Espionage Amendment

SillyString

SillyString

TNPer
-
-
As the previous bill on this was withdrawn pending discussion, and no further discussion has been held, I would like to propose the following amendment to the legal code. It was originally posted by COE.

Section 1.2: Espionage

6. "Espionage" is defined as sharing information with a region or group without the permission of the lawful government of the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.

7. The information shared must not be accessible to a person who is not a member of the region or group it is gathered from except by cracking technical security measures.

8. The information must be gathered from The North Pacific or a foreign power the Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against.

9. The Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against Europeia.

10. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.
Click to expand...

Eluvatar has offered the following suggestion for clause 6:

6. "Espionage" is defined as sharing information with a group or region which is not legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.
Click to expand...

Elu, your argument in the original thread was that COE's wording "appears only to require the government doing the sanctioning to be legitimate", and not that the sanctioning itself be.

My concern with your suggestion is that it appears to require that the group or region be sanctioned by the entity, and not the sharing itself.

Would it be reasonable to say this instead?

6. "Espionage" is defined as sharing information with a group or region when that act of sharing has not been legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.
Click to expand...
 
How about
6. "Espionage" is defined as the sharing of information with a group or region which is not legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.
Click to expand...
 
What about

6. "Espionage" is defined as the sharing of information with a group or region, not legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.
Click to expand...

Appeases both your concerns essentially no?
 
No one has pointed out any flaws with SillyString's wording, which makes it clear that it is the sharing that needs to be sanctioned. All of the other suggestions can be interpreted to mean that the region or group is what needs to be sanctioned, which would be problematic.
 
6. "Espionage" is defined as sharing information with a group or region when that act of sharing has not been legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.
Click to expand...

Feels verbose-and-repetitive, almost like some of our thankfully former laws.
 
Elu, how would you feel about changing it to "'Espionage' is defined as sharing information with a group or region, as limited by this section," and then adding a clause saying that the act of sharing must not be legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from? Would that address your concerns about wordiness?
 
I'm not sure adding another clause is a big improvement. :P

Also, "that act of sharing" I think is important, in that it differentiates between different shares of the same information - meaning if I'm authorized to tell X, and I tell X and Y, I can be prosecuted.
 
Actually going for two simpler sentences as two separate clauses instead of one long one would be an improvement in my book.

It wouldn't add to wordiness because, well, you'd still basically have the same words.
 
Abacathea:
What about

6. "Espionage" is defined as the sharing of information with a group or region, not legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.
Click to expand...

Appeases both your concerns essentially no?
Click to expand...
How about this:

6. "Espionage" is defined as the use of spies by foreign or subversive entities to obtain secret information about TNP.

Of course, we'd have to define "spy" and determine what the exact definition of "is" is. :P
 
At least the bill is no longer trying to piggyback two different words to define similar conduct, which is an improvement.

Now, if we can get rid of the silliness of having a list and having the Speaker being able to unilaterally amend the Legal Code to maintain it. That is a process that should be outside the Legal Code. Requiring a list to be maintained and posted without being a part of the actual Legal Code would be a lot smoother and less burdensome.
 
The list would be like the current list of allies and the current list of enemies: the Speaker has the obligation, not the power, to do this. (There is zero discretion granted).
 
Would it not be more efficient to have Article 9 direct to a second document which lists the regions in question instead of including it/them directly in the amendment? That way, if there were an addition in the future the entire process would not need to be repeated but an addition to the "list of regions covered by Section 1.2" could just be made?

Just a thought.
 
But the process would not need to be repeated in the future - in the same way that it does not need to be repeated every time we sign a new treaty (see section 1.1.4 and 1.15), which function exactly as clauses 9 and 10 would here.
 
SillyString:
But the process would not need to be repeated in the future - in the same way that it does not need to be repeated every time we sign a new treaty (see section 1.1.4 and 1.15), which function exactly as clauses 9 and 10 would here.
Click to expand...
Why would it not? If, theoretically, we signed a similar agreement with another region then wouldn't an amendment be needed to add them to the constitution? We can not just arbitrarily add names to the document.

If you have a separate list, that isn't encumbered by the constitutional amendment restrictions, then you could sign the agreement and add them to that list without altering the constitution at all.
 
This list is not in the constitution, it is in the legal code. This list is by statute required to be updated on the passage of an appropriate treaty, without an explicit separate bill to do so.
 
Eluvatar:
This list is not in the constitution, it is in the legal code. This list is by statute required to be updated on the passage of an appropriate treaty, without an explicit separate bill to do so.
Click to expand...
Ah, my mistake. I misread the original post.
 
