someone away just because they were quoted as saying they would inflict harm on someone else. Do we want our citizens to be fearful of what they say because the long arm of the law might be watching?

Did anybody else go. WTF? When they saw this?

I have no clue what the hell is happening. And what it is trying to do. It needs to be clearer.

I could never vote for this repeal.:) If this means that some of my citizens have to die to protect the freedoms of public then so be it....:mp5: And anyways, who's job would it be to separate threats that would be carried out from "empty" treats? You can't just lock someone away just because they were quoted as saying they would inflict harm on someone else. Do we want our citizens to be fearful of what they say because the long arm of the law might be watching?

Did you read it? They don't just listen to random phone calls, or they just mentioned they're gona hurt someone. If someone is suspected, then they go to a judge, get a search warrent and only intrude as much as the judge says, and stop after they get enough info. If your citizens are bad enough to fear the government, maybe it's not so bad to scare them, it's making them do good. That's why cops are told to drive around in their cop car even when off duty. It makes the people straighten up. It saves lives. Besides, if they're doing good, they have nothing to worry about =)

I have no clue what is happening. And what it is trying to do. It needs to be clearer.
The old one wasn't clear, so we're repealing it and making a new one.

Did you read it? They don't just listen to random phone calls, or they just mentioned they're gona hurt someone. If someone is suspected, then they go to a judge, get a search warrent and only intrude as much as the judge says, and stop after they get enough info. If your citizens are bad enough to fear the government, maybe it's not so bad to scare them, it's making them do good. That's why cops are told to drive around in their cop car even when off duty. It makes the people straighten up. It saves lives. Besides, if they're doing good, they have nothing to worry about =)

Seriously, what's wrong with that?

Shouldn't be responding after being awake for 22hrs...but as my eyes glazed over I noted someone disputing the term 'fundamental right'.

I think most courts will adopt the positive method of constitution, and say no matter what the executive and/or legislative says, some rights cannot be removed entirely, even at a time of war.

Note to self: insist on overtime pay to the fat controller.

ooc: I'm not sure if that even makes sense, but bird chimes and Big Ben singing 5am make me inclined to think not.

The old resolution was really really vague. We should repeel it and go with the new one.

I'm going to agree with Leidenschaft(even with the spelling mistakes) and the repeal Resolution #10. In my opinion, any law that is that vague will only cause chaos in the end, even if the law seems minor. I might be new to NationStates but I'm not new to understand laws, constitution, and politics and I believe that every nation should vote FOR the repeal of "Stop Privacy Intrusion". Alright, now to go to bed...

I don't have a problem with the current resolution. It gives a general line and allows individual nations to preserve their own national identity and to come up with their own interpretation.

I believe that the ammendments are quite valid and that they convey the necessary refinements to a resolution that is - in principle - a good one. Is it possible to ammend resolution #10 rather than reppeal it?

Not it isn't.
Too hard for the mods to implement.

The United Nations has no army.

In the war against bad resolutions, the United Nations has a powerful army; an army of representatives, thousand strong, each armed with the most powerful weapon ever invented against resolutions, the NAY vote. We are prepared to use our weapons of mass negation upon the assault of enemy resolutions. We will never surrender.

We applaud the sentiments of the authors of this repeal. We will vote for the repeal but give our advanced warning that we will vote aginst the suggested proposal for resolution.

The right of privacy cannot be defined by the UN. It needs to be defined by each country , we believe, by referendum. We have had a referendum and have different notions on privacy to that of yours. We believe that the notion of privacy largely depends on what technology you have in your country and also what the individuals in your country see as the private domain and the public domain. To insist on a First World definition of privacy is elitist and undemocratic. For this reason we cannot and will not support any definition of privacy made by the UN, although of course we will abide by UN resolutions to the degrees that our constitution allows, a consitution democratically voted in by the citizens of our country and that which does not affect the rights of those living outside our borders.

