NationStates Jolt Archive

INTERCEPTOR ACT
(Please note that this is just a draft and is subject to change if need be)


A new mircro-surveillance device has recently been invented by RadiumInc. called Interceptor. It is a small device implanted in the skull that allows constant surveillance of the individual at all times, from that individuals own point of view. Basiclly everything the individual sees, the person controlling the Interceptor sees.

It is designed to be implanted in criminals, or suspected criminals so that they can be constantly under the scrutiny of an officer of the law. When they are caught in the act of committing a crime; they will promptly arrested and the Interceptor will be removed.

It is not to be used outside the police forces, and can only be implanted in criminals, or suspected criminals. Any illigitemate use of and Interceptor will result in harsh reprisals and the immediate dismissal of the offending officer.

The government will be under no obligation to inform any member of the suspected criminals family that an Interceptor has been implanted. Any display of personal matters will not be edited from the surveillance review. The government is however under the obligation to remove, or shut down, any Interceptor implanted in an aquitted individual.

RadiumInc. is the only company licensed to produce Interceptors. The production and sale of Interceptors will be monitered by the government. Upon request foreign governments may purchase Interceptors, but all surviellance data will be routed to the Interceptor Monitoring Headquarters in Undbagarten. After the data has been reviewed and it has been determined that no illegal action has been taken with the Interceptors, all data will be released to said foriegn government.


(please add more, or brutally shoot down my proposal if you wish. Ready, begin!)

Looks more like a role play than a piece of international legislation.

Looks more like a role play than a piece of international legislation.

Somehow I knew someone would say that. Anyway, I don't think it is; it is really an attempt to regulate new highly sophisticated surveillance technology. I am not the greatest writer in the world; so it sounding like and RP doesn't surprise me. Add something to make it sound better if you want.

Add? You've got nothing to add to, I'm afraid. It looks like you're trying to legalize (or force) the tracking of criminals. Closest category would probably be International Security. But it's not a good fit there, either.

And, the more I read it, the more it looks like a press release. How would this affect any nation other than your own? What would this actually do? Why would anybody want to route sensitive data through your nation?

Some regulars might be willing to whip this into shape, but you barely have a foundation here.

Add? You've got nothing to add to, I'm afraid. It looks like you're trying to legalize (or force) the tracking of criminals. Closest category would probably be International Security. But it's not a good fit there, either.

And, the more I read it, the more it looks like a press release. How would this affect any nation other than your own? What would this actually do? Why would anybody want to route sensitive data through your nation?

Some regulars might be willing to whip this into shape, but you barely have a foundation here.

Like I said, it is hard if not impossible for me to get my ideas onto paper. But I guess you have a point in that it doesn't really affect any nation but my own. BUT... the devices will be up for sale on the international level, and if they gain enough popularity then they will have to be regulated by international law somehow; hence the pitiful attempt to regulate it.
If you could hand this over to some regulars and have them review it and whip it into shape I would be very grateful.

IF someone sees something major that needs to be changed please post your thoughts please.

How much support do I need for this before it becomes an official topic?

Opinions please, what do I need to change?

I'm not an experienced proposal writer either, but one HUGE flaw I see is your proposal mentions a specific product from a specific company. I can't see ANY nation relying on a solution from a company in a foreign nation (unless their government is getting some major bribes from RadiumInc.).

hehe, no disrespect meant but doesn't this bit of technology resemble the one found on Ghost in the Shell???:D

Anyway I think that a technology this complicated and powerfull needs to be properly controlled else there is a great potential for abuse like espionage, and surveillance on "more radical" groups within a society.

Also, the implantation on criminals or "suspected" criminals part seems a bit too harsh for me. Some nations with more stringent policies on civil liberties may not like that part. Perhaps, you should improve that part of your proposal to set guidelines wheen and where the use of interceptor may be acceptable. (For example, if there is a likelihood that the "suspected" criminal is part of a active terrorist organization).

While We, the People of Seabear70, can see the military and law enforcement uses of such a technology, we would consider using thes devices on criminals as inappropriate, and honestly the first step toward creating a totalitarian state.

