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: LBSC Initiative 56 - Confidentiality? Yeah right.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Democratic 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: May 2157
Description[?]:
| Not while I'm the Minister of Justice. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The confidentiality of letters and correspondence.
Old value:: The confidentiality of letters is inviolable.
Current: The confidentiality of letters is inviolable, but the justice dept. can violate the confidentiality of letters with grounded cause.
Proposed: The confidentiality of letters is inviolable, but the justice dept. can violate the confidentiality of letters with grounded cause.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Right to privacy.
Old value:: Individuals have a right to privacy, to keep records and information for themselves.
Current: The government has the right to monitor information of individuals without letting them know.
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 | 04:00:04, December 16, 2005 CET | From | Social Democratic Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the LBSC Initiative 56 - Confidentiality? Yeah right. |
| Message | Support both of them.....sadly I dont want to loose my civil rights status, sorry. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 68 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 119 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 14 |
| Random fact: Before creating a party organisation, check to see whether there are any existing organisations which cover the same agenda. |
| Random quote: "Those who are responsible for the national security must be the sole judges of what the national security requires. It would be obviously undesirable that such matters should be made the subject of evidence in a court of law or otherwise discussed in public." - Unattributed member of the the House of Lords on the removal of trade union rights |