What is democracy? Is it the Queen Bee listening to the needs of her worker bees or the Queen Bee listening to the wasps advice on how to destroy her hive?

This is the right way, the spiritual way.

Son of Zav.

I believe that the ammendments are quite valid and that they convey the necessary refinements to a resolution that is - in principle - a good one. Is it possible to ammend resolution #10 rather than reppeal it?

No, it isn't possible to ammend a resolution. That is why we are suggesting repealing it and then replacing it with Dankism's proposal (once many people agree with it).

No, it isn't possible to ammend a resolution. That is why we are suggesting repealing it and then replacing it with Dankism's proposal (once many people agree with it).
I have so far seen two people agree with it, and at least eight vigorously dissent from it.

I have so far seen two people agree with it, and at least eight vigorously dissent from it.

But clearly those eight are wrong, since they don't agree with AB. :rolleyes:

But clearly those eight are wrong, since they don't agree with AB. :rolleyes:

The horse is dead

You don't need to continue flogging it.

Lets try a new angle - forget the replacement - this forum is about the repeal - I didn't write the replacement - I wrote the repeal - Talk about the repeal. I don't see much wrong with it.

If you can't find a reason why the original resolution is good, then you must be in agreement with the repeal because you want to get rid of the original resolution.

If you don't agree with the arguments in the repeal, tell me what arguments you would like.

If you don't think that there should be a repeal, you are a lost cause because the many problems with the origianl resolution are rather obvious.

The fact that the replacement is waiting to be submitted is entirely relevant.

Arguments for the original resolution:

Rights activists: "It endorses a protection of the privacy of our citizens. The repeal opposes such protections"

Security concerned: "We can still protect our citizens since we don't have to follow the constrictive clauses of this resolution"

NatSovs: "While it tries to, it doesn't infringe upon our nation's sovereignty since we can ignore it. Regardless, any potential repeal fielded by the IntFeds will infringe upon our sovereignty so might as well hold onto this as a blocker"

IntFeds: ....Compardia agreed with you and I put my Rights activism ahead of my IntFedism.

IndSovs: see Rights activists

The fact that the replacement is waiting to be submitted is entirely relevant.

The replacement is not necessarily waiting to be submitted, it is waiting to be improved before submission and after my repeal.

The original resolution can be got around.

I do favour a repeal, but I don't like some of the arguments in this one - pointing to its ineffectiveness, calling for a replacement, the general inconsistencies.

And I do fear the replacement. The representative of Dankism has not answered the criticisms of the proposal; that to me indicates an unwillingness to change or drop it.

So on three counts, Gruenberg votes against.

Arguments for the original resolution:

Rights activists: "It endorses a protection of the privacy of our citizens. The repeal opposes such protections"

Security concerned: "We can still protect our citizens since we don't have to follow the constrictive clauses of this resolution"

NatSovs: "While it tries to, it doesn't infringe upon our nation's sovereignty since we can ignore it. Regardless, any potential repeal fielded by the IntFeds will infringe upon our sovereignty so might as well hold onto this as a blocker"

IntFeds: ....Compardia agreed with you and I put my Rights activism ahead of my IntFedism.

IndSovs: see Rights activists

Rights Activists: Following your arguments for the other types, nations haven't got to follow what the resolution says, so it does not endorse a protection of the privacy of citizens.

Security Concerned: If it is repealed, we can still protect our citizen's and their privacy if the nation wishes, but as you say we haven't got to follow the constrictive clauses, so it means that some nations won't protect their citizens.

NatSovs: This argument can be used against any repeal of an extremely poorly written resolution, so I see it as irrevelant.

IntFeds: Not everyone would put rights activism above intfedism, but I accept your opinion.

IndSovs: Same as Rights Activists.

Rights Activists: Following your arguments for the other types, nations haven't got to follow what the resolution says, so it does not endorse a protection of the privacy of citizens.