Likely their enforced use on civilians would be a violation of human rights in that the video of their actions could and probably should be considered forcing them to testify against themselves.

That being said, we would like to licence this technology for use in our Special Forces, Special Operations, SWAT, and Space Exploration personel.

How much support do I need for this before it becomes an official topic?
It helps to have the support of the moderators who police the UN proposal queue. You don't appear to have that from either Hack or myself. It's not a proposal, it's a press release.
IF someone sees something major that needs to be changed please post your thoughts please.

Honestly, I'd start over and try to find an international solution here. Tying it to your company in your country will simply never fly.

In the future, please don't get your proposal inspiration from Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex (or any other anime for that matter).

If we may suggest, the thing that you need to change is that your proposal needs to do something. At present it merely announces the presence and purpose of a piece of technology, all of which should be preamble to a resolution to require it, ban it, strongly urge others to use or not use it, limit it, or the like.

I hope you don’t mind if I make a few comments. I’m not sure if they’ll help since I’m fundamentally against a lot of what is being suggested in the “draft.” Still, I hope whatever I say will allow you to focus your thoughts on this and if you still want to go forward and draft some legislation will help you anticipate why people might oppose this, and if there is anything you can do about it.

First of all, and it’s been said before, that this is a press release more than legislation, but as a starting point, ok - Lots of problems with it still. For a start, it might be a new piece of technology in Undbagarten, but other member states could have a variety of future-tech or magical equivalents and had them for millennia. Secondly, putting the first issue aside, nations might have an issue with data on their citizens coming through the hands of your nation. For example, would they really want you to know who you should speak to if you are trying to incite rebellion? Could they trust you to to hand data on pro-Undbagarten militia or terrorist groups? Then we have the whole discussion about branding. Putting your nations name into a proposal is forbidden. Finally RadiumInc would probably be a metagaming violation.

So we end up with the argument about if it is acceptable to monitor criminals or suspected criminals without a transparent process. You’ll get a wide range of answers here, ranging from those absolutely against all monitoring, to those who monitor all their citizens already a la 1984 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four). I’m probably closer to opposition. I don’t think suspects should be monitored so tightly.

I’m also concerned how the technology can be misused. I see you’ve made an effort to legislate against it, but I’m not convinced it’s strong enough. Which partially ties into disclosure. For a start, if it is publicly known, then there is accountability, which reduces the risk of misused.

I’m also against the idea of medical procedures against individuals without their consent.

That’s it, I’m done. Thanks for reading.

(For the original draft see http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519756)


Interceptor Act
Draft

Category- International Security
Sub-Category-International Surveillance Regulation



With the onset of new micro-technology, the increasing possibility of being able to successfully monitor criminals or terrorists has gone up. Terrorism claims the lives of thousands of inocent people every year; and rampant crime can destroy an ordered society. That is why I propose the use of a new micro-surveillancing technology called Interceptor. I also believe that the use of micro surveillancing technology should be regulated by the United Nations because as the technology gets more advanced the potential for its misuse increases.

In the interest of national and international security the use of Interceptors on suspected terrorists should be allowed. Once the individual national governments (whoever they may be) have identified a suspected terrorist. The Interceptor will be placed inside the suspects body allowing constant monitoring of the individuals location. This used in combination with standard surveillancing procedures will allow for better tracking of a suspected terrorist. BUT; the government wishing to use the Interceptor on a suspected terrorist must have reasonable cause for the suspicion. Without clear justification of the use of the Interceptor; it may not be used. If the suspect proves to be a direct threat to national or international security; and the suspect is apprhended then the government is under obligation by law to remove the Interceptor since constant surveillance is no longer justified. (The apprhended individual will be in custody, so what would be the point?)

Convicted criminals of major offences will be subject to the use of Interceptors. There is no need for justifiable cause; the suspects profile needs only be reviewed and found to be at risk of commited a serious crime again.

