[GA - RULED ILLEGAL] Repeal: "Digital Network Defense"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hulldom

Hulldom

Winter Kingdom
-
Pronouns
He/Him/His
TNP Nation
Boston Castle
Discord
seathestarlesssky
ga.jpg

Repeal: "Digital Network Defense"
Category: Repeal | GA #378
Proposed by: Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands | Onsite Topic
Replacement: Onsite Topic​

General Assembly Resolution #378 “Digital Network Defense” (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Noting that protecting digital devices from hacking and cyberterrorism is important and should be covered by World Assembly legislation; but

Observing that “Digital Network Defense” is a flawed and poorly written resolution with overreaching mandates that do more harm than good;

Dismayed at the overly broad and problematic definition of cyberattack, which includes stealing online banking information, which while criminal should not be considered as harmful as hacking into military databases with sensitive information;

Annoyed that "Digital Network Defence" mandates that all cyberattacks are criminalised, ignoring governments that may wish to impose civil penalties instead of criminal penalties for certain crimes (especially since the aforementioned broad definition of cyberattack includes much pettier crimes not requiring criminal justice), an utter disregard for nations' judicial systems,

Distressed that governments are forbidden from monitoring networks belonging to foreign non-governmental entities that may pose a serious threat to the security of that nation, or monitoring digital devices not connected to any digital network but could be used in cyberterrorism, jeopardising national security;

Concerned by the total lack of respect for personal privacy by “Digital Network Defense”, codifying the right of member nations to monitor their citizens’ digital footprint and allowing them to easily justify such an invasion of privacy by saying it was to monitor digital security threats, and by blocking future legislation from restricting their ability to do so; and

Concluding that “Digital Network Defense” should not continue to be enforced by this Assembly and should be replaced with a resolution of superior quality; hereby

Repeals “Digital Network Defense”.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
[TR][TD] For [/TD][TD]Against[/TD][TD] Abstain [/TD][TD] Present [/TD][/TR][TR][TD]6[/TD][TD]10[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]1[/TD][/TR]

"Repeal "Digital Network Defense"" gained 11,097 votes in favor and 4,000 votes against, before being discarded due to an illegality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IFV
Overview
This proposal seeks to repeal GA 378 "Digital Network Defense". The proposal argues that the target's definition of "cyberattack" is overly broad, and that the handling of cyberattacks as a criminal offense in all situations is an unwise intrusion into national judicial systems. The proposal additionally argues that the target unduly infringes on the personal privacy of citizens.

Recommendation
The at-vote proposal seeks to correct several flaws in the target resolution, making note of its violations of the personal privacy of citizens. Several proposals are also in the works to correct some of these flaws. However, the repeal fails to make a compelling argument for some of its key points, including those regarding the definition of a "cyberattack" and the restriction on member nations' judicial systems.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs has No Recommendation for the at-vote proposal "Repeal: 'Digital Network Defense'" and encourages voters to take the above into account when making their vote.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As of 5:07 PM EDT, this proposal has received the necessary votes to enter the queue. It will go to vote, presuming it is not withdrawn or marked illegal, it will go to vote in approximately seven hours at Major Update.
 
Against - the arguments in the proposal aren't actually correct. The definition of Cyberattack in GA#378 aren't overly broad, they're actually too narrow, and I'm not sure the proposal does the things the repeal says it does.
 
Putting aside any actual comp sci stuff (definitely not my specialty), I disagree that the term "cyberattack" is necessarily poorly defined, that seems a sensible definition. I also disagree that "monitoring networks for digital security threats" results in the broad abuse of civil liberties claimed. Against.
 
St George:
The definition of Cyberattack in GA#378 aren't overly broad, they're actually too narrow, and I'm not sure the proposal does the things the repeal says it does.
Click to expand...
I agree with the first part of your statement, and it seems that the example provided in the repeal is pretty much not the correct example. Though I would not be inclined to disagree with your second part of the statement. For one thing, the arguments in Paragraph 5 and 6 are pretty much quite valid.

I am leaning For, though it would be much better if the paragraph with regards to the definition can be better phrase.
 
Questions for the folks who understand the process better: is there a replacement and what does it look like?
 
Fregerson:
I agree with the first part of your statement, and it seems that the example provided in the repeal is pretty much not the correct example. Though I would not be inclined to disagree with your second part of the statement. For one thing, the arguments in Paragraph 5 and 6 are pretty much quite valid.

I am leaning For, though it would be much better if the paragraph with regards to the definition can be better phrase.
Click to expand...
I don't subscribe to the idea that 378 prevents governments from monitoring non-governmental networks - it doesn't address the subject and leaves it open for member states to pass laws allowing for such in the Reserves clause.

I don't particularly like 378 - the Mandates and Prohibits clauses could be read together to prevent law enforcement investigations of criminal networks, for example. If it is to be repealed, it needs a good replacement, and the linked replacement in the OP is not sufficient at all in this regard (and isn't, to be honest, a true replacement for 378 at all).
 
The replacement seems to focus on just mass surveillance instead of what the repeal proposal addresses.

Abstain
 
Last edited:
St George:
If it is to be repealed, it needs a good replacement, and the linked replacement in the OP is not sufficient at all in this regard (and isn't, to be honest, a true replacement for 378 at all).
Click to expand...
I don't see the "replacement" as a true replacement either. I am planning to push forward a personal draft to the forums, just have to do some editing and RL things are getting in my way.
 
"Repeal "Digital Network Defense"" gained 11,097 votes in favor and 4,000 votes against, before being discarded due to an illegality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top