[private] r3n's second request for review

[SillyString]

Given the request and the brief Roman filed, do either of you have thoughts on how to rule?

First, consider the case where some of the information that is subject to the freedom of information clause pertains to a citizen that held office in the Executive at the time this information was produced, but no longer does so at the time the request for disclosure is made. Is this citizen considered a "private citizen" for the purposes of the freedom of information clause?

I would say no. Someone does not cease to be accountable to the region simply because their term expired, and so long as their original posts were made in their capacity as a government official, they remain governmental in nature.

Second, consider the case where some of the information subject to the freedom of information clause pertains to a citizen that holds some office in the region, but this office is not part of the Executive. The Court found recently in Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Kiwi on the Scope of Freedom of Information Act Requests that the freedom of information clause can only be used for, to quote the decision, "information belonging to the Executive branch". Should this be interpreted that, for the purposes of the freedom of information clause, this citizen is considered a "private citizen"?

This, I would argue, depends on the nature of the information. If it is the Executive branch gossiping about, say, the performance of the court, then that is governmental and not private in nature. If it is personal information about a government official, though, then I would say that that is exempt. Or, if it is a private message sent from someone who happens to be a government official but who is sending it to a member of the executive in their capacity as a concerned citizen.

Third and last, consider the case where some of the information subject to the freedom of information clause pertains to a citizen that holds office in the Executive, but the information itself is unrelated to this citizen’s capacity as an officer in the Executive. Should the citizen in question be treated as a "private citizen" for the purposes of the freedom of information clause?

Again, I think that depends on the nature of the information. If it's "this is the delegate's street address and telephone number" then yes, it's exempt, but if it's related to in-game stuff I don't think it necessarily is.

So that's what I'm thinking we rule - and perhaps include in our ruling that the delegate can submit specific instances to the court in private, and we will give a ruling on whether it is exempt or not?

 

[Kiwi]

Indeed. I think I agree with what you have here.

 

[SillyString]

I'm going to ask r3n to clarify what he means by "information that pertains to". If I post "Zyvet is a meanie pants" then that's information pertaining to Zyvet, but I don't think it qualifies as exempt from FOIA.

 

[SillyString]

Okay so we really need to get this done... Wolf, since this question is about a FOIA request that you filed, might I suggest you recuse yourself?

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Fine, I recuse myself. Appoint someone to take my place.

 

[Severisen]

Does this work?

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​

In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by r3naissanc3r on the meaning of "private citizen" with respect to the Freedom of Information Act

Opinion drafted by Severisen, joined by SillyString & Kiwi​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by r3naissanc3r.

The Court took into consideration the brief filed here by Romanoffia.


The Court took into consideration the relevant sections of the Legal Code of the North Pacific:

16. The Delegate and appointed government officials will be delegated the task of informing the Assembly of any governmental action not already disclosed by the respective officers of the Executive.
17. All registered citizens residing in The North Pacific may request information from the Government through the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive.
18. The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive will endeavour to retrieve information requested from the different departments of the government, who are obligated to release this information provided it will not and/or does not present a threat to regional security or unduly impinge on the privacy of private citizens, and
19. Citizens which do not receive this information for any reason not specifically designated in appropriate laws or regulations may file a request for the information in a regional court, where the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive may present evidence that addresses any claim that release of the information impairs Regional security.
20. Information not disclosed because of issues pertaining to Regional security will be classified by the majority vote of the Court sitting as a three-member panel.
21. Information whose disclosure is deemed a security threat to the Region will be released by the affirmative vote of a majority of a three-member panel of the Court, no sooner than 2 months after the original request, once the threat no longer exists.

The Court opines the following:

r3naissanc3r has asked the Court to clarify, for the purposes of the FOIA law, what the meaning of the term private citizen is in Chapter 6, Section 6.2, Clause 18 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific. Specifically, r3naissanc3r has posed 3 scenaria for the court's consideration.

First, consider the case where some of the information that is subject to the freedom of information clause pertains to a citizen that held office in the Executive at the time this information was produced, but no longer does so at the time the request for disclosure is made. Is this citizen considered a "private citizen" for the purposes of the freedom of information clause?

