NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations;

Recognizing the intent of UNR#10 “Stop privacy intrusion” in its stated goal;

Noting the failure of the UNR#10 to provide competent oversight over the "Judiciary" when judicial powers are vested in an executive entity;

Worried that UNR#10 does not define “serious evidence” in a manner to distinguish between reasonable suspicion and a burden of proof;

Believing UNR#10, though well-intentioned, fails to adequately protect the communications it outlines;

Hereby repeals UNR#10 “Stop privacy intrusion”.

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

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

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

This is a new thread as the old one was swamped by squabbles over replacements and other nonsense.

Comments appreciated.

We applaud the effort of the honorable representative to repeal this extremely unfortunate resolution. While the intent of the resolution is commendable, it's completely unrealistic. We're not entirely comfortable with the first stated basis for repeal; the second is right on the money. "Serious evidence" is a term unused in any criminal justice system we've ever heard of and open to ridiculously wide interpretation. "Probable cause to believe" would be appropriate. Now let's look at some other problems....

"Personal communication" is undefined. Not as gross an error as the failure to define "serious evidence" perhaps, but a matter of concern.

The prohibition against intercepting face-to-face communications is ludicrous. Let's take a hypothetical. Two men are standing in a public street. Each is screaming that he's going to kill the other one. A law enforcement officer must, under the terms of this resolution, turn a deaf ear to that lest he "intercept" this "personal communication". But surely he or she can get judicial approval for the interception. Meanwhile, a double murder takes place. Can we get more ridiculous? "Reasonable expectation of privacy" should have been considered here. It wasn't.

With "personal communication" undefined and no mention of where the prohibitions of the resolution apply, it effectively prohibits any number of very useful and quite legitimate intelligence collection techniques. A nation's intelligence service could not electronically monitor conversations among the leadership of a nation with which their country is at war, for fear they'd intercept a "personal communication". This could even be taken to apply to interception of enemy communications on the battlefield, which sometimes include "personal" matters.

The resolution is a well-intentioned one. But it's a truly unfortunate example of how complex and difficult subjects cannot be effectively legislated in a one-paragraph resolution.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Pros:
People would be able to live there lives how ever they want to and be able to do things that they would not want the government to know about.
:fluffle:
Con to this
The government not being able to intercept evil actions or plans would possible put many many lives into possible dangers:mp5:

2.
Pro
Less hasle having to keep track of everyone:D

Con
NOT being able to track everyone and if one goes missing the governtment or police force would take longer to find that person or thing!:headbang:

That all i have thought of for now

- IMAK:D

Pros:
People would be able to live there lives how ever they want to and be able to do things that they would not want the government to know about.
:fluffle:
Con to this
The government not being able to intercept evil actions or plans would possible put many many lives into possible dangers:mp5:

2.
Pro
Less hasle having to keep track of everyone:D

Con
NOT being able to track everyone and if one goes missing the governtment or police force would take longer to find that person or thing!:headbang:

That all i have thought of for now

- IMAK:D

Dude. You have some good points, but please stop it with the smilies. That really has no place in the UN forum.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

Recognizing the intent of UNR#10 “Stop privacy intrusion” in its stated goal;It might help if you clarified what exactly you mean by "recognizing the intent," because the language by itself is meaningless. Do you agree with "the intent" of the resolution? Do you think the resolution's failures are a detriment to its "intent"?

Worried that UNR#10 does not define “serious evidence” in a manner to distinguish between reasonable suspicion and a burden of proof;

Believing UNR#10, though well-intentioned, fails to adequately protect the communications it outlines;These are both fair points, but they are rather inconsistent: if the resolution fails to protect privacy in the first place, then why is the question of the definition of "serious evidence" so important? If it doesn't protect privacy, then nations can still infringe upon it, regardless of whether the "serious evidence" qualifier allows it or not. The resolution is either directly harmful to nations or it's not. And if it doesn't actually do anything, which you imply, it can't be the former. Pick one line of argument and stick with it.

Changed to:

The United Nations;

Applauding the intent of UNR#10 "Stop privacy intrusion";

Noting the failure of the UNR#10 to provide competent oversight over the "Judiciary" when judicial powers are vested in an executive entity;

Worried that UNR#10 does not define “serious evidence” in a manner to distinguish between reasonable suspicion and a burden of proof;

Hereby repeals UNR#10 “Stop privacy intrusion”.

