Espionage Redefined

Yes. :P

Iro, I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about? That's no different from the current situation, or indeed, from any draft of the amendment under discussion. Our treaty with Europeia is substantively different in the matter of espionage than those with other regions are.

Elu, I strongly disagree that my version is any less clear. "As appropriate" has not changed.
 
Eluvatar:
But nothing in your text makes TNP an appropriate subject to be "protected" as far as I can tell...
Click to expand...
It is already protected - the RA has already criminalized espionage against it, and it can be included in #9 by, well, its inclusion there in the vote. :fish:
 
SillyString:
Eluvatar:
But nothing in your text makes TNP an appropriate subject to be "protected" as far as I can tell...
Click to expand...
It is already protected - the RA has already criminalized espionage against it, and it can be included in #9 by, well, its inclusion there in the vote. :fish:
Click to expand...

The bill text removes TNP from the definition of Espionage, replacing it with "protected region", effectively repealing the current prohibition against espionage against TNP.

The bill you support would define "protected region" as those regions TNP has agreed to prohibit espionage against by TNP citizens. I think that is very vague, and I am not confident that the inclusion of TNP in the initial clause 9 is sufficient to ensure its inclusion in the definition.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Flemingovia's motion is not recognized, as his proposal is not the proposal of this thread.

Read the procedures.
Click to expand...
Told ya so. Sourpuss

sour-puss-lemon-face.gif
 
I offer this amendment to the proposal:
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.

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...
I find that defining "protected region" adds needless complexity to the bill. I think it would be better to simply broaden the definition of espionage to include spying against all regions, and then add a clause restricting what types of espionage can be punished under the penal code. I think a list clause is necessary (so that nations will not have to pour through our diplomatic archives to find out what is a crime and what isn't) but there is no need for an additional legal term ("protected region") to have a list clause, as can be seen in my proposed amendment. I have also slimmed down the definition a bit to make it less wordy, and put the focus of the crime on sharing information, instead of gathering information. Reading should not be a crime - it is telling this is the crime.

Does the author accept my amendment?
 
I thank the speaker for taking the time and thought to make this suggestion. It is appreciated, but not accepted.

The reasons we disagree is it is more flexible, less of a solid dividing line of the regions, and sharing is a narrower/softer definition than gathering.

Thanks again for sharing, and if anyone has any suggestions I will listen properly.
 
I haven't exactly been a model legislator in the RA, but my current position in the government demands that I at least present you with a well thought-out comment on this proposal. I have to agree with Elu on the point of vagueness with regards to clauses 8 and 9. The wording of the proposal is very complex, and though Chasmanthe has dismissed the changes proposed by COE, I do believe that some kind of simplification would be helpful. That said, there should be a clear definition of espionage; when I hear the word "flexibility" with regards to this proposal, I think "wiggle room" for defendants in espionage cases brought before the Court.
 
I wouldn't say it's "flexible." I would say it's "broad." The more detail you add to the definition of a crime, the easier it is for a defendant to find loopholes in it. I'll give an example: The old definition of espionage (and the one in the current proposal) includes "the use of a Nation or Persona to [commit espionage]." This excludes acts of stealing information from a forum through hacking or cracking - which is still espionage, but isn't criminalized by the current definition.

I disagree with Chas that my proposed amendment contains "less of a solid dividing line of the regions" - every region that would be included in the "protected region" definition would be covered by my proposal. However, my proposal would also include non-regional groups that we might sign treaties with, or regions that we agree not to spy on without signing a treaty with them. For example, if we were to sign a treaty some day with a multi-regional organization, it might include a provision to prohibit espionage against all of their member regions. Even though we wouldn't have a treaty with each member region, my proposal would have us covered on that point. The current proposal in the OP would not. EDIT: It appears that it would protect the individual member regions, but not the super-regional organization, because it is not a region. My proposal is still superior in that regard.

I think the current definition of espionage is problematic in that it criminalizes "gathering information for a group or region." Consider this example: a member of the TNP RA, let's call him Sly, is not a member of any other organization. He decides that he no longer wants to be a member of the RA, but before he resigns, he downloads everything in the Private Halls to his hard drive. At this point, he has not committed a crime, because he was not gathering information for anyone but himself. A few weeks later, he joins another region, and shares everything from our private halls with them, in an attempt to be valuable to them. Under the current definition, he has still not committed a crime, because he wasn't gathering information for them - he wasn't even a member when he gathered that information. Under my definition, he is a criminal, because he shared private TNP information without the permission of our lawful government. I think that is justly so. That's why it's more important to put the emphasis of the definition on sharing information and not gathering it.
 
