Post by Asairia on Apr 22, 2019 16:54:48 GMT
WORLD ASSEMBLY GENERAL ASSEMBLY
REPEAL: "PROTECTING PERSONAL DATA"
DELEGATE IS VOTING: FOR ✓
FINAL RESULTS:
11,917 (74.8%) FOR
4,013 (25.2%) AGAINST
Overview
Repeal: "Protecting Personal Data" seeks to repeal GAR#461 because, "Data ought to be protected, but the target resolution has serious flaws which impose significant harms on society."
About the Proposal
The author, Imperium Anglorum of Europe. has proposed the following repeal:
This august World Assembly,
Believing that data ought to be protected, but that the target resolution has serious flaws which impose significant harms on society,
Resolving that:
A. firms which collect personal data now have perverse incentives to not collect any data that identifies age or proxies thereof, so to fall into the exemption provided by section 2(a), and
B. minors can have legitimate reasons to have personal data stored without the explicit approval of their guardians, especially in relation to evidence of child abuse and, less seriously, in personal data associated with accounts on social networks,
Further resolving that courts not being able to require the production of information in civil cases:
A. makes it possible for people to hide information from the court, making the court rule on an unclear or biased view of the facts, and
B. harms the ability of private actors to get data that could be needed for securing injunctive relief or damages from the respondent, and
Conceding that repeal is the only option, as it is impossible to amend legislation and patch these issues, hereby:
Repeals GA 461 "Protecting Personal Data".
Believing that data ought to be protected, but that the target resolution has serious flaws which impose significant harms on society,
Resolving that:
A. firms which collect personal data now have perverse incentives to not collect any data that identifies age or proxies thereof, so to fall into the exemption provided by section 2(a), and
B. minors can have legitimate reasons to have personal data stored without the explicit approval of their guardians, especially in relation to evidence of child abuse and, less seriously, in personal data associated with accounts on social networks,
Further resolving that courts not being able to require the production of information in civil cases:
A. makes it possible for people to hide information from the court, making the court rule on an unclear or biased view of the facts, and
B. harms the ability of private actors to get data that could be needed for securing injunctive relief or damages from the respondent, and
Conceding that repeal is the only option, as it is impossible to amend legislation and patch these issues, hereby:
Repeals GA 461 "Protecting Personal Data".
My Decision
When I published my review for Protecting Personal Data, I stated that despite my concerns, I was in favor of the proposal's overall goal; protecting personal data is and should be a matter of great importance for every nation and every person. Now that this long-awaited repeal is finally here, I am forced to reconsider my support of the current method of obtaining said goal due to an initially-overlooked problem.
IA argues that under the target resolution, courts are blocked from obtaining data needed to resolve civil cases. While the target resolution does provide an exception to allow courts to do this, it may only do so, "When the information is needed for a criminal investigation or trial and a search warrant has been issued." Put simply, the language is narrowed enough to exclude civil cases without directly prohibiting them, creating an unintended problem that can have serious consequences in the future.
The author also argues that minors should have the right to hide personal data from their guardians. While I agree that there are situations where minors who are being abused may need data anonymity in order to deal with and respond to terrible situations, this presents a whole new issue that would be best addressed in a separate resolution due to its seriousness. As for the argument about minors needing to keep their social media data hidden from their guardians, that is more of a matter of parental rights and responsibilities versus minor individuality and independence and, as such, should be addressed in a separate discussion.
I was originally going to oppose this repeal because of the need to protect individuals from predatory data collection and storage practices, but I now feel that the overlooked issue of civil case exclusion is significant enough to warrant a repeal and hopefully a replacement addressing it. It's times like these that I wish we could amend past legislation without having to repeal all of it. Anyways, I have cast my vote in favor of this repeal.
Current Delegate support at time of publication.