Two men are standing in a public street. Each is screaming that he's going to kill the other one. A law enforcement officer must, under the terms of this resolution, turn a deaf ear to that lest he "intercept" this "personal communication". But surely he or she can get judicial approval for the interception. Meanwhile, a double murder takes place. Can we get more ridiculous? "Reasonable expectation of privacy" should have been considered here. It wasn't. If as you say these two men are on/in a public street and others are about then they themselves have opened their communictions to others not law or the others. They were screaming thus clearly had no regards for who heard them... A police officer is by duty suppose to protect the general population and keep the peace. The actions of these to on a public street required actions by the officer to do his duty. To protect the general polulation and keep the peace. As suppose both men had pulled guns and starting shooting at each other with no regard to who they might hit around them. The resolution leaves each nation to decide how far survalences can go and on who.. also on how materials gained can be used.

On the issue of hearing something during a survalence that is not relavent to the matter the survalence is for. If one is monitoring terrorist to learn of where they plan to next strike and hears that this terrorist is taking your daughter to lunch and will not be able to meet with the the other to finalize the plans.... We would simply use the information to track the terrorist and not report who he is seeing unless it is in regards to his terrorism... Should you learn of such actions that your daughter is meeting with suspected terrorist from an agent of this nation on survalence then he would be in prison for disclosing this information as he would have violated a number of laws on the issue... Now if he in line of duty told you this terrorist was going to be at a certain place and you had need to know then no laws would be broken...


Heralotta Hornblower,
Cavirrian Secret Service Second Fiddle,
National Hog Calling Champion 1938

If as you say these two men are on/in a public street and others are about then they themselves have opened their communictions to others not law or the others. They were screaming thus clearly had no regards for who heard them...

With respect, I don't think that matters. The original resolution only says that "all personal communication, including, but not limited to: face-to-face conversations...shall NOT be intercepted by the government, unless there is serious evidence of a planned or committed crime". That's pretty absolute. We don't see where the original resolution "leaves each nation to decide how far survalences can go and on who", as you state. It only gives a blanket ban on using "face-to-face conversations" without judicial approval and an undefined requirement of "serious evidence". That's a ridiculous situation, and is reason enough to expunge the horribly written original resolution from the legislative ledger.

Altanar supports this repeal effort.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Again edited, new clause bolded:

The United Nations;

Applauding the intent of UNR#10 "Stop privacy intrusion";

Noting the failure of the UNR#10 to provide competent oversight over the "Judiciary" when judicial powers are vested in an executive entity;

Concerned that UNR#10 blocks authorities from intercepting public "face-to-face conversations" where there may be malice intent;

Worried that UNR#10 does not define “serious evidence” in a manner to distinguish between reasonable suspicion and a burden of proof;

Hereby repeals UNR#10 “Stop privacy intrusion”.

We would suggest that "malice announced" would better convey the concerns raised, perhaps?

We don't in fact share these concerns, since it seems to us that Ambassador Argaranth is having to make unreasonable definitions of both "interception" and "personal communications" to reach it. While we are not a fan of the Reasonable Nation Theory, it seems to us that many of those building the arguments for this repeal are, and that they should therefore add it to their considerations.

Aki;

I got your back on this. I can assure you that you will have Minilla Island's 100% support. I took the liberty of cleaning up the proposal, if you don't mind.

The United Nations;

Whereas: We respect the intentions of UNR#10 "Stop privacy intrusion";

Whereas: Noting that the failure of the UNR#10 to provide competent oversight over the Judiciary Branches when judicial powers are vested in an executive entity;

Whereas: That we are concerned that UNR#10 blocks the proper authorities from intercepting public "face-to-face conversations" where there may be malicious intentions;

Whereas: We acknowledge that UNR#10 does not define the term “serious evidence” in a manner to distinguish between reasonable suspicion and a burden of proof;

Resolved: That the United Nations repeal UNR#10 “Stop privacy intrusion”.

We don't in fact share these concerns, since it seems to us that Ambassador Argaranth is having to make unreasonable definitions of both "interception" and "personal communications" to reach it.