The same argument applies though. It shouldn't be a list that is changed solely by the Speaker included within the text of the Legal Code.
Since there was objection to having a process to correct errors in the Legal Code without an R.A. vote (an objection I did not agree with and still don't) and which was removed from the Legal Code when the current form was adopted, it is inconsistent for some of the same people to argue now for such a procedure in the context of this proposal or for that matter, the list of treated regions and entities.

It is this inconsistency that I am seriously objecting to and the only fair resolution of the inconsistent behavior is to either not have such power vested in anyone and require the R.A. to vote upon it; or to reinstate the process from the old Legal Code to allow minor corrections of whatever form without requiring an R.A. vote.
 
Legal Code:
If a minor error is found in this Legal Code, the Speaker will update it on the published instructions of the Court, unless a Regional Assembly member objects within five days.
Click to expand...

A minor error fix clause is still on the books, Grosseschnauzer. It just only applies to the Legal Code itself, not to the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
 
In the discussion that led to that provision in the revised legal code, it was made clear that what was considered a "minor fix" was much more narrow than the former process, even as to the Legal Code.

And "minor fix" is in the eye of the beholder.

But in either case, the addition or removal of items from a list is far more than a "minor fix," and one could argue that allowing the Speaker to add or remove items of substantive impact are the sort of changes that should require an R.A. vote if they are to be included as part of the Legal Code.

This inconsistency can be eliminated by taking those lists outside of the Legal Code and treat them as executive branch rulemaking or as some other new creature that doesn't require changes to the actual text of the Legal Code.
 
There's a substantial difference to the Speaker doing a fundamentally adminstrative task - adding regions to a list stating that the RA has done something (essentially - passed a treaty or a declaration of war) to making potentially subjective judgement calls about errors on the books. Adding names to a list has no ability to change the meaning of the law - the amendment of a minor error can.

EDIT: Making sense helps.
 
Current law establishes that there must be an up-to-date list of our treatied allies and our declared enemies (in war) in the legal code, adjacent to the definition of Treason which relies on both. This bill would create a similar situation with the definition of Espionage.

If you do not support that current system, I would suggest proposing a revision of it in all its forms, rather than objecting to a consistent clause elsewhere in the Criminal code. As far as I'm concerned however, I think it's the best way to ensure that the criminal code is completely clear to everyone.
 
Yeah we should probably get around to removing that clause at some point.

However, there is a big difference between that - which is dependent on the personal judgement of whoever happens to be the Speaker at the time - and the administrative list-updating function, which merely obligates the Speaker to keep a completely unambigious, non-subjective list up-to-date.

Dear Speaker Zyvetboss, I request that this proposal be moved into formal debate. Dear Turtle Erublagar, we should continue to discuss the wording issue and come to an agreement. :)
 
If we wanted to include an exception for whistle-blowers, it would probably be best to put it in section 1.9 ("Exceptions") rather than trying to further limit the definition of espionage.
 
For the Speaker's ease, here is the current accepted proposal:

Section 1.2 of the Legal Code shall be amended to read:
Section 1.2: Espionage

6. "Espionage" is defined as sharing information with a group or region when that act of sharing has not been legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.

7. The information shared must not be accessible to a person who is not a member of the region or group it is gathered from except by cracking technical security measures.

8. The information must be gathered from The North Pacific or a foreign power the Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against.

9. The Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against Europeia.

10. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.
Click to expand...
Any clauses which require renumbering shall be corrected as appropriate.
Click to expand...
 
Two things. First, I don't think we need those blank lines between clauses. The rest of the Legal Code certainly lacks them.

Secondly, apologies if this seems a bit anal, but on re-re-reading this I see that this new bill does not use the concept of treaty the way the Treason law does. This bill would allow any form of agreement, including a unilateral resolution (not even subject to veto).

I would suggest that "the Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against" be changed to "The North Pacific has agreed by treaty to prohibit espionage against."

In order to discuss this (small, I know) concern, and to avoid voting between Christmas and New Years, I object to the posted scheduled voting time.
 
I second Eluvatar's objection.

I still think further discussion is warranted over the device of having lists in the Legal Code, whose actual items are not formally adopted as law.
 
As this legislation is neither the first nor the only section to make use of lists, might I suggest opening a new thread to discuss that as a broader question?
 
Just noticed. Section 6 makes sharing information with an individual all fine and dandy.

I can see the defence now:
"JBL, you are accused of passing on sensitive information to the Puce Hawks."
"I didn't. I passed it on to Colonel Blimp. If he passed it on to the Puce Hawks, that is not my fault. The law does not say that I cannot pass information to an individual."
Etc for six months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top