The misuse of this technology such as planting an Interceptor in an individual without reasonable cause, or justification, will carry heavy consequences. The offending government will lose its international right to use Interceptors and will have to rely on standard surveillancing procedures. If the misuse of the technology is traced back to a single individual or a small group of individuals, said person(s) will face major charges and will be brought to trial in an international court.
In the attempt to prevent misuse, all Interceptors in use must be logged in with the United Nations, the log must include the monitored individuals personal information, and the reason why the government felt the need to plant an Interceptor in said individual.

Once again, Seabear70 would oppose the use of this technology on any civilian as a violation of their human rights.

However, we would still like to licence this for military, police, and space exploration.

Still sounds like a bleedin' sales pitch for a single company's product to me.

Once again, Seabear70 would oppose the use of this technology on any civilian as a violation of their human rights.

However, we would still like to licence this for military, police, and space exploration.

If it goes to vote, I will agree with this use of the technology. But I oppose your opposition of the use of the technology on civilians. Would you rather violate the a persons human rights and catch a terrorist, or stubbornly follow the code of human rights; then have a bomb kill thousands of innocent people? Answer me that.


(Does this draft sound better than the old one?)

(Does this draft sound better than the old one?)

Barely, if at all.

However, we would still like to licence this for military, police, and space exploration.


If you would like to help me draft legislation regulating its use in the military, police,and space exploration; you are welcome. God knows I could use the help.

Barely, if at all.

Why, what would you change to make it better?

If it goes to vote, I will agree with this use of the technology. But I oppose your opposition of the use of the technology on civilians. Would you rather violate the a persons human rights and catch a terrorist, or stubbornly follow the code of human rights; then have a bomb kill thousands of innocent people? Answer me that.


(Does this draft sound better than the old one?)


It sounds better, but I am new here.

Now, assuming that the signal could not be jammed, and it could be, you are suggesting the insertion of an unproven technology into a person's body to have them self-incriminate themselves.

Now let's take a look at that for a second...

First of all, who monitors this? I don't know if you have the personel to monitor 16 hours a day of mind numbing reality from the perspective of a suspected terrorist. We certainly do not.

Second of all, where does free speech cross the line into a criminal act? Assuming tht the person was previously conficted of a violent crime, are we to judge the person's sense of humor as well if it tends to be violent?

Third of all, what is to stop a court from deciding we are all potential violent criminals and then having this inserted in us?

Fourth, technology is already available to do do everything you suggest, and while we might consider the use of implantable GPS trackers for such individuals, we believe that watching their every action crosses the line into abuse.

In essence, this technology has far too much room for abuse.

We're not talking about monitoring phone calls or email, we're talking about actually invading their private lives and bodies.

If you would like to help me draft legislation regulating its use in the military, police,and space exploration; you are welcome. God knows I could use the help.



I don't want the regulaton, I just want to licence it for use.

If you want to regulate it, limit it's use to those fields.

It sounds better, but I am new here.

Now, assuming that the signal could not be jammed, and it could be, you are suggesting the insertion of an unproven technology into a person's body to have them self-incriminate themselves.

Now let's take a look at that for a second...

First of all, who monitors this? I don't know if you have the personel to monitor 16 hours a day of mind numbing reality from the perspective of a suspected terrorist. We certainly do not.

Second of all, where does free speech cross the line into a criminal act? Assuming tht the person was previously conficted of a violent crime, are we to judge the person's sense of humor as well if it tends to be violent?

Third of all, what is to stop a court from deciding we are all potential violent criminals and then having this inserted in us?

Fourth, technology is already available to do do everything you suggest, and while we might consider the use of implantable GPS trackers for such individuals, we believe that watching their every action crosses the line into abuse.

In essence, this technology has far too much room for abuse.

We're not talking about monitoring phone calls or email, we're talking about actually invading their private lives and bodies.

The only hard evidence of a criminal intent is to have them incriminate themselves; if at one point it is decided that the suspicion was ill placed then the Interceptor will be removed and our apologies will be given.

First: The people monitoring the suspect will most likely be members of a nations National Security Agency or a small band of police.... maybe even as far as people just hired off the street. It will be the nations governments choice how they review the informations collected from the interceptor.