The court has determined that individuals do not cease to be accountable to the region simply because their term expired, and so long as their original posts were made in their capacity as a government official, they remain governmental in nature. The pertinent fact is whether a poster was a government official at the time of posting, and not at the time a request is filed.

Second, consider the case where some of the information subject to the freedom of information clause pertains to a citizen that holds some office in the region, but this office is not part of the Executive. The Court found recently in Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Kiwi on the Scope of Freedom of Information Act Requests that the freedom of information clause can only be used for, to quote the decision, "information belonging to the Executive branch". Should this be interpreted that, for the purposes of the freedom of information clause, this citizen is considered a "private citizen"?

The court has determined that the subject of the information is not pertinent with some exceptions. The court determined that this depends on the nature of the information. If a cabinet minister posts in the private cabinet area "X", but prefaces it with "Not speaking as a minister", the court does not find this to be a valid exemption. The cabinet, when speaking in private chambers, is always speaking in its role as a member of the executive by virtue of the fact that the access to such an area is granted specifically due to their membership in the executive. Personal real life information about a player, however, is always considered private, regardless of who is posting and whether they have a government position, unless that player explicitly consents to the information's release.

In addition, the court opines that a private message sent from someone who happens to be a government official but who is sending it to a member of the executive in their capacity as a concerned citizen would also be exempt from a FOIA request. The court finds that using PM content without permission unduly impinges on the rights of a private citizen, and private PMs would then need to be edited out of any FOIA release unless the authors have given permission for such a release.

Third and last, consider the case where some of the information subject to the freedom of information clause pertains to a citizen that holds office in the Executive, but the information itself is unrelated to this citizen’s capacity as an officer in the Executive. Should the citizen in question be treated as a "private citizen" for the purposes of the freedom of information clause?

In clarification, r3naisanc3r, presented the court for consideration a scenario where a post made by individual A and which discusses individual B pertains to both the A and B individuals. The court has determined that it is only the status of individual A that matters when determining whether a post should be released, with the same expectation of privacy on real life information. The court finds that while the citizen being discussed IS a private citizen, they're not actually the information itself. The exemption that's granted is if information would "unduly impinge on the privacy of private citizens.” The court finds that even if someone is a private citizen themselves, releasing information that involves other people talking about them doesn't impinge on their privacy, with the obvious exception of real life information.


In summary, it is the status of a member at the time the information was posted, not the time the information was requested, that is the determining factor on a release of information. Members of the executive act in their capacities as such in private chambers at all times. Private Messages are exempt from a release unless the authors have given permission for such a release. The poster of the information shall be used to determine whether information is subject to release, regardless of the status of the person about whom the information was written. And finally, real life personal information should always be given an expectation of privacy, unless permission is specifically granted by that person for the release.

 

[SillyString]

Looks good overall. I have some suggestions I want to make, but they will have to wait until I'm off work tonight.

Best Sev!

 

[Kiwi]

Could we change "specifically due to the membership in the executive" to "specifically due to THEIR membership in the executive"? I think it reads better.

Also change "In Summary" to a small "s" and RL to 'real life' or 'Real Life', using inverted commas if you deem it necessary.

I'm otherwise fairly happy with it. I expect SS will be able to work out the kinks I haven't. Content wise, I think it gets across what I need it to.

 

[Severisen]

Think I have fixed those. Sometimes I get capital letter happy.

 

[SillyString]

Okay, Asta edits:

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​

In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by r3naissanc3r on the meaning of "private citizen" with respect to the Freedom of Information Act

Opinion drafted by Severisen, joined by SillyString & Kiwi​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by r3naissanc3r.

The Court took into consideration the brief filed here by Romanoffia.


The Court took into consideration the relevant sections of the Legal Code of the North Pacific:

16. The Delegate and appointed government officials will be delegated the task of informing the Assembly of any governmental action not already disclosed by the respective officers of the Executive.
17. All registered citizens residing in The North Pacific may request information from the Government through the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive.
18. The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive will endeavour to retrieve information requested from the different departments of the government, who are obligated to release this information provided it will not and/or does not present a threat to regional security or unduly impinge on the privacy of private citizens, and
19. Citizens which do not receive this information for any reason not specifically designated in appropriate laws or regulations may file a request for the information in a regional court, where the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive may present evidence that addresses any claim that release of the information impairs Regional security.
20. Information not disclosed because of issues pertaining to Regional security will be classified by the majority vote of the Court sitting as a three-member panel.
21. Information whose disclosure is deemed a security threat to the Region will be released by the affirmative vote of a majority of a three-member panel of the Court, no sooner than 2 months after the original request, once the threat no longer exists.

