Protecting Privacy

[Funkadelia]

Category: Human Rights   
Strength:  Significant   
Proposed by: [nation]Topid[/nation]

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that privacy is an important right that when abused can lead a person to be shunned or shamed,

Believing governments should respect the privacy of their citizens,

Defining privacy as the right of any person, business, church or organization to:
 • Keep personal information secret (such as one's sexuality, beliefs, occupation, income level, activities or hobbies, or any other aspect of their lifestyle),
 • Have one's property undisturbed or be free of examinations, searches, or use by others,
 • Keep one's contact information and the location of their home or other identifiers secret,
 • Conceal the activities and objects that occur and exist within one's privacy and out of view of the public

Defining probable cause as enough evidence to justify a belief that a crime has been committed and that certain property was associated with that crime or may contain evidence of that crime,

Demands member states not infringe on the privacy of members of their nation except in the conditions allowed in this resolution,

Allows member states to do the following:
 • Violate privacy in the process of an investigation of a crime with probable cause and the proper approval of an independent judge or independent government official,
 • Search or investigate any property or people entering the nation for the purpose of preventing smuggling,
 • Gather information from people or entities in the nation for the purposes of taxation and census,
 • Infringe on the privacy of anyone seeking employment from the government including potential leaders of the nation,
 • Demand information from anyone seeking employment or payment or benefits from the government, or anyone in a position of power within the government,
 • Violate a person's security when that person enters an area which is at high risk for an attack, or which is secure in nature, a high risk area would be an area where hundreds of people could be injured in one place like tourist locations or airplanes, and a secure area shall be a military or other vital points,

Forbids the publishing of any information about any specific person or entity which the government gathers by carrying out the above powers except in following cases:
 • Any evidence gathered during a trial may be shared or published only after charges are made, and then only so long as the information is relevant to the final result of proving guilt or innocence,
 • Census data about specific respondents may be shared after all the people in the nation that were alive at the time of census can be reasonably assumed to be dead,
 • Any leader or person employed by the government may have income and financial information shared if the nation feels it is important for transparency reasons,

Notes that if a person or entity wishes to consent to have its privacy infringed upon, so long as the consent is given willingly without coercion, the person or entity may waive privacy rights,

Clarifies that this resolution restricts governmental action, and nothing in this resolution either restricts or allows private firms and individuals to infringe on privacy.

[Delfos]

Yeah, well, has more rights to violate privacy than rights to privacy, doesn't really restring governments on making public their findings if they're allowed to violate privacy, and doesn't really make sure that the people that are allowed to violate privacy cannot share their findings beyond their duty, and so on. I think the bill could have a clause saying something like "any private data collected for the processes above shall remain private and intransmissible beyond the duty of evaluating the private data for whatever needs or purposes" <- this setting that whatever they collect is tagged as private data and remains private.

Either way I like privacy so I'll vote for this bill which isn't that bad. Why are you guys voting against? What's so wrong about this?

[Funkadelia]

I have the same feelings Delfos. However this one is far better than the previous which Topid repealed.

Also, provisional vote for.

[Eluvatar]

I don't like this version. For instance, I don't like this:

• Violate a person's security when that person enters an area which is at high risk for an attack, or which is secure in nature, a high risk area would be an area where hundreds of people could be injured in one place like tourist locations or airplanes, and a secure area shall be a military or other vital points,

[Delfos]

I don't like this version. For instance, I don't like this:

• Violate a person's security when that person enters an area which is at high risk for an attack, or which is secure in nature, a high risk area would be an area where hundreds of people could be injured in one place like tourist locations or airplanes, and a secure area shall be a military or other vital points,

Good one Elu. It's not very well worded and I guess it's in case of terrorist suspect "or something"? When there's an emergency affecting broad public security, right to access information fast is imperative to assure public security. I don't like it either but the current real world is way worse than this, like shooting innocent people, incarceration without trial, etc. It'd be a lesser evil for the rights of privacy, it relates to other human rights problems. I Hope a new one comes that is better or has less gaps on assuring human rights, but until then, I still don't see enough reasons to not pass it.

Hit me again with another reason and I might think otherwise.

[Eluvatar]

Allows member states to...

• Demand information from anyone seeking employment or payment or benefits from the government, or anyone in a position of power within the government,

Any information at all :$

[Delfos]

For the proper process of social security there needs to be an evaluation by social services to assure the person is entitled to the whatever benefit, if there was no evaluation, you couldn't clearly give away benefits and not know the state of those that actually need benefits. There's people cheating that same system anyway, so don't worry about allowing states to demand access to private bank accounts, patrimony and whatnot, there will always be those that won't fully disclose their socioeconomic status.