Second: Even if something said is meant as a joke, the individuals previous history prevents the government from assuming that it was. So if they say something threatning, even a joke, they will be apprehended. If it can be proven that the individual is rehabilitated then the Interceptor will be removed.

Third: They have to have solid justifiable proof that we are all potential threats to national or international security... and I am pretty sure we are not all convicted of violent crimes.

Fourth: Constant surveillance is required to catch potential terrorists or to prevent the onset of another violent crime by a convicted individual. If the terrorist is caught in the act of commiting a deed that threatens national, or international security. The Inteceptor will immediatly provide the location of the individual and they will be arrested.

There really is not much legislation we can pass to prevent misuse of the technology and in all likelyhood it will be misused by someone. But if an indvidual is caught misusing the technology then they will face charges in international court. They will most likely never see the light of day again, and will themselves be subject to the use of Inteceptors.

Sometimes the total invasion of privacy is needed to protect the security of a nation and its people.

I don't want the regulaton, I just want to licence it for use.

If you want to regulate it, limit it's use to those fields.

Okay, but I would still like your help regulating its uses in those fields. If this draft goes to vote and is approved, I will petition to allow the licencing of its uses for the military, and space exploration.

Okay, but I would still like your help regulating its uses in those fields. If this draft goes to vote and is approved, I will petition to allow the licencing of its uses for the military, and space exploration.

Ok, I'll play with it and see what I can do.

Ok, I'll play with it and see what I can do.

Thank you.

Why, what would you change to make it better?

I'd scrap it. That'd make it perfect.

I'd scrap it. That'd make it perfect.

Ouch! Any particular reason why... other than you have read my previous threads from my beginings on NSG and you now hate me.

Ouch! Any particular reason why... other than you have read my previous threads from my beginings on NSG and you now hate me.

Um...my objections are nothing personal.

Um...my objections are nothing personal.

Okay, then tell me why exactly you view my proposal with such disdain.

It's better. You've taken out the obviously illegal sections, and you get brownie points for listening to peoples feedback.

I still oppose this however, and I'm not convinced you'll get the support needed. My reasons have been previously outlined.

Also, run a spell check before submission.

It's better. You've taken out the obviously illegal sections, and you get brownie points for listening to peoples feedback.

I still oppose this however, and I'm not convinced you'll get the support needed. My reasons have been previously outlined.

Also, run a spell check before submission.

Thank you, I looked at some of the submission rules and deleted the illlegal areas. I seriously hope I get the support needed. And I willl run spell check when everything is finalized. For the draft I just wanted to get my point across and didn't worry about my spelling.

Okay, then tell me why exactly you view my proposal with such disdain.

Oh, I dunno, maybe because you're suggesting we plant tracking devices in people? That's simply abhorrent.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The simple answer is: NO.

I suppose I should explain why the simple answer is no. The reason is that you have solved the wrong problem. The problem is in the very assumptions themselves. According to your plan, “Once the individual national governments (whoever they may be) have identified a suspected terrorist. The Interceptor will be placed inside the suspects’ body allowing constant monitoring of the individuals location.”

The first assumption is the national identification of a “suspected terrorist.” How do you identify a terrorist in the first place? Even if you can identify him, if he is merely suspected and not convicted there are a whole lot of nations that have a innocent until proven guilty clause in their laws.

The second assumption is that once you have identified this suspected terrorist you then have to capture him and perform an operation on him, against his will. (I have the feeling that this might make him at the very least anti-government as a result.) Let’s assume that you really know he is a terrorist. You really want to rough him up and throw him back into the street? (Even if you know where he is and that assume that the device is fool proof. Knowing how powerful fools are, I strongly doubt this is the case.) No, if he is a potential threat lock him up and throw away the key. If you want it to be nice, call it the “village.”

This is a solution looking for a problem. Locator devices, house arrests etc have been around for a long time. So has both crime and terrorism. Try again and good luck.

The simple answer is: NO.