I agree that the definitions are unreasonable, but the problem I see with the original resolution is that it doesn't give nations the leeway to act reasonably. It's so short and bluntly written that it provides no wiggle room. Hence our concerns.

- J.

Edited again:

The United Nations;

Applauding the intent of UNR#10 "Stop privacy intrusion";

Noting the failure of the UNR#10 to provide competent oversight over the "Judiciary" when judicial powers are vested in an executive entity;

Concerned that UNR#10 blocks authorities from intercepting public "face-to-face conversations" where malice is announced;

Worried that UNR#10 does not define “serious evidence” in a manner to distinguish between reasonable suspicion and a burden of proof;

Hereby repeals UNR#10 “Stop privacy intrusion”.

I agree that the definitions are unreasonable, but the problem I see with the original resolution is that it doesn't give nations the leeway to act reasonably. It's so short and bluntly written that it provides no wiggle room. Hence our concerns.

- J.

I agree. As well as I should.

~Dr. Jules Hodz
Ponders what the "Reasonable Nation Theory" is

If as you say these two men are on/in a public street and others are about then they themselves have opened their communictions to others not law or the others. They were screaming thus clearly had no regards for who heard them... A police officer is by duty suppose to protect the general population and keep the peace. The actions of these to on a public street required actions by the officer to do his duty. To protect the general polulation and keep the peace. As suppose both men had pulled guns and starting shooting at each other with no regard to who they might hit around them. The resolution leaves each nation to decide how far survalences can go and on who.. also on how materials gained can be used.

The first part of the representative's comment is quite correct. The men have given up what is called a "reasonable expectation of privacy". The problem is that the resolution doesn't take this into account. Intercepting the communication is illegal. Let's give the resolution the benefit of the doubt. Let's say that, to be an illegal interception, an affirmative act is required (which the resolution also doesn't bother to say). The officer takes two steps closer to hear the exchange better. Illegal.

On the issue of hearing something during a survalence that is not relavent to the matter the survalence is for. If one is monitoring terrorist to learn of where they plan to next strike and hears that this terrorist is taking your daughter to lunch and will not be able to meet with the the other to finalize the plans.... We would simply use the information to track the terrorist and not report who he is seeing unless it is in regards to his terrorism... Should you learn of such actions that your daughter is meeting with suspected terrorist from an agent of this nation on survalence then he would be in prison for disclosing this information as he would have violated a number of laws on the issue... Now if he in line of duty told you this terrorist was going to be at a certain place and you had need to know then no laws would be broken...

But you've committed an illegal act under this resolution simply by intercepting the conversation. Nothing in the resolution talks about how information gained from an illegal interception can be used. Nothing is in there about whether you have a legitimate need for the information. It simply says it's illegal.

The problem here is that the honorable representative of Cavirra is applying logic and common sense to interpretation of a law completely devoid of both. We have a saying in Ausserland: "The law means what the law says" -- not what it should have said or what would have made sense. That's why we'd very much like to see this dangerous resolution repealed.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

The problem here is that the honorable representative of Cavirra is applying logic and common sense to interpretation of a law completely devoid of both. We have a saying in Ausserland: "The law means what the law says" -- not what it should have said or what would have made sense. That's why we'd very much like to see this dangerous resolution repealed.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

We agree with Ms. Thwerdock and thank Ausserland for their support.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

We have a saying in Ausserland: "The law means what the law says" -- not what it should have said or what would have made sense.I really should either work this in to the official rules or one of the writing guides. It's quite important, and it's one of the yardsticks we using when contemplating the legality of a Proposal, especially ones that live in the gray areas, like Unfree Labor vs. the slavery ban.

Intercepting the communication is illegal. Let's give the resolution the benefit of the doubt. Let's say that, to be an illegal interception, an affirmative act is required (which the resolution also doesn't bother to say). The officer takes two steps closer to hear the exchange better. Illegal. The officer hears shouting in a street, it is by duty his job to check it out. So him taking two or any number of steps closer to see what is going on is not intrusion or violation of any laws or resolution... mearly him doing his duty toward protecting the polulation of this nation or any other. Be it a man yelling or firing a gun law officers must act with proper cause to prevent crimes... when they hear it and feel it is a problem... thus can see if this resolution stops them from their duty it must go....