Sometimes gathering is more provable than sharing.

In Sly's case, I would expect him to still face charges for gathering information for the group that he ultimately provided it to. His defense can argue that he didn't gather it for them but in the end that is for the court to decide.

Regarding the dividing line, the way to give regions protected status is to negotiate a treaty with them, putting it in writing as a formal bilateral agreement. There is no need to provide protected status to an inter-regional organization unless we are negotiating a treaty with an inter-regional organization. I think the existing process of our delegate negotiating formal treaties between regions, to be ratified by the RA, is worth keeping. Broadening the definition to other things we may at some future time want to shift to is unnecessarily confusing.

If we want to give the same protection to other entities than formally agreed to then why isn't the delegate negotiating it with them?
 
Chasmanthe:
Sometimes gathering is more provable than sharing.
Click to expand...
How would we even know someone has gathered information unless they share it with someone?

Chasmanthe:
In Sly's case, I would expect him to still face charges for gathering information for the group that he ultimately provided it to. His defense can argue that he didn't gather it for them but in the end that is for the court to decide.
Click to expand...
Yes, but why are we including a definition based on the purpose of gathering the information? It shouldn't matter why it was originally gathered, merely that it has been shared without our permission.

Chasmanthe:
Regarding the dividing line, the way to give regions protected status is to negotiate a treaty with them, putting it in writing as a formal bilateral agreement. There is no need to provide protected status to an inter-regional organization unless we are negotiating a treaty with an inter-regional organization. I think the existing process of our delegate negotiating formal treaties between regions, to be ratified by the RA, is worth keeping. Broadening the definition to other things we may at some future time want to shift to is unnecessarily confusing.
Click to expand...
Actually, the language in the constitution says that the delegate may negotiate treaties with "foreign powers." This does not specify "regions" so it could include multi-regional alliances, non-regional groups, and super-regional organizations. I think we should have all our bases covered, so that if we eventually have a treaty with such a foreign power, we don't have to revisit the definition of espionage.

Chasmanthe:
If we want to give the same protection to other entities than formally agreed to then why isn't the delegate negotiating it with them?
Click to expand...
Just because we aren't doing it right now doesn't mean we won't do it in the future. Laws should crafted to prepare for any eventuality, not simply to suit current political realities.
 
Well the clear difference here is that this prevents citizens from committing espionage against Europeia.

It should go without saying that the North Pacific's government would not commit espionage against regions that we are allied with. That would be very bad practice and would result in serious diplomatic incidents.
 
Thank you for your comments. I agree that your proposal is superior in terms of flexibility, but I disagree over whether this is what we want and agree with Ash that it flexibility might not always be good.

The aim of this legislation was to meet the obligations that our delegate as placed on us by signing the treaty with Europeia. We do not have those specific obligations to other regions or entities.

What inter-regional organization would TNP like to make a treaty with?

What region would TNP like to prohibit its citizens from spying against without a treaty that actually requires it?

Would the Executive be prepared to publish some of its discussions over matters of criminalizing espionage against foreign powers? If no discussions have occurred then I do not see the necessity of making a change in the law for them.

If the Regional Assembly be made aware of such desirability, via evidence, then I think the RA would be more willing to pass a proposal along COE's lines.
 
Chasmanthe:
Thank you for your comments. I agree that your proposal is superior in terms of flexibility, but I disagree over whether this is what we want and agree with Ash that it flexibility might not always be good.
Click to expand...
My proposed amendment not more flexible, in that it does not compromise the effectiveness of our judiciary in any case of espionage brought before it. That is to say, it does not give any criminal more "wiggle room" than the current definition. It is, however, broader, in that it accounts for more possible situations than the current proposal, and it is more far-sighted, in that it anticipates potential treaty obligations that the current proposal does not.