I suppose I should explain why the simple answer is no. The reason is that you have solved the wrong problem. The problem is in the very assumptions themselves. According to your plan, “Once the individual national governments (whoever they may be) have identified a suspected terrorist. The Interceptor will be placed inside the suspects’ body allowing constant monitoring of the individuals location.”

The first assumption is the national identification of a “suspected terrorist.” How do you identify a terrorist in the first place? Even if you can identify him, if he is merely suspected and not convicted there are a whole lot of nations that have a innocent until proven guilty clause in their laws.

The second assumption is that once you have identified this suspected terrorist you then have to capture him and perform an operation on him, against his will. (I have the feeling that this might make him at the very least anti-government as a result.) Let’s assume that you really know he is a terrorist. You really want to rough him up and throw him back into the street? (Even if you know where he is and that assume that the device is fool proof. Knowing how powerful fools are, I strongly doubt this is the case.) No, if he is a potential threat lock him up and throw away the key. If you want it to be nice, call it the “village.”

This is a solution looking for a problem. Locator devices, house arrests etc have been around for a long time. So has both crime and terrorism. Try again and good luck.

This may sound racist or wrong to some people, but I support profiling by a series of common characteristics. Commonly most terrorists are radical fundamentalist Muslims. So to identify suspected terrorists, look for those individuals who fit the profile of a terrorist.

You will not have to capture him, since it is a micro-technology he has but to swallow it. Or when the suspect goes in for a check up the Interceptor can be injected into the body; or planted somewhere on the body.

This may sound racist or wrong to some people, but I support profiling by a series of common characteristics. Commonly most terrorists are radical fundamentalist Muslims. So to identify suspected terrorists, look for those individuals who fit the profile of a terrorist.

You will not have to capture him, since it is a micro-technology he has but to swallow it. Or when the suspect goes in for a check up the Interceptor can be injected into the body; or planted somewhere on the body.

So we're supposed to implant these devices in anyone who doesn't meet your criteria for innocence, based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc? Are you out of your fucking gourd?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

So we're supposed to implant these devices in anyone who doesn't meet your criteria for innocence, based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc? Are you out of your fucking gourd?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

That is not what I meant. Let me clarify; experts from around the world should be brought together to put together a profile of a terrorist. If someone comes into the country who fits the profile then have the individual detained and questioned. If nothing is astray let the person go; but keep tabs on the individual. If he shows signs of further suspicios activity; and is in the country for an extended period of time; then plant the Interceptor in the individual.
I apologize for my remark about fundamentalist muslims; I by no means meant that we should use the technology against anyone who was different. I just meant that ,of the last several terrorist attacks and terrorist threats, most have come from a fundamentalist muslim individual, or group.

Altanar would be completely and unalterably opposed to this. The idea of implanting surveillance devices in people is very much abhorrent to us.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

That is not what I meant. Let me clarify; experts from around the world should be brought together to put together a profile of a terrorist. If someone comes into the country who fits the profile then have the individual detained and questioned. If nothing is astray let the person go; but keep tabs on the individual. If he shows signs of further suspicios activity; and is in the country for an extended period of time; then plant the Interceptor in the individual.
I apologize for my remark about fundamentalist muslims; I by no means meant that we should use the technology against anyone who was different. I just meant that ,of the last several terrorist attacks and terrorist threats, most have come from a fundamentalist muslim individual, or group.


Please keep in mind that our last international luncheon was cancled due to our expert chefs being unable to come ot a concencus on what lunch was.

The short answer regarding the muslim thing is that RL=/=NS. Terrorists in the NS universe will come in many shapes, sizes, colours, races, forms, viscousities, transluscences (is that a word?), etc etc etc. I understand the point you are suggesting, though.

You'd probably be better off restricting the use of these things to convicted criminals and consenting individuals. You won't meet such volatile opposition that way. There will still be opposition, but not as much.