Yes, but your repeal offends them by stating that security is more important than the privacy of the citizens and that the resolution is overconstrictive

Security Concerned: If it is repealed, we can still protect our citizen's and their privacy if the nation wishes, but as you say we haven't got to follow the constrictive clauses, so it means that some nations won't protect their citizens.

Yes, but it leaves open the door for a replacement (not necessarily Dankism's) that will successfully close up the very loopholes indicated in this resolution so it's safer under the protection of the contradiction clause.

NatSovs: This argument can be used against any repeal of an extremely poorly written resolution, so I see it as irrevelant.

To your position, yes. However, it is what is pushing them to decide that matters, and that is what they have to remember so that's why they won't vote for it.

IntFeds: Not everyone would put rights activism above intfedism, but I accept your opinion.

Compardia is proof of that. I'm merely indicated that IntFeds have no reason to oppose the repeal on purely the grounds of IntFedism

IndSovs: Same as Rights Activists.

Yep.

If you can't find a reason why the original resolution is good, then you must be in agreement with the repeal because you want to get rid of the original resolution.

No. The reason is simple. A repeal is more than a simple revote. I believe that there is more to a repeal than whether the resolution is not good. To be repealed it must really be bad, horrid even.

Consider this a speedbump on the path of progress. If a resolution is to be passed I need a good reason why the resolution is "good" and why it will be good to pass it. If a resolution is to be repealed I need a good reason why the resolution is "bad" and why it will be good to repeal it.

The original resolution can be got around.

I do favour a repeal, but I don't like some of the arguments in this one - pointing to its ineffectiveness, calling for a replacement, the general inconsistencies.

And I do fear the replacement. The representative of Dankism has not answered the criticisms of the proposal; that to me indicates an unwillingness to change or drop it.

So on three counts, Gruenberg votes against.

Cluichstan opposes on the same grounds.

This is ridiculous. The whole problem lies in the whole wording of THIS bill. Make an ammendment, not a repealing, people.

This is ridiculous. The whole problem lies in the whole wording of THIS bill. Make an ammendment, not a repealing, people.
You can't make amendments.

Ausserland has cast its vote against this resolution. NSUN Resolution #10 is a poorly written, potentially dangerous resolution that should be repealed. But we will not vote for any repeal so carelessly and thoughtlessly composed as this one.

The author took so little care with his work that he makes a statement in one paragraph and then flatly contradicts it in the very next paragraph. Either Resolution #10 "does not enforce anything" or it "severely hampers the ability of governments in the NSUN to catch criminals." Both statements cannot possibly be true.

To add this to the list of NSUN resolutions would be a disgrace to this Assembly.

By order of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Ausserland has cast its vote against this resolution. NSUN Resolution #10 is a poorly written, potentially dangerous resolution that should be repealed. But we will not vote for any repeal so carelessly and thoughtlessly composed as this one.

The author took so little care with his work that he makes a statement in one paragraph and then flatly contradicts it in the very next paragraph. Either Resolution #10 "does not enforce anything" or it "severely hampers the ability of governments in the NSUN to catch criminals." Both statements cannot possibly be true.

To add this to the list of NSUN resolutions would be a disgrace to this Assembly.

By order of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II:


Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Ausserland, have you not read the rest of this thread. The argument you make has been addressed. Very briefly, if a nation sees the loopholes, then the resolution is ineffective, but if a nation tries to follow what the resolution is trying to propose, it hampers their ability to catch criminals badly.

We have read this entire thread carefully. You have certainly addressed this issue, but you've done nothing to counter the plain fact that your resolution flatly contradicts itself. The language of the resolution is there for all to read. Your trying to explain it away won't change that.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

As I've asked before, if I made that clear in the repeal, would you vote for it? Only one person replied last time.

As I've asked before, if I made that clear in the repeal, would you vote for it? Only one person replied last time.
But the thing is, it's a silly argument anyway. Obviously if nations don't correctly interpret resolutions, they're liable to be harmed by them. That's an argument against every resolution, and thus against no resolutions.

Would you support a repeal of "UN Demining Survey", because people might not realize they don't have to mark their minefields?

