We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Internet Safety Act.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal-Progressive Union
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: November 2090
Description[?]:
| This bill allows for criminal investigations of illegal internet activity such as child pornagraphy, funding of illegal terrorist groups, and other major crimes. Filesharing would not be included as a crime that would be investigated. The police must have just cause for their investigation and must present their case before a judge who will decide whether suffucient evidence is provided for the investigation to ensue. If the judge finds that there is enough evidence, a warrant will then be issed by the judge allowing for the monitoring of the alleged suspect. There is a one month limitation on the warrant and on the date of expiration, the investigation must cease, or further evidence must be provided before the same judge for an extension on the warrant to monitor the suspect. If the motion for the warrant is denied, no further action can be taken by the investigators. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Internet regulations.
Old value:: The government has no position on who may use or what is published on the internet.
Current: The government allows anyone to use the internet but the police can run investigations concerning illegal activities conducted by using internet (child abuse, illegal filesharing, ...)
Proposed: The government allows anyone to use the internet but the police can run investigations concerning illegal activities conducted by using internet (child abuse, illegal filesharing, ...)
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:04:18, August 03, 2005 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Internet Safety Act. |
| Message | I feel this bill is needed to combat widespread illegal internet activity. In particular the trafficking of child pornagraphy (those under the age of 16) and the use of the internet to fund criminal organisations. I hope I have the support of the other parties in passinf this bill. |
| Date | 14:34:28, August 03, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Internet Safety Act. |
| Message | Isn't monitoring the safety of the internet done on an international level? You cannot partition off the internet into different countries to rundifferent investigations. This is best done internationally. And to be honest, if there are to be investigations of crimes such as filesharing I'm not going to support this. |
| Date | 14:43:43, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Internet Safety Act. |
| Message | I did not include filesharing. And this bill deals with local investigations. As of now there is no such law on the books regarding internet monitoring. So maybe in the real world there is a combination of international and local monitoring, but for the game at least there is no international monitoring. And like I said filesharing is not a crime that would be invsestigated. |
| Date | 14:49:32, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Social Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Internet Safety Act. |
| Message | I think police have to have some powers so they can pursue criminals like paedophiles who use the internet to groom victims or run child porn rings. I agree with the filesharing exemption too, not to mention that previous legislation means there are no copyright protections on media anyway. Even though you just beat us to proposing a similar bill, we will support. :-P |
| Date | 14:52:43, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Internet Safety Act. |
| Message | Good point on the copyright protection, I didn't think of that. |
| Date | 16:08:58, August 03, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Internet Safety Act. |
| Message | We will support. Police powers are limited but to the extent that they are powerless to pursue criminals over the net. ooc: like the SDLP, we were just looking at implementing something similar. |
| Date | 18:48:45, August 03, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Internet Safety Act. |
| Message | "they are *not* powerless"...that makes more sense! |
| Date | 01:31:38, August 04, 2005 CET | From | National Imperial Hobrazian Front | To | Debating the Internet Safety Act. |
| Message | We support. It's a good balance between personal freedom and the effectiveness of police. |
| Date | 22:31:34, August 04, 2005 CET | From | Standing-At-The-Back-Dressed-Stupidly | To | Debating the Internet Safety Act. |
| Message | I don't support. They already investigate peoples who look at kiddy porn and the like..... meh |
| Date | 22:38:22, August 04, 2005 CET | From | Social Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Internet Safety Act. |
| Message | Adder, sorry, Standing at Back party, methinks you should read the proposal. Without this bill, there is no regulation of the internet whatsoever in Hobrazia, meaning we cannot yet prosecute internet criminals. |
| Date | 05:40:09, August 05, 2005 CET | From | Tea Party. | To | Debating the Internet Safety Act. |
| Message | I will support this. We do need internet restrictions and investigations for the dangers out there. I agree with the Social Democratic Party... reread the proposal. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 400 | |||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "Jezvraljogadsrlji" means "Social" in the Jelbic languages. |
| Random quote: "The radical right is so homophobic that they're blaming global warming on the AIDS quilt." - Dennis Miller |