NationStates Jolt Archive

WHEREAS surveillance represents an important part of crime reduction techniques.

AND WHEREAS failure in the field of surveillance can cause loss of life.

WE REPEAL UN Resolution #10, Stop privacy intrusion, with immediate effect.

This is my first resolution, I hope its ok.

I am looking for someone to submit it for me as I lack endorsements.

Jawey looked up in annoyance as an intern tapped on his shoulder.
"I told you I wasn't to be disturbed! Can't you see I'm busy?"

"Sorry sir" the nameless intern said, "but we thought you might be interested in this repeal debate."

Jawey signed yet another telegram with a flourish. "Pass it here then."
He took a small scrap of paper off the intern. "Is this it?!!".
The intern nodded. He threw it back at him while signing another telegram with his other hand. "Bring it back when it's longer than 35 words! And bring me the delegate list beginning with B!"

im afraid you're gonna need reason to repeal it, so just mention what's wrong with the act and we can do buisiness...

From the text, the proposer clearly believes that randomly intruding on the personal communications of individuals is the only possible method of surveillance that could conceivably prevent loss of life. To which we can only say "Hell, no!"

I believe that widespread and routine checks on individuals should be legal to ensure the stability of the state.

my proposals for my own nation are (Remembering I'm Orwellian):


Recording of all telephone calls to be searched for "Key words". All calls of "persons of Interest" to be checking in full. Associates of said persons may also be checked
Monitoring of all internet traffic to be processed for "Suspicious Behaviour"
Bugging of public spaces in addition to widespread CCTV usage.
Routine opening of all mail by Security officials.


If you don't get where I'm coming from read 1984. If you still don't agree you'll at least know where I'm coming from

OOC: I read 1984 in about 1980, thank you very much.

IC: The honoured ambassador entitled to his plans, but is yet to offer us a single shred of evidence that the actions he so joyously envisions will actually reduce crime rather than simply drive it (and as far as we can tell most of his citizenry) underground, or in any measurable sense improve the quality of life of his nation. Since resolution #10 is in place precisely to prevent such unacceptable infringements of civil liberties, we can only repeat: hell, no!

you see, we tries the cctv thing, but we caught our monitoring staff jerking off watching people. we were a bit disturbed, so stopped it.

You could always hire better looking monitoring staff?

--
Cerys Coch, permanant undersecretary to the Gobbannaen UN offices

In my opinion, if you are afraid that the government will discover what you are doing, then you should not be doing it, and otherwise you should not mind. Extensive surveillance is the most effective way to stop crime, end domestic terrorism and keep a country stable. With a well funded monitoring force, one could stop crime in it's tracks with much less danger to the lives of officers than using conventional methods. Although really I think it does need to be a bit longer in order to convey your arguement properly.

A slightly modified version has been submitted:

WHEREAS surveillance represents an important part of crime reduction techniques.

AND WHEREAS Resolution #10 greatly limits the powers of surveillance granted to nations.

BELIEVING that it is important to protect the citizens of this world from crime.

WE HERBY REPEAL UN Resolution #10, Stop privacy intrusion, with immediate effect.

Whoops. I seem to have submitted a similar proposal right after you did. Oh well.

Here is my argument for repealing the resolution:

Repeal "Stop privacy intrusion"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #10
Proposed by: Simius The Monkey

Description: UN Resolution #10: Stop privacy intrusion (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: UN resolution #10 prevents the government from eavesdropping on conversations made in public, listening to radio broadcasts on public airwaves and tapping phone conversations until after the Judiciary reviews and approves of the eavesdropping.

This delay often results in the police being unable to adequately prevent serious crimes from happening. If an officer overhears someone planning a robbery, he must first petition the courts for a warrant before continuing to listen in on the conversation. Even when the conversation is made in a public restaurant. By the time the courts issue the warrant the conversation will have ended and no information regarding the planned crime can be obtained

To make matters worse, the availability of prepaid cell phones allows drug traffickers and terrorists to switch phones so quickly that they are able to stay 1 step ahead of the bureaucracy of obtaining warrants. By the time a new warrant is issued for a suspects cell phone, he has already switched to a new one and is free to communicate with it until the courts are able to approve a new warrant.

Although protecting civil liberties is important, governments should be allowed to file for retroactive warrants in time sensitive situations.