As I've asked before, if I made that clear in the repeal, would you vote for it? Only one person replied last time.

Listen - if you REMOVED the line from the repeal, I would probably have voted for it.

Listen - if you REMOVED the line from the repeal, I would probably have voted for it.


What line are you referring to?

Did you read it? They don't just listen to random phone calls, or they just mentioned they're gona hurt someone. If someone is suspected, then they go to a judge, get a search warrent and only intrude as much as the judge says, and stop after they get enough info. If your citizens are bad enough to fear the government, maybe it's not so bad to scare them, it's making them do good. That's why cops are told to drive around in their cop car even when off duty. It makes the people straighten up. It saves lives. Besides, if they're doing good, they have nothing to worry about =)


Yea, they wont listen to random phone calls, at least not yet. What if it turns out that my citizens are so bad that they constantly need to be monitored? Then the percentage of people that"have nothing to worry about" as you say will constantly have to censor themselves at all times. Personally, i jsut dont want my people to have to constantly live in fear of figures of authority

What line are you referring to?

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


That one

Yea, they wont listen to random phone calls, at least not yet. What if it turns out that my citizens are so bad that they constantly need to be monitored? Then the percentage of people that"have nothing to worry about" as you say will constantly have to censor themselves at all times. Personally, i jsut dont want my people to have to constantly live in fear of figures of authority
If your country actualy gets as bad as your saying, you've got more problems then having them fear you. (In fact, if your country wasthat bad, they wouldn't fear you, you would be fearing them.)

And who says they even listen to the phone calls? This debate is going on currently in the US. They keep track of were they're calling, or being called from. If one is a terrorist organization (that doesn't just mean the al-khida), then they can stop them. If you stay ontop of things (like making this repeal, *hint*hint* and helping make a replacement) then you won't ever have to worry about the whole counrty turning on you.

The resolution under dispute does not - as far as we can tell - affect the barcodes that are currently being used to stop crime in Noreastern Elbonia. But would would/could a replacement resolution affect the barcodes?

Well what's wrong with letting some have some privacy?

If your country actualy gets as bad as your saying, you've got more problems then having them fear you. (In fact, if your country wasthat bad, they wouldn't fear you, you would be fearing them.)

And who says they even listen to the phone calls? This debate is going on currently in the US. They keep track of were they're calling, or being called from. If one is a terrorist organization (that doesn't just mean the al-khida), then they can stop them. If you stay ontop of things (like making this repeal, *hint*hint* and helping make a replacement) then you won't ever have to worry about the whole counrty turning on you.



That's exactly my point! The privacy intrusion law isn't clearly defined. However i turned the repeal down due to the fact that the replacement resolution didn't clearly define the methods of monitoring that would be used.

That's exactly my point! The privacy intrusion law isn't clearly defined. However i turned the repeal down due to the fact that the replacement resolution didn't clearly define the methods of monitoring that would be used.

Repeals can't pass new legislation.

They can only repeal old legislation

Reason: Repeals can't be repealed.

That's exactly my point! The privacy intrusion law isn't clearly defined. However i turned the repeal down due to the fact that the replacement resolution didn't clearly define the methods of monitoring that would be used.
So repeal it and work on a new one.

Actualy guys, we might get better results if we come up with a good replacement first. Then we won't have a gap.

If the repeal fails we should work on a new one (could probably start now, the repeal is down by over 1k votes), show it to everyone and work for a repeal.

So repeal it and work on a new one.

Actualy guys, we might get better results if we come up with a good replacement first. Then we won't have a gap.

If the repeal fails we should work on a new one (could probably start now, the repeal is down by over 1k votes), show it to everyone and work for a repeal.


Instead of repealing the old legislation, why can't we just edit the existing resolution? It would be more convenient and save time, dont you think?

Instead of repealing the old legislation, why can't we just edit the existing resolution? It would be more convenient and save time, dont you think?

