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: Privacy Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Judicial Union Party
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: October 2494
Description[?]:
| An act to introduce a statutory right to privacy for all citizens. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Right to privacy.
Old value:: The government has the right to monitor information of individuals without letting them know.
Current: Individuals have a right to privacy, to keep records and information for themselves.
Proposed: Individuals have a right to privacy, but the courts can force individuals to give information on certain matters if needed. (also known as Habeas Data).
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:08:43, November 29, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Privacy Act |
| Message | What kind of dictatorial police state could we be living in, that the government is given unlimited power to monitor its own citizens? That cannot be right. When the law has found that a person's property rights extend to being able to sue the state when it trespasses on that person's land, surely it stands to reason that a similar principle applies for information. We mustn't allow the possibility for an overreaching government to monitor a person's every action. |
| Date | 16:46:29, November 29, 2007 CET | From | Red Hammer Council | To | Debating the Privacy Act |
| Message | Agreed. |
| Date | 20:21:07, November 29, 2007 CET | From | One Nation Socialist Party | To | Debating the Privacy Act |
| Message | support |
| Date | 12:43:30, November 30, 2007 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Privacy Act |
| Message | Opposed. Suppose a suspected burglar/rapist/murderer/terrorist/.. is planning a crime, shouldn't the police be able to wiretap his phone, tail him, or keep an eye on him. In stead of asking the suspect: "Hello mr Suspected Terrorist, could you please tell us all details of your next crime". Noone will tell anything that could incriminate himself. |
| Date | 22:53:30, November 30, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Privacy Act |
| Message | So, we should essentially abolish a person's right to privacy simply because the police don't want to have to apply to the Courts for warrants? Of the number of people monitored under the current legislation, how many will have gone on to commit preventable crimes? The number will be very low. |
| Date | 10:14:48, December 01, 2007 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Privacy Act |
| Message | We do want the police to apply to the court for warrants before monitoring citizens! Have you read your own proposal? It does no such thing. We believe the proposed principe is rather useless as noone will incriminate himself. And it is not that uncommon the police has suspicions (hence the name "suspects") of a crime but don't have the evidence to support their claims. Don't you want the police to catch the purpetraiter, or do they have to wait for him to commit more crimes (murder, rape..), as recidivism is rather likely in robbery, arson, sex offences.. |
| Date | 10:26:47, December 01, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Privacy Act |
| Message | Exactly, and sometimes they have such strong suspicions (without evidence) that the suspect should be imprisoned anyway. We've already got rid of the presumption of innocence and the right to privacy, why not throw out habeas corpus and imprison people based on these suspicions too. Or, don't you want to prevent more crimes? |
| Date | 12:43:39, December 01, 2007 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Privacy Act |
| Message | Stop spouting false information. We do not condone the imprisonment of innocent people, we only want it to be possible for the police to monitor suspected criminals. The current law clearly states "monitoring people" to gather information, not "imprisoning" them. Also, everyone is innocent until proven guilty before the courts. However, this does not mean the police cannot have any suspicions and possible suspects when handling a case. We believe the police should have some means to find information (eg tapping his phone if the suspect is getting his story straight with an acompllice), in stead of solely relying on what a possible suspect tells them, because (like we said before) a real suspect won't tell anything to incriminate himself (duh). |
| Date | 13:05:34, December 01, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Privacy Act |
| Message | If the police have any form of proof, they can apply to the Courts for a warrant. If they have no proof more than "gut feeling", then they shouldn't be tapping the phones or following them, regardless of what they may or may not be doing. The current law lets the police do as they please, trampling over human rights with reckless abandon. |
| Date | 13:37:37, December 01, 2007 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Privacy Act |
| Message | But we do want the police to have a reason and an admission from the court to monitor suspects, we don't support a bigbrother-esque police state who's spying on just everyone. We would agree to put this "court approval before monitoring" explictely in a law. The matter is that we simply do not believe Habeus Data will solve anything. I ask you: Don't you think suspects won't lie to protect themselves? Also, I'ld like to know how a court could "force" individuals to give information? A polygraph test still isn't 100% fool-proof. Torture them is cruel and inhumane, and also isn't truth-garanteed as anyone (guilty and innocent) would say anything to stop the pain. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 222 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 172 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 105 |
| Random fact: All role-play must respect the established cultural background in Culturally Protected nations. |
| Random quote: "The opportunity to serve our country, that is all we ask." - John Smith |