The Court opines the following:

r3naissanc3r has asked the Court to clarify, for the purposes of the FOIA law, the meaning of the term "private citizen" and the protections afforded by Chapter 6, Section 6.2, Clause 18 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific. Specifically, r3naissanc3r has posed three scenaria for the court's consideration.

First, consider the case where some of the information that is subject to the freedom of information clause pertains to a citizen that held office in the Executive at the time this information was produced, but no longer does so at the time the request for disclosure is made. Is this citizen considered a "private citizen" for the purposes of the freedom of information clause?

In the Court's opinion, the answer to this question is no. Individuals do not cease to be accountable to the region simply because their term has ended, and posts which were governmental in nature when made retain that status. In reverse, posts which are non-governmental in nature do not suddenly become subject to FOIA when their author joins the Executive branch. The sole relevant facts are the status of the post and its author at its creation.

Second, consider the case where some of the information subject to the freedom of information clause pertains to a citizen that holds some office in the region, but this office is not part of the Executive. The Court found recently in Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Kiwi on the Scope of Freedom of Information Act Requests that the freedom of information clause can only be used for, to quote the decision, "information belonging to the Executive branch". Should this be interpreted that, for the purposes of the freedom of information clause, this citizen is considered a "private citizen"?

In a previous ruling, the Court stated:

As an additional finding, on the matter of ownership, the Court holds that the author of a post owns its content, and posts made while acting in one's capacity as a government official are owned, more broadly, by the respective branch of government within which that capacity falls.

Therefore, the status of an individual discussed within a post is not relevant to the interpretation of this Act. Whether or not that citizen is a private citizen has no effect.

Third and last, consider the case where some of the information subject to the freedom of information clause pertains to a citizen that holds office in the Executive, but the information itself is unrelated to this citizen's capacity as an officer in the Executive. Should the citizen in question be treated as a "private citizen" for the purposes of the freedom of information clause?

As in the previous scenario, it is the status of the author and not the topic which determines whether a post is subject to FOIA. So long as the author is speaking in their capacity as an executive official, the law applies.

The Court expands on the above by issuing the following additional rulings:

First, the Court states that all posts made within areas of the forum which normally grant posting privileges only to members of the executive - excluding administrators and moderators from consideration - are inherently made in the author's capacity as an executive official. Such posts cannot be considered non-governmental. Posts which are made in areas of the forum more accessible to the public may be ruled non-governmental if such a determination is merited by their content and context.

Second, the court determines that real life information about any NationStates player which has not been willingly disclosed to the public is exempt from disclosure under FOIA. This information includes, but is not limited to, an individual's name, address, phone number, place of employment or education, appearance, and anything which represents a reasonable risk of allowing a player's real life identity to be discovered. It also includes sensitive information for which there is a reasonable real life expectation of privacy and/or discretion, including but not limited to health status, both mental and physical, personal tragedies or changes in personal status (such as marriage, divorce, pregnancy, birth, or death), and other similar information. Any such information contained in a thread requested under the Freedom of Information Act must be redacted prior to the thread's release. Any such redaction must be made non-destructively, such that the original is preserved for future review.

Third, the Court rules that when a post contains a private message not authored by the poster, additional scrutiny must be used in determining whether releasing that private message without the permission of the author would unduly impinge on the privacy of a private citizen. Because the content of any such messages can be as variable as the imagination allows, the Court is unable to lay out a rule to be followed in all cases. Suffice it to say, the Court grants that there may be cases where the disclosure of a private message is appropriate, and cases where it is inappropriate. Specific instances where there is some question as to how to proceed may be adjudicated under clause 19 of the Freedom of Information Act.

 

[Severisen]

Looks amazing, and I expected nothing less!

 

[Kiwi]

Looks good - I approve.