Read the rules. If not, please just run along.

Instead of repealing the old legislation, why can't we just edit the existing resolution? It would be more convenient and save time, dont you think?

Because it's not allowed.

Because they've gone over it many, many, many, many times and the code to make any reasonable system for amendments is too complex to adapt for people who are getting paid in pride points and a creator who is losing money on this venture because he's paying for the cost of Jolt.

Because every system that ever existed had its flaws and not being able to amend old resolutions is one of the flaws our our system.

Instead of repealing the old legislation, why can't we just edit the existing resolution? It would be more convenient and save time, dont you think?

Well, that idea's scrapped.... So did anyone come up with a replacement resolution yet(besides the one at the beginning of this thread)?

Repeals can't pass new legislation.

They can only repeal old legislation

Reason: Repeals can't be repealed.

I meant the replacement resolution....VVVVVVVV



UN Privacy Protection Statute

RECOGNIZING Resolution #(139?), Repeal “Stop Privacy Intrusion,” and its call for a replacement,

UNDERSTANDING that individuals have a fundamental right to privacy,

NOTING, therefore, that the United Nations must respect this right,

BELIEVING that the United Nations must prohibit governmental privacy intrusions, unless doing so would harm the public good,

1. DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution, the following:
a. “privacy” as the fundamental right of a nation’s citizens and organizations to be secure in their communications and possessions;
b. “privacy impeding devices” as any type of wiretap, governmental seizure of property, or interception of communications used to arrest criminals;
c. “warrant” as a document which, if attained, allows a government or governmental organization to use a privacy impeding device on an individual or organization within their own nation,

2. ABOLISHES the use of privacy impeding devices by any UN government without a warrant,

3. ESTABLISHES the United Nations Privacy Activism Committee (UNPAC), which will create a definition of "probable cause," based on the input of every willing UN nation,

4. AUTHORIZES UNPAC to certify judges in a UN nation based on their knowledge of UNPAC's definition of probable cause, and how to utilize it,

5. AUTHORIZES UNPAC-certified judges to do the following:
I. Distribute warrants to UN governments, based on probable cause;
II. Oversee the correct use of these warrants;
III. Execute Section 6 of this resolution, if necessary.

5. STATES that, if any UN nation claims receiving a warrant would be too time consuming, said nation may be exempt from Section 2, provided that said nation applies for a warrant through a UNPAC-certified judge within twenty-four (24) hours of implementing a privacy impeding device,

6. FURTHER STATES that, if a nation attempts to use Section 5, but has their application for a warrant denied, UNPAC will notify the individual or organization that their privacy has been impeded, and UNPAC will also revoke said nation’s ability to use Section 5 of this resolution for a period of three (3) months. .

I meant the replacement resolution....VVVVVVVV

You were none-too-specific. Considering this thread is about the repeal, not the replacement, I assumed you meant the replacement

UN Privacy Protection Statute
*snip*


Make a new thread for drafting that. Thank you.

Actualy guys, we might get better results if we come up with a good replacement first. Then we won't have a gap.Sigh ... because member states won't know what to do unless the UN is there is to babysit them, right?

If the repeal fails we should work on a new one (could probably start now, the repeal is down by over 1k votes), show it to everyone and work for a repeal.As long as you're talking replacement, no.

As long as you're talking replacement, no.

Yeah, I agree. Making another repeal to repalce the repeal that is being voted on now makes no sense:headbang: If it's not repealed, it wasn't repealed for a reason...

..........this would be alot easier if there were two resolutions. The first would, in perfect clarity, define the protections that should be granted as a defense from the "prying eyes" of the gov't. The second would define the powers of the gov't, in perfect clarity, during times where things that would take away some of our freedoms, like wiretapping and computer hacking.

..........this would be alot easier if there were two resolutions. The first would, in perfect clarity, define the protections that should be granted as a defense from the "prying eyes" of the gov't. The second would define the powers of the gov't, in perfect clarity, during times where things that would take away some of our freedoms, like wiretapping and computer hacking.

