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: Right to Privacy
Details
Submitted by[?]: Tukarali Graenix Party
Status[?]: defeated
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 2506
Description[?]:
| In an effort to create a society with liberties and values, I propose that we change the policy on the right to priivacy. |
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 | 01:19:07, December 22, 2007 CET | From | Monacelli Party | To | Debating the Right to Privacy |
| Message | leaning towards agree. |
| Date | 02:09:31, December 22, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Right to Privacy |
| Message | We agree. This was our law, back before every other party here voted against us to change it. |
| Date | 09:56:04, December 22, 2007 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Right to Privacy |
| Message | Indeed it has been ( http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=161608) , but untill just before that, the current law was the law (http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=158284). I really suggest to read the last link, as that was the one I made my argument. |
| Date | 13:56:54, December 22, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Right to Privacy |
| Message | Opposed. |
| Date | 05:48:11, December 25, 2007 CET | From | JDW Tukarali Greens Party | To | Debating the Right to Privacy |
| Message | favor. the proposed change more adequately balances the needs of gov to protect itself versus the presumption of innocence until proved guilty. |
| Date | 03:13:12, December 26, 2007 CET | From | Monacelli Party | To | Debating the Right to Privacy |
| Message | the "monitoring" - would that be as targeted, or merely in general? this is the deciding factor for us. we saw that a "big-Brother-esque" style was not intended. but what is to stop police from keeping "tabs" on many people solely for "protection and prevention". we also saw parties saying that the authorities would still have to apply for a warrant in most cases but would not have to inform the suspect. this is generally favorable in that it allows the law to regulate what is and isnt monitored without the disturbance of the suspect. if the law is generally protective of the people's rights in their own homes, then they would have nothing that is illegal to worry about in their daily lives. in this presumption, we can oppose this.... |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 117 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 266 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 116 |
| Random fact: Use a valid e-mail address for your Particracy account. If the e-mail address you entered does not exist, your account may be suspected of multi-accounting and inactivated. |
| Random quote: "The best politics is right action." - Mahatma Gandhi |