But you've committed an illegal act under this resolution simply by intercepting the conversation. If a tree falls in the woods do your hear it... did you also hear the wolf howl it fell on.... Point if you are not aware of an act then was the act done.... If I show my IQ in fingers is that communicating with another person or not? Or if I raise my fist is that... starting to move in line that this lacks full interpertation to where it does more harm than good. Simply because communictions is not defined.

The problem here is that the honorable representative of Cavirra is applying logic and common sense to interpretation of a law completely devoid of both. And why should not sane folks apply logic to life... be it to the left or right, black or white, or right or wrong. Here we can't have it just two ways when there are three people involved as each thinks in their own realm..... Thus what is common sense to you may to me be mut, to another a threat, to another weak.... who is sane and using logic in how they see an issue.... apply a law...

We have a saying in Ausserland: "The law means what the law says" -- not what it should have said or what would have made sense. And you can bring in twelve sane folks and have them read that saying and then ask them to explain how it applies to life. Each will have their own idea of what it reads. Which of the twelve are right and which are wrong.?

That's why we'd very much like to see this dangerous resolution repealed.We may not agree on an issues end but I believe that we would agree on the issue... something must be done here.... just everyone has their own idea. All this resolution does for me is require them to act on the issue not tell them how to act. This also is why we are not in UN as many resolutions like this one leave to much open closing nothing or all... one knows not what to do.... ends up with greater problems trying to apply one than just not having it at all. So agree at this time you need to get rid of this...


A note as have stated my nation is not a member of the NSUN but this issue has play on how my nation deals with your nation. As should we obtain information on terrorist in our nation that plan to attack your nation we may find ourselves unable to provide you with that information; not under our laws but your own resolution. The problem of Terrorism runs not only in nations inside the UN but effects all nations of this world and to be able to track and stop them requires survalence measures in place that do that today; not days later; after one has the proper papers signed by some judge had to get off the lake fishing because he was only one able to sign them.

WE also have a saying, "If your hands are not dirty then shake, friend."


Heralotta Hornblower,
Cavirrian Secret Service Second Fiddle,
National Hog Calling Champion 1938

It seems that this repeal is well supported and logical. However, the reasons are varied and will make for a good discussion in the attempt to create a more effective resolution on the privacy issue.
Anyhow, we support the 'clean up' of UN resolutions. Well done.

Frege Gott

I never saw that resolution on the books...
I'm glad you drafted this, Dr. Hodz.

-- Marcus Diegaus

(OOC)
And....um...Would someone explain "Reasonable Nation Theory"? I'm a college senior in Political Science, and I have yet heard anything like "Reasonable Nation Theory." If I were to extrapolate from the phrase, I would venture a guess that it's actually realism. But I could be wrong.

(OOC)
And....um...Would someone explain "Reasonable Nation Theory"? I'm a college senior in Political Science, and I have yet heard anything like "Reasonable Nation Theory." If I were to extrapolate from the phrase, I would venture a guess that it's actually realism. But I could be wrong.

OOC: Probably because the "Reasonable Nation Theory" is a NationStates concept. Basically, the theory is "would a reasonable nation do x?" X is usually an extreme perversion of a proposal in question- like executing children or something similar.

The theory is somewhat important in NS because of the skewed nature of nations. Like psychotic dictatorships, radical communist nations, magical theocracies, and horrendously corrupt oligarchies. If we let these radical aspects sink every possible proposal beause of their abuses, we'd never get anything done. Hence, we don't ask "would a psychotic dictatorship do x" we ask "would a reasonable nation do x?"

The answer is usually no.

(I think we need an NSwiki article about this!)

(I think we need an NSwiki article about this!)We'll need a definition of "reasonable nation" first. I perceive it to be a more-or-less reality-based nation with sensible laws that makes good-faith efforts to comply with UN resolutions. If people wish to discuss this further, we may need a separate thread as well; no sense hijacking Aki's.

If people wish to discuss this further, we may need a separate thread as well; no sense hijacking Aki's.

Yes, please. That fate befell my last draft thread...

Bumpo. I may try and submit this soon.

Please, do submit...lawyers in Tanular are destroying the governments ability to stop criminals under this riddiculous law. We fully support the repeal.