No, this would be a lot easier if there were no resolution speaking to any of this.

No, this would be a lot easier if there were no resolution speaking to any of this.

This would be a lot easier if there weren't all these NatSovs getting in the way of progressive policy :p

[QUOTE=Omigodtheykilledkenny]Sigh ... because member states won't know what to do unless the UN is there is to babysit them, right?
[QUOTE]
First off, it's very unproffesional to use sarcasm like that, and all it does is make you look bad, and have less smart people listen to you.

Have you ever been to Walt Disneyworld or Disneyland? They're the most organized, proffesional, perfect theme parks in the world. Their staff is soo picky and strict that if you don't look like a happy person, you can't show your face in the park that very much. If you have a strong accent, they don't let you work with customers. The first thing they teach you, is never underestimate the stupidity of a crowd. Sure it's just a theme park, but you try running one.

You need a replacement before you repeal the old resolution. That's how it's done in the real UN, why not here.

First off, it's very unproffesional to use sarcasm like that, and all it does is make you look bad, and have less smart people listen to you.

Welcome to the UN Forums. Home of the perpetual sarcasm.

And yes, I was being absolutely serious.

Have you ever been to Walt Disneyworld or Disneyland? They're the most organized, proffesional, perfect theme parks in the world. Their staff is soo picky and strict that if you don't look like a happy person, you can't show your face in the park that very much. If you have a strong accent, they don't let you work with customers. The first thing they teach you, is never underestimate the stupidity of a crowd. Sure it's just a theme park, but you try running one.

You need a replacement before you repeal the old resolution. That's how it's done in the real UN, why not here.

I believe Kenny was more specifically asking why we should even bother replacing the resolution? Why not just repeal it and leave it outside of the UN's perview.

However, I do have an argument for you - because if you have a replacement ready to go, then they'll start rushing to get their own replacement ready to go and they'll have a full two weeks to get it done. If you are REALLY good and REALLY active and in a period of high activity from the general community, you could probably have your proposal drafted and submitted within 3-5 days with really good quality.

The Abortion Legality Convention is a great example of this. Clinical Abortion Rights, which was seen by the pro-abortion community as the successor to UNR #61, had existed since October or November. When the repeal came up, it was fine tuned and ready for submission within hours of the passing of the repeal. ALC was drafted in half a day and submitted right under the gun of CAR. Why? Because the sovereigntists KNEW that CAR was coming up and they wouldn't stand for it being passed. They had spent too long working on getting UNR #61 repealed. The time difference between there submissions was small and they ended up spending their entire trot through the 10 pages of submissions next to one another including spending a couple weeks in quarom.

That's why you may wish not to have a replacement sitting around. Sovereigntists have singled this resolution out as one they dislike and if you have a replacement sitting around, that'll force their hand to hurry up. If you don't have a replacement sitting around, there are much bigger fish to fry and they don't need to put a blocker in behind every single repealed resolution - especially since they may come up with a good idea to produce something of an International concern out of them in the future (who knows what, but that doesn't mean it can't be found.

So no, it is not always more desirable to have a replacement lieing around.

a creator who is losing money on this venture because he's paying for the cost of Jolt.Everything else was right except this. Part of the reason Max agreed to move to Jolt was because Jolt would be footing the hosting bill. He's no longer losing money on NationStates. Perhaps losing sleep from time to time, but... ya know... sleep is for the weak.

The right to own someone else isn't, necessarily, made illegal by the UN.

The right to force them to do work because you own them.....those lines are a bit more blurry.

The right to sell slaves is revoked.


New Hamilton thinks that you need more friends who's name DOESN'T start with JPG.








OH wait...did I do that on someone who doesn't deserve it? FUCK!




forget it. I suck.

Sigh ... because member states won't know what to do unless the UN is there is to babysit them, right?