Chasmanthe:
The aim of this legislation was to meet the obligations that our delegate as placed on us by signing the treaty with Europeia. We do not have those specific obligations to other regions or entities.
Click to expand...
Obviously. If we never oblige ourselves in that regard to any other region or entity, then my proposal will function in exactly the same way as the current proposal, with regard to the regions it protects from espionage. However, if it comes to pass that we were to enter into an arrangement with a non-regional group, multi-regional alliance, or super-regional organization similar to the arrangement that we have with Europia, my proposal will simply allow the Speaker to add those entities to the list clause, whereas the current proposal would require us to amend the law again.

Chasmanthe:
If the Regional Assembly be made aware of such desirability, via evidence, then I think the RA would be more willing to pass a proposal along COE's lines.
Click to expand...
I'll repeat that if we never pass a treaty prohibiting espionage with any non-regional entity, my proposal will function in exactly the same way as the current proposal. No functionality will be lost. If, however, we do pass such a treaty, my proposed amendment will have us covered. That is to say, functionality will be added. More functionality with no cost is the definition of a better law.
 
The treaty was signed by the former Delegate, Jamie Anumia.

Would the Executive be prepared to publish some of its discussions over matters of criminalizing espionage against foreign powers? If no discussions have occurred then I do not see the necessity of making a change in the law for them.

If the Regional Assembly be made aware of such desirability, via evidence, then I think the RA would be more willing to pass a proposal along COE's lines.
Click to expand...

We have not had any discussions on prohibiting espionage against other regions.

I have just said in this thread, that I would consider it very bad practice for the executive government to be committing espionage against our allies whether it is prohibited in the treaty or not.

But the executive cannot control the actions of all of our citizens, but we will not ask any member of the region to spy on an ally on our behalf. The law needs to address the fact that citizens may commit espionage against our ally without being asked to do so.
 
I invited 7 people to join this debate. It's a shame only one of them showed up. Perhaps the RA is not ready to deal with this subject.

Ash, in your opinion, do you think CoE's amendment should be accepted or not?
 
I remain troubled by the way this proposal is set up; both in terms of the original proposal and the proposed amendment.

I'm not convinced we need two versions of the same crime in the same section of the Legal Code.

I'm not convinced we need to be specifying each and every region that it is applied to, in effect defining a separate and distinct crime with such a list; when in fact such should only be a factual part of an indictment rather than a part of the definition.

This needs a conceptual rewrite and simplification more than anything. And none of the primary debaters seem to have recognized the fact.

For these reasons, I don't think this bill is ready for prime time. Perhaps we need a breather, and then maybe that will allow concerned members to come up with a simpler way of addressing the issue involved.
 
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to hold this proposal back from the voting floor.

Please can it be shelved until the assembly is more engaged with the issue?
 
:2c:

This was introduced on the 20th of October and you are on the fourth page of discussion about it. I'm not sure how much more discussion you are looking for.

Some RA members won't want to post in the thread with their thoughts on the proposal and are happy to simply express their opinion through their vote.
 
mcmasterdonia:
:2c:

This was introduced on the 20th of October and you are on the fourth page of discussion about it. I'm not sure how much more discussion you are looking for.

Some RA members won't want to post in the thread with their thoughts on the proposal and are happy to simply express their opinion through their vote.
Click to expand...
Well if I'm going to make a judgement on this my conclusion is that's not good enough.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts though.

Let's take a breather as GS suggested.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I'm not convinced we need to be specifying each and every region that it is applied to, in effect defining a separate and distinct crime with such a list; when in fact such should only be a factual part of an indictment rather than a part of the definition.
Click to expand...
While I greatly prefer COE's draft of this bill to Elu's, for all of the reasons COE has laid out, I am wholly in agreement with Eluvatar that explicitly listing regions is desirable.

We expect that RA members have read the criminal code that they are agreeing to before they post their oath to join the RA. It is insufficient to merely indicate that there may be some regions, somewhere, sometime, against whom espionage is a crime in TNP, as that requires new members who are still wholly unfamiliar with the layout of our forum to go digging through archives to try to figure out what our active treaties are and which of them include espionage clauses. If we are going to ask people to know what they are agreeing to, it is incumbent upon us to make that as clear as possible.
 
Chasmanthe:
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to hold this proposal back from the voting floor.

Please can it be shelved until the assembly is more engaged with the issue?
Click to expand...
As the motion to vote has been withdrawn, this bill shall not move to vote and is no longer in formal debate.
 
