NationStates Jolt Archive

RECOGNIZES that an individual's right to privacy should be of the utmost concern to every member nation and that privacy rights should not be violated unless it could pose harm to peace, liberty, or life.

APPLAUDS privacy rights activists in their relentless struggle to maintain the level of privacy we all expect.

NOTES that there are flaws in UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #10 that allow government employees to disseminate information at will, "unless there is serious evidence of a planned or committed crime."

ACKNOWLEDGES the fact that a serious crime could be committed prior to evidence of such a crime is collected (example; dissemination of government identification numbers to identity thieves). UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #10 forces member nations to be reactive and not proactive in the protection of its citizens privacy.

SUGGESTS that UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #10 be repealed so that governments can monitor its government employees productivity, communiques being made through government procured sources (to prevent espionage and privacy right violations), and so that each individual member can assess the level of privacy its citizens demand of it.

EMPHASIZES that this repeal would not stop member nations from setting higher standards of privacy regarding communication at their will.

REPEALS resolution #10 "Stop privacy intrusion"

The front seats of the debating hall erupt into a scrum of noise and placard waving as the Grand High Mother in Law of Bahgum and a particularly scary squad of Mothers in law storm in and take up position at the edge of the platform. After a short while the noise subsides and a chant begins....
"Intrusion is a right!, Interference is our way of life!"

Placards bearing the slogans "No to anti Mother in Law proposals!" & "Down with lifestyle discrimination" are hoisted into the air. The sit down protest has begun......

If UN security isn't going to get this riffraff out of here, I can always call in a squad of Cluichstani troopers to deal with them.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

My dear Sheik, only an idiot goes up against a Bahgumian Mother in Law.

Patrick O'Neil
Maintence of Order Department Head
UN Building Management

NOTES that there are flaws in UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #10 that allow government employees to disseminate information at will, "unless there is serious evidence of a planned or committed crime."
We consider that at best this is a serious misrepresentation of the resolution. Resolution #10 does not in any way legalise the dissemination of any information whatsoever. The implication in this clause that government employees may hand out state secrets as they see fit without the government having any legal redress is quite simply untrue, assuming that said government has declared it to be illegal to pass on state secrets without proper clearance.

It may be that the author intends to convey to us that the resolution prevents governments from preventing government employees from passing sensitive information to outsiders. Again, this is not so. Any government in possession of reasonable suspicion that such a crime is about to be committed (or 'evidence' as most people refer to it) is allowed to monitor relevant communications by the resolution. Additionally any government under any circumstances is in a position to prevent such a communication, since the resolution is silent on the subject.

ACKNOWLEDGES the fact that a serious crime could be committed prior to evidence of such a crime is collected (example; dissemination of government identification numbers to identity thieves). UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #10 forces member nations to be reactive and not proactive in the protection of its citizens privacy.
The second sentence is not a consequence of the first by any means. Resolution #10 merely requires that governments not go on fishing expeditions. Repeal of the resolution would make no difference to any version of the example case that we have been able to fashion.

SUGGESTS that UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #10 be repealed so that governments can monitor its government employees productivity, communiques being made through government procured sources (to prevent espionage and privacy right violations), and so that each individual member can assess the level of privacy its citizens demand of it.
Ignoring for now the missing apostrophe, we would suggest that any government which needs to monitor its employees personal communications in order to determine their productivity is utterly incapable of man management. Would it not be better to monitor the amount of work they do, a more traditional measure of productivity?

For the second reason, we find the author's intent unclear. What, precisely, are communiques made through government-procured sources? We have thus far failed to divine the argument that is being made.

For the third reason, we reject that for the same reason that we imagine the resolution was voted into place initially. There are a great many nations who, but for this resolution, would have no intention of providing any level of privacy to their citizens. Most in this chamber are at least honest about their opinions, and we respect that as much as we abhor their preference.

EMPHASIZES that this repeal would not stop member nations from setting higher standards of privacy regarding communication at their will.
As is the case with a great many repeals, this type of clause argues against itself. Those member nations who wish to set higher standards of privacy are not the ones who need this resolution!

All in all, we have to say we are unimpressed.

Sir Albert staggers into the room. "oh eck, ah can only apologise, 'fraid there's nowt ah can do know, ought we do now will only start 'em in a fury of mass knitting and we don't want that. i've only just persuaded Her terribleness to stop knitting a particularly hideous sweater for our honoured delegate from Cluichstan. Close call, close call....."

Sir Albert sits at the back of the room and motions the speakers to perhaps slowly move away from the MILs....very slowly, with any luck they'll have started gossiping and the debate can continue at the other end of the hall.

Sir Albert shakes his head, sighs and tries to block out the screeching chants "Intrusion is a right!, Interference is our way of life!"