First off, it's very unproffesional to use sarcasm like that, and all it does is make you look bad, and have less smart people listen to you.
I see you are new here, so I'll give you some friendly advice. You end a "QUOTE" with a "/QUOTE."

Now I'll get to the meat of the issue. There are no smart people here. Really, it's true. Anyone who is smart knows it only gives a headache to think while reading all these posts, so we for the most part refuse to do so. Besides it isn't worth it; the majority of the UN voters (deligates and representatives) never visit the forums in the first place.

Since the authors have expressed a notion for a replacement the replacement must be considered as a part of the repeal process, because if they had the deligate votes to get the repeal on the queue they probably have the votes to get the replacement on the queue. The notion of write your own replacement is nearly moot, if this passes the replacement will be rammed down the queue faster than you can say "it."

This would be a lot easier if there weren't all these NatSovs getting in the way of progressive policy :p

<Cheers loudly>

I believe Kenny was more specifically asking why we should even bother replacing the resolution? Why not just repeal it and leave it outside of the UN's perview.Actually, what Kenny was saying is that we shouldn't repeal this at all; the useless standing resolution keeps the issue out of the UN's purview well enough on its own. Oh, but he really is annoyed by newbs who insist the UN can't repeal something unless a replacement is rushed right through. "Aughh!!!! We have to replace this right away!!!!!! We can't let these morons think for themselves!!!!!" And so forth.

However, I do have an argument for you - because if you have a replacement ready to go, then they'll start rushing to get their own replacement ready to go and they'll have a full two weeks to get it done. If you are REALLY good and REALLY active and in a period of high activity from the general community, you could probably have your proposal drafted and submitted within 3-5 days with really good quality.

The Abortion Legality Convention is a great example of this. Clinical Abortion Rights, which was seen by the pro-abortion community as the successor to UNR #61, had existed since October or November. When the repeal came up, it was fine tuned and ready for submission within hours of the passing of the repeal. ALC was drafted in half a day and submitted right under the gun of CAR. Why? Because the sovereigntists KNEW that CAR was coming up and they wouldn't stand for it being passed. They had spent too long working on getting UNR #61 repealed. The time difference between there submissions was small and they ended up spending their entire trot through the 10 pages of submissions next to one another including spending a couple weeks in quarom.This is about as ignorant an assessment of sovereigntist policy as you can get. Repealing UNR #61 wasn't some sovereigntist plot to strike out abortion rights, replace it with national rights, and thus achieve our ultimate goal of "getting in the way of progressive policy," as you so elegantly put it. [:p] Truth is, everyone was happy with UNR #61 as it was: the IntFeds and the fluffies liked it, because it said nations should protect abortion rights; the sovereigntists liked it, because it didn't actually do anything; the moderates liked it, because it prevented the UN from bickering over abortion. Then that dimwit Dorksonia came along and railroaded his repeal into queue, throwing a wrench into the works, reopening old rifts over abortion, and doing a pretty fantastic job of pissing everyone off. We only introduced ALC to close the rifts and prevent an endless, discordant abortion war in the UN, with lefties re-introducing abortion-rights legislation only to have righties like Dorksonia come along again and try to repeal it. And sure, we were rushed, but only because CAR supporters were so insistent that the replacement be submitted right away (Waterana said on the UNOG forum that she got up at some ungodly early-morning hour in Australia just so she could submit once the gaval ended the repeal debate). Gruen even said that if he had the time, he would have been only too happy to post his proposal on Jolt and UNOG and try to polish it up before he submitted it. This wasn't some mad rush to protect a repeal we had forced upon the UN; many of us (including me, including Gruen) actually opposed the repeal of Abortion Rights; ALC was only an attempt to replace the "blocker" we already had in place (UNR #61 was about as effective a "blocker" of abortion rights as ALC) with another one, and halt the UN abortion war.

