Post by Grea Kriopia on May 10, 2020 9:47:49 GMT -5
Repeal: "Data Protection Accord"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.
Catefleebry: Repeal
Resolution: GA#481
Proposed by: United Cats of America
General Assembly Resolution #481 “Data Protection Accord” (Category: Regulation; Area of Effect: Consumer Protection) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
The World Assembly,
Understanding the need to protect an individual's right to privacy,
Concerned about the broad definition of "organization" in Section 1, Clause A, which has too broad of a scope and may limit the ability of small organizations to properly run websites given their lack of resources,
Aware of the fact that Section 2, Clause B, may limit the ability of websites to use advertisements to generate revenue for the operation of the website and organization,
Noting that Section 2, Clause B, violates the sovereignty of member states in limiting their ability to conduct searches and monitoring,
Believing that Section 3, Clause B, is often impractical for businesses to do,
Also believing Section 3, Clause C, is impractical in dealing with disciplinary actions that occurs after the data is removed once the user ceases to be a member of the organization.
Noticing that Section 3, Clause G, is vague in terms of what measures is considered "reasonable",
Believing the national sovereignty of nations ought to be respected and that unnecessary and harmful regulation of the Internet needs to halted,
Hereby repeals GA #481 "Data Protection Accord".
This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE
Last Edit: May 14, 2020 13:12:23 GMT -5 by Grea Kriopia
Post by Jabberwocky on May 10, 2020 10:37:40 GMT -5
Vague, lacking in specifics. Against.
Mayor of Taco Island 106th Knight of TITO Steward, House of Defenders Order of The Islands Former Senior Senator of New Republica South Editor-in-Chief of The Mad Surfer Emissary to European Union, Capitalist Paradise Member XKIFTA/PEP/LUAC/IITP
Concerned about the broad definition of "organization" in Section 1, Clause A, which has too broad of a scope and may limit the ability of small organizations to properly run websites given their lack of resources,
This is the only fair point in this proposal I can sort of agree with, but the problem is that what constitutes as a "small org" would lead to even more loopholes since it's pretty much an arbitary limit you would place.
Aware of the fact that Section 2, Clause B, may limit the ability of websites to use advertisements to generate revenue for the operation of the website and organization,
Kind of misleading? It may limit the ability to have personalised ads, but they will still run ads on the page. You don't need a AI black box to have ads on a website.
Noting that Section 2, Clause B, violates the sovereignty of member states in limiting their ability to conduct searches and monitoring,
I'm personally one of the "anti-government surveillence". I won't go on a full on the details here, but basically if you got something to hide you probably aren't using normal methods to surf the web. You may caught some very small crimes, like feeding birds and walking dogs, but terrorists probably aren't gonna use unencrypted mail.
Believing that Section 3, Clause B, is often impractical for businesses to do,
This could literally be said for all business regulation.
I'm against, if it wasn't obvious.
TITO Grand Knight Legion Commander, Discord Night Raven, former Tactical Officer, former emissary to a few places, won an WW game once