Talk:Amendment to The Policing Act, 645

From The Kodiak Republic Wiki

Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 03/03/2024 8:39 PM

Tabled by Bill Simmons, MGA, as a government sponsored bill. An amendment to increase the funding of the State Bureau of Investigations,_645 Voting set for 9 March. The Kodiak Republic Wiki Amendment to The Policing Act, 645 An amendment to increase the funding of the State Bureau of Investigations ACTIONED on ## month ####, ## Aye, ## Nay, ## Abstain. Braughn F. G. Kryos


a message

to this channel. See all 

pinned messages .

— 03/03/2024 8:39 PM

Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 03/03/2024 8:39 PM

@Assembly Member, debate for this bill is now open. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 03/03/2024 9:25 PM No matter you opinion of intelligence services, it should be clear that ours have not been able to perform the wide range of functions required under the strain of the communist insurrection. I commend the Minister for his work in resolving this issue. Jack Williams (DPPK) — 03/03/2024 10:23 PM I believe this is a good increase in much needed funding. Alexander Paramount (NUP) — 03/03/2024 10:38 PM I believe that too, our intelligence agency has been underfunded for a long time, I say ₣750,000,000 is a good starter for now Bernard Glocke [I] — 03/03/2024 11:42 PM While funding may be a start to increasing capability. I think we should explore increasing authorities for the intelligence service to achieve its mission. Additionally, investing in methods of sensitive collection that would give them abilities to detect threats ahead of action. Bill Simmons [NUP] — 03/04/2024 1:59 AM First of all I'd like to say that the SBI has been under extreme stress with the domestic crisis. This injection of funding is necessary to keep our nation safe. Mr Glocke, I agree with your point. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by 'sensitive collection'? I am unaware of what this means. Bernard Glocke [I] — 03/04/2024 4:36 AM Of course. I am proposing that we need to consider the possibility of increasing the Electronic Surveillance capability within the Intelligence community.

Something to the tune of:

(1)Not with standing any other law, the Chancellor, through the Assembly President and Chief Justice, may authorize domestic electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign and/or domestic terrorist and/or insurrectionist movement intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Chancellor certifies in writing under oath that— (1.1)the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— (1.1.1)the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, or (1.1.2)the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, (1.2)the proposed procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization and if the Chief Justice reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the Assembly President at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Chief Justice determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately. (1.3)An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Chief Justice’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Chief Justice shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the General Assembly. (1.4)The Chief Justice shall immediately transmit under seal of the court a copy of his certification to the President of the Assembly. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Chancellor, in consultation with the Director of State Bureau of Investigations, and shall remain sealed unless— (1.4.1)an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made; or (1.4.2)the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 03/04/2024 5:59 PM

I believe it is a terrible mistake to allow for any official of the law to "authorize domestic electronic surveillance without a court order", regardless of the reason. This is a fundamental right of our citizenry: to be observed only when legal process allows. Under no circumstances can it be allowed for the Chancellor, by any means contrived, to subvert the well-established rights of privacy. John Edwards [KWP] — 03/04/2024 8:01 PM This may be an argument for the separate bill. I am all for increasing funding but we cannot have surveillance of the population at the discretion of a single individual. Bernard Glocke [I] — 03/04/2024 10:17 PM Agreed, which is why the wording is for all three members of senior government to confirm the need to do such monitoring. worst case scenario still requires the Chancellor and Chief Justice to conduct an immediate authorization. Bernard Glocke [I] — 03/04/2024 10:24 PM I will argue against the seperate bill. The reason is thus: I don't see the failure of the SBI being a funding issue so much as authorities. Giving more money will allow more personnel hiring and maybe a nicer facility. But if the analyst are tied to reading reporting from only external sources about external threats, how can they detect internal threats that require clandestine sourcing and electronic surveillance. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 03/05/2024 6:10 PM

But I believe that one person should have the power to uniliaterally decide to suspend the native rights of citizens. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 03/05/2024 6:37 PM You do? Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 03/05/2024 6:46 PM

I apologize. I do not believe. I misspoke. EasyPoll BOT

— 03/10/2024 8:04 AM

Question Does the General Assembly approve of the Amendment to The Policing Act, 645?

Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain

Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░ [8 • 57%] 🇧 ▓▓▓▓░░░░░░ [5 • 36%] 🇨 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [1 • 7%] 14 users voted


alarm_clock: Poll already ended (2 days ago)
spy: Anonymous Poll
one: allowed choice
lock: No other votes allowed

Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: 036e4201 Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 03/10/2024 8:04 AM

@Assembly Member, voting for this bill is now open and will remain open for 72 hours. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— Today at 9:10 PM

With 8 ayes, 5 nays, and 1 abstain, the Amendment to The Policing Act, 645, is passed by the General Assembly. This debate will be archived shortly.

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.