That's why you may wish not to have a replacement sitting around. Sovereigntists have singled this resolution out as one they dislike and if you have a replacement sitting around, that'll force their hand to hurry up. If you don't have a replacement sitting around, there are much bigger fish to fry and they don't need to put a blocker in behind every single repealed resolution - especially since they may come up with a good idea to produce something of an International concern out of them in the future (who knows what, but that doesn't mean it can't be found.So, you shouldn't have a replacement ready because the sovereigntists might see it? That's pretty fucking cynical. What, are we enemies now? Spies? Saboteurs? Terrorists? The Bush Administration?

I also find it amusing that you think we are behind this repeal and we only want to throw another "blocker" into queue. I oppose the repeal, as do many sovereigntists, and I am not aware of a single "blocker" project currently in development on this issue.

I do not consider myself a "National Sovereignist" although I suppose a few people might consider me one. My UN Philosophy comes from my US background, where we have a state level of government, and a federal level of government. There are some things that logically belong to the Federal government, interstate things and things where a uniform standard makes a whole lot of sense to name just two. But there are also things that clearly belong to the states because there is no compelling reason for enforced uniformity.

In the same way, I view UN resolutions and the role of the UN. Is the resolution international in scope? Does the resolution represent a fundamental human right that is clearly obvious to all and needs a clear and common uniform response? On the other hand there are also certain elements the resolution should not do. Does it make assumptions on the nature and structure of national governments? Does it make assumptions on the nature of UN members?

Writing resolutions is not as easy as some people may think. The first rule of writing applies here; write what you know. We have a number of very smart people in this forum. They might not always role play themselves as such but they know the problems of trying to write meaningful resolutions within the restrictions of the character limit of NS UN Resolutions.

I think honesty is always better than deceit. But by giving a replacement resolution along with the repeal resolution you are by effect suggesting that the reason for the repeal is so that the replacement resolution can be implemented. Frankly, if that is you reason, I would prefer you to say so. Trying to work the field both ways by arguing that we don't need the resolution, and by arguing that we need a resolution just exactly like the one being repealed is exceptionally annoying.

I do not like the replacement resolution. I am mildly convinced that the current resolution is poor, but I haven't really been convinced that it needs to be removed. I certanly don't want to remove it only to have a very bitter debate pop up for the "replacement" resolution.

And that's my opinion. But there are also many others. This repeal is being defeated not because of the extreeme sides of black and whie, but because a whole spectrum of gray wasn't convinced of the necessity of it. Mind you a whole lot of them never read the forum, but that's a given and that's the way the game is played - if you don't like it too bad.

I see you are new here, so I'll give you some friendly advice. You end a "QUOTE" with a "/QUOTE."
Typo. I can see you must be new if you've never seen that before. 450 posts is'nt really new, but it's not really experianced. I'm actually an admin on a couple of forums.

But ty for the advice!

Typo. I can see you must be new if you've never seen that before. 450 posts is'nt really new, but it's not really experianced. I'm actually an admin on a couple of forums.

But ty for the advice!And I'm actually a Sith lord and the Queen of Belgium. Weren't you just attacking me for being sarcastic? :p

So, for a redraft of repealing this resolution, what angle does everyone think I should take?

1. The fact that it hampers nation's abilities to catch criminals.
or
2. The fact that people have a right to privacy and this resolution fails to do so because of the many loopholes.
or
3. If a nation tries to do what the resolution states ignoring the loopholes, 1and if they see the loopholes, 2.

I think most people are in favour of 2, but just to make sure, what do you all think?

So, you shouldn't have a replacement ready because the sovereigntists might see it? That's pretty fucking cynical. What, are we enemies now? Spies? Saboteurs? Terrorists? The Bush Administration?

Goes through checklist:

Spies: Maybe.
Saboteurs: Possibly
Terrorists: Nah, just freedom fighters.
The Bush Administration: <Looks worried>

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

And I'm actually a Sith lord and the Queen of Belgium.

That explains a lot of things. I always suspected something between you and the Palantine. And of course the belgium aspect explains the occasional waffle. Perhaps we can have a later conference on the price of Stella Antois? Free trade and all that. ;)