Repeal of Privacy Protection Act [On President's Desk]

[Marokai Backbeat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Tmthforu94

[Marokai Backbeat]

I, of course, absolutely oppose this and see no pressing need for it's repeal.

[Franzl]

I may have jumped the gun a bit by proposing this in this form....

I did not pause to think about the stories of certain victims of abuse of trust.

Despite that, I do think it's a bad sign for Atlasia that we need a law regulating something like this, instead of simply basing ones ability to hold a conversation with someone and share information on mutual trust.

I've said already I'm willing to compromise with a clarification of the law's language to make sure it isn't abused, but before I officially propose it, I would like to here what other senators have to say.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The key concept missing from the law as it stands is malice - add that and an (accidentally) draconian law becomes somewhat palatable.

Though I would rather it becomes a civil wrong rather than a criminal offense... not quite sure how that could be worked, though.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This law does what it does well, and there's really no reason to repeal it. Yes, RB got caught up in things, but throughout all the drama that goes on in Atlasia, there's much more of a threat of people posting PMs just to go after others, as others did to me and numerous other people in the past.

This law keeps private messages private. That seems rather sensible to me.

[Hans-im-Glück]

Where can I find the exact text of  the FL 31-18?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Where can I find the exact text of  the FL 31-18?

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Privacy_Protection_Act

[tmthforu94]

Leaning against this. I think now that people have realized doing this is possible, a bunch of pm's would start being posted if this was repealed.

[Devilman88]

I, of course, absolutely oppose this and see no pressing need for it's repeal.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This law does what it does well, and there's really no reason to repeal it. Yes, RB got caught up in things, but throughout all the drama that goes on in Atlasia, there's much more of a threat of people posting PMs just to go after others, as others did to me and numerous other people in the past.

This law keeps private messages private. That seems rather sensible to me.

Rowan only got off (unless bgwah surprises us all and goes for a retrial) on a technicality. Anyone caught in the same position in the future will not be so lucky, especially given the established literal-minded tendency of Atlasian juries. Which is an unacceptable situation. All that would be needed to make the problem (which is not the only problem with the law, but clearly the biggest one) disappear would be to add the word "maliciously" between "to" and "publicly".

[Hans-im-Glück]

Where can I find the exact text of  the FL 31-18?

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Privacy_Protection_Act

I think the Privacy Protection Act is not bad. I don't want to get my PM to the public. It must be a penalty for this, otherwise there is no greater obstacle to publish all the PM.

[Franzl]

Where can I find the exact text of  the FL 31-18?

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Privacy_Protection_Act

I think the Privacy Protection Act is not bad. I don't want to get my PM to the public. It must be a penalty for this, otherwise there is no greater obstacle to publish all the PM.

Why would you share personal information with someone you couldn't trust?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I oppose this. We should amend the original bill to include intent and malice and well as give some latitude to the Atty General as to whether or not it should be prosecuted.

[Hans-im-Glück]

Where can I find the exact text of  the FL 31-18?

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Privacy_Protection_Act

I think the Privacy Protection Act is not bad. I don't want to get my PM to the public. It must be a penalty for this, otherwise there is no greater obstacle to publish all the PM.

Why would you share personal information with someone you couldn't trust?

Franzl, this is very naive. We all send PM to other posters we think this is a good friend and we can trust him, but it happens that from one minute to the other a good friend is angry about you and then he publish all your PM. He can do it then, but he must be aware that he is thus a risk penalty.

[Franzl]

Where can I find the exact text of  the FL 31-18?

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Privacy_Protection_Act

I think the Privacy Protection Act is not bad. I don't want to get my PM to the public. It must be a penalty for this, otherwise there is no greater obstacle to publish all the PM.

Why would you share personal information with someone you couldn't trust?

Franzl, this is very naive. We all send PM to other posters we think this is a good friend and we can trust him, but it happens that from one minute to the other a good friend is angry about you and then he publish all your PM. He can do it then, but he must be aware that he is thus a risk penalty.

Personally, I think it's pretty naive to be sharing big secrets with people you don't know you can trust....but ok.

As said, I'm willing to compromise on this.

[Hans-im-Glück]

I would support a modification of this Act. In the first instance it should be a stern warning. Then this one is "criminal". He knows then that he can't do it anymore without a penalty.

[Hash]

The PPA is a good law, as most agree, though it only needs some sort of thing, don't know how to explain. Something like this (changes bolded)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But those things are hard to determine.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Malice. All that's needed is the word malice.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yeah someone could make a rationale for that for alot of things, really. Tmth could've said he was doing it for the "public good" because I was "blackmailing." Teddy could've said he was doing it for the "public good" in protest of a "draconian law." It goes on an on.

[Hans-im-Glück]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think that is a good modification of this Act. This is very unclear and may be interpreted differently by each.

[Purple State]

Malice. All that's needed is the word malice.

I agree with this. As the original sponsor of the PPA, I think this is a sensible way to ensure it is not abused.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't really see how this Act needs changed at all. Why must people be allowed to post PRIVATE information?

[Franzl]

I don't really see how this Act needs changed at all. Why must people be allowed to post PRIVATE information?

I know it's not quite the same as online, but if person A sends person B a letter by post.....what keeps person B from showing everyone he knows the letter from person A?

It's also a matter of trust who you write letters containing personal information.

Now don't lecture me on how Atlasia works differently, I know that perfectly well, that PMs are used for campaign purposes and the like.....but I still think the underlying principle is the same

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't really see how this Act needs changed at all. Why must people be allowed to post PRIVATE information?

Because it may be in the public interest to do so or because doing so might be done with no intended harm.

[Rowan]

I really don't see why we need to change it. I oppose the repeal.