For formatting and effect, you'd probably want to use something that looks more like this:

Category: GD?
Strength: Mild


The UN

Aware of the rapidly advancing technologies being developed for surveillance and tracking purposes

Further aware of the microtechnologies available in many nations that can remotely monitor single individuals through implanted or subdermal devices

Understanding the potential usefulness of these devices in combatting crime in many ways

However

Concerned at the potential for misuse and abuse of these systems by governments and their agents,

Wishing to minimize the risks of these abuses through oversight and regulation

Hereby

1) Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, an Individual Monitoring Device (IMD) to be any tracking device which can be implanted into an individual for the purposes of monitoring their actions, conversations, and surroundings

2) Restricts the use of IMD's to individuals who
a)are a convicted criminal for whom a full pardon has not been granted, or
b)consent to the implant, either directly or via legal guardian

3) Declares that, in all uses of IMD's, the individual in whom the IMD has been implanted must be made aware of the implant and its purpose

4) Requires that implants be either deactivated or removed from individuals who no longer meet the criteria in clause 2, and that such action occur with all reasonable haste

5) Suggests that nations closely monitor the production and sale of all such devices


6) Allows nations to further restrict or prohibit the use of IMDs within their borders as they see fit, including, but not limited to, barring the entry of anyone implanted with and IMD

7) Requires that nations utilizing IMDs outside of their own borders adhere to appropriate local legislation regarding IMDs

That's still pretty rough since I slapped it together in about 5 minutes, but it'll be more identifiable to the regulars here as a proposal. I don't guarantee that it'll get any support, even from myself, but I think that it's roughly what you were looking for.

We would like to offer our congratulations to the honoured representative of Undbagarten. He has managed to achieve something that we had believed impossible; he has put together a proposal which has caused us to completely and without reservation agree with the respected Sheik Nadnerb.

We would like to offer our congratulations to the honoured representative of Undbagarten. He has managed to achieve something that we had believed impossible; he has put together a proposal which has caused us to completely and without reservation agree with the respected Sheik Nadnerb.

That is saying a lot, now, isn't it? ;)

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We put computers in people's brains, and we can't support this.

That should be saying something.

Ouch! Any particular reason why... other than you have read my previous threads from my beginings on NSG and you now hate me.

How about, because Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, while a great anime series, is not the best source for proposal ideas.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Threads merged. We don't need a new thread for each draft.

OOC: First, I love Ghost in the Shell, partly because I believe it's precisely where this handbasket is headed. However...

IC: A wolf in a suit from the Commonwealth, upon hearing that there was a resolution dealing with a specific company, arrived at the UN in a flash. Storming in, he said, "The Government of the Commonwealth EXCLUSIVELY uses Commonwealth Electronics tee em for its technology needs! CE will never, EVER support this, and thus the Commonwealth can't!" He looked distracted for a minute, apparently listening to his CE(tm) earphone. He then began relaying what was being said, apparently without thinking about it. "Er... the Alpha has instructed me to inform you that, while being a corporate bas... bastard, I'm correct in that the Commonwealth will never support such a grievous transgression of personal privacy upon the populace. He says that he doesn't mean about the information being gathered, but rather the fact that this would violate people's bodies by invading them against their will." With that, the Suit, now suitably embarrased, rushed from the room.

The UN Cybernetics Convention

Category : Human Rights

Strength : Mild

Recognizing that technology is currently being developed or in production that would augment and/or allow monitoring of human senses not limited to sight, sound, and emotional state.

Further recognizing that technology is currently be developed or in production that would augment human physical characteristics not limited to strength, speed, reflexes, and healing.

Realizing that these technologies can be both a boon and a bane to life as we know it.

Realizing that the successful application of these technologies as weapons is the nature of technological progress in society before they can be applied to such mundane tasks as making the blind see and the crippled walk.

Wishing to avoid the pitfalls and the human rights violations that misuse of these technologies would create.

Hereby

1. Determines that these technologies may not be used on humans without their consent.

2. Restricts the use of these technologies in criminal matters to use as an accelerated parole option.

3. Requires that all nations closely monitor the development, production, sale, and employment of these technologies.

4. Requires that all such technologies be removable, reversible, or deactavatable from the person they are employed in.

5. Recommends that industries or careers that would benefit from this technology (limited to police, rescue workers, military, space exploration, and special operations personnel) be allowed to require the augmentation of personnel.