Chasmanthe:
Noting the concern raised by a citizen earlier today, I believe we should redefine the crime of espionage as set out in chapter 1 of the legal code.
Europeia Treaty Implementation Bill:
1. Section 2 of the criminal code which currently reads as follows:
Section 1.2: Espionage (before changes):
Section 1.2: Espionage
6. "Espionage" is defined as the use of a Nation or Persona within The North Pacific for the purpose of gathering information for a group or region not officially sanctioned by the lawful government of The North Pacific as governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
7. The information gathered must be of a nature that a person that has not registered on the official forums or attained public office would be unable to access it without cracking technical security measures.
Click to expand...
will be amended so that it reads as follows:
Section 1.2: Espionage (after changes):
Section 1.2: Espionage
6. "Espionage" is defined as the use of a Nation or Persona within a protected region for the purpose of gathering information for a group or region not officially and legitimately sanctioned by the lawful government of that region.
7. The information gathered must be of a nature that a person that has not registered on the official forums or attained public office would be unable to access it without cracking technical security measures.
8. A "protected region" for the purposes of this section is defined as The North Pacific itself as well as any region The North Pacific has agreed by treaty to prohibit its citizens spying against.
9. At this time the protected regions are The North Pacific and Europeia.
10. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.
Click to expand...
2. The subsequent clauses of Chapter 1 will be renumbered appropriately.

3. This bill will not take effect until signed by the Delegate or the Regional Assembly has passed an override of the Delegate's veto.
Click to expand...
Markup Version - NOT FOR OFFICIAL USE!:
1. Section 2 of the criminal code will be amended with the following changes:
Section 1.2: Espionage:
Section 1.2: Espionage
6. "Espionage" is defined as the use of a Nation or Persona within The North Pacific a protected region for the purpose of gathering information for a group or region not officially and legitimately sanctioned by the lawful government of that region The North Pacific as governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
7. The information gathered must be of a nature that a person that has not registered on the official forums or attained public office would be unable to access it without cracking technical security measures.
8. A "protected region" for the purposes of this section is defined as The North Pacific itself as well as any region The North Pacific has agreed by treaty to prohibit its citizens spying against.
9. At this time the protected regions are The North Pacific and Europeia.
10. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.
Click to expand...
2. The subsequent clauses of Chapter 1 will be renumbered appropriately.

3. This bill will not take effect until signed by the Delegate or the Regional Assembly has passed an override of the Delegate's veto.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Crushing Our Enemies:
I offer this amendment to the proposal:
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.

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...
I find that defining "protected region" adds needless complexity to the bill. I think it would be better to simply broaden the definition of espionage to include spying against all regions, and then add a clause restricting what types of espionage can be punished under the penal code. I think a list clause is necessary (so that nations will not have to pour through our diplomatic archives to find out what is a crime and what isn't) but there is no need for an additional legal term ("protected region") to have a list clause, as can be seen in my proposed amendment. I have also slimmed down the definition a bit to make it less wordy, and put the focus of the crime on sharing information, instead of gathering information. Reading should not be a crime - it is telling this is the crime.

Does the author accept my amendment?
Click to expand...
COE's proposal vs current law:
Section 1.2: Espionage
6. "Espionage" is defined as the use of a Nation or Persona within The North Pacific for the purpose of gathering information for a group or region not officially sanctioned by the lawful government of The North Pacific as governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights sharing information with a region or group without the permission of the lawful government of the entity the information is gathered from.
7. The information gathered shared must not be of a nature that accessible to a person that has not registered on the official forums or attained public office would be unable to access it without 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...

I like the structure of this proposal. However, I'm concerned about some of the changes to the basic definition of Espionage. As written, I believe this would prohibit sharing information gathered from a region with that region's government, without that government's permission. I also worry at the removal of the references to legitimacy, in current law as "as governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights," and in the current bill's text as "legitimately." To be clear, the current text requires the sanctioning to be legitimate, while the new text appears only to require the government doing the sanctioning to be legitimate. I'm splitting hairs, I know, but this is our criminal code <_< Perhaps the phrasing
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.
Click to expand...
or something in that vein?

I also prefer to explicitly require a treaty for clause (8) to apply. Perhaps the phrasing
8. The information must be gathered from The North Pacific or a foreign power The North Pacific is bound by treaty to prohibit espionage against.
Click to expand...
or something in that vein?

Please consider, could it be illegal under this text to share information within a region, without sharing it with foreign powers? Is the answer desirable? I'm not sure.

Finally, as a technical matter, I'd like to suggest adding the phrase ", as limited by this section." or similar to clause 6 of either/both proposals, to make extra-clear that the definition in clause (6) is incomplete.
 
Eluvatar:
I like the structure of this proposal. However, I'm concerned about some of the changes to the basic definition of Espionage. As written, I believe this would prohibit sharing information gathered from a region with that region's government, without that government's permission. I also worry at the removal of the references to legitimacy, in current law as "as governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights," and in the current bill's text as "legitimately." To be clear, the current text requires the sanctioning to be legitimate, while the new text appears only to require the government doing the sanctioning to be legitimate. I'm splitting hairs, I know, but this is our criminal code <_< Perhaps the phrasing
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.
Click to expand...
or something in that vein?
Click to expand...
I originally discarded "entity" because I didn't want to allow the possibility of gathering information from individuals (as opposed to a region or group) being included in the definition, but since it's limited by 8, that would probably be fine. I agree with your point about legitimacy.

Eluvatar:
I also prefer to explicitly require a treaty for clause (8) to apply. Perhaps the phrasing
8. The information must be gathered from The North Pacific or a foreign power The North Pacific is bound by treaty to prohibit espionage against.
Click to expand...
or something in that vein?
Click to expand...
Currently, there is no way for the RA to prohibit espionage against another region except through treaty. However, if another way of doing so arose, I think it would be better not to have to edit our criminal code again to include it. That said, I don't strenuously object to requiring a treaty for clause 8 to apply.

Eluvatar:
Please consider, could it be illegal under this text to share information within a region, without sharing it with foreign powers? Is the answer desirable? I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure either.

Eluvatar:
Finally, as a technical matter, I'd like to suggest adding the phrase ", as limited by this section." or similar to clause 6 of either/both proposals, to make extra-clear that the definition in clause (6) is incomplete.
Click to expand...
I like it.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Eluvatar:
Please consider, could it be illegal under this text to share information within a region, without sharing it with foreign powers? Is the answer desirable? I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure either.
Click to expand...
I believe that such sharing should absolutely be considered espionage - if I take classified NPA mission details and release them to non-NPA TNP members, how is that less criminal than releasing them to non-TNP members?
 
Okay, but do we want to call that Espionage, and is that distinguishable from other cases of intraregional information sharing which we may want to protect?

Edit: For instance, were some TNP resident to discover the NPA was secretly invading our allies and spoke out against this in TNP, would that be espionage? Should it be?
 
Eluvatar:
Okay, but do we want to call that Espionage, and is that distinguishable from other cases of intraregional information sharing which we may want to protect?

Edit: For instance, were some TNP resident to discover the NPA was secretly invading our allies and spoke out against this in TNP, would that be espionage? Should it be?
Click to expand...
For the record, the NPA is not secretly invading anyone. I would think that sufficient oversight and safeguards are in place to make such a scenario unlikely, especially under the current administration.

SillyString:
Crushing Our Enemies:
Eluvatar:
Please consider, could it be illegal under this text to share information within a region, without sharing it with foreign powers? Is the answer desirable? I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure either.
Click to expand...
I believe that such sharing should absolutely be considered espionage - if I take classified NPA mission details and release them to non-NPA TNP members, how is that less criminal than releasing them to non-TNP members?
Click to expand...
Your point is a valid one. Such sharing of classified information under either circumstance would be considered espionage.

Chasmanthe:
I invited 7 people to join this debate. It's a shame only one of them showed up. Perhaps the RA is not ready to deal with this subject.

Ash, in your opinion, do you think CoE's amendment should be accepted or not?
Click to expand...
I think much of what COE proposed has merit.
 
Eluvatar:
Edit: For instance, were some TNP resident to discover the NPA was secretly invading our allies and spoke out against this in TNP, would that be espionage? Should it be?
Click to expand...
Do we need a whistleblower protection clause? :fish:

I'd be okay with that, actually - publicizing information relating to criminal activity should not be a crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top