[PASSED] FoIA Reform Act

Pallaith

Pallaith

TNPer
-
-
-
-
It is no secret that our delegate made reform of our Freedom of Information Act a major goal of his agenda for the region. We have also seen a Court case which put the question of disclosure of government records made in Discord front and center, and led to a major release of Discord logs in Tlomz's delegacy. As one of the people responsible for going through those logs and arranging their disclosure, and someone who is embarking on that process once again, I know first hand how time consuming it can be, and clarifying as much as possible how that should be done while also remaining consistent with our original law, particularly what the goal of that law was in the first place, is not only a worthy goal, it is a necessary one. Future government officials will need to have some idea of how this works, and it's safe to say going in blind is going to lend itself to mistakes. For those who wonder why we're doing this, well, we're already doing it with the ongoing disclosures being made, and it's very much subject to the delegate in office for how smoothly it goes. We had a string of delegates neglecting Discord as part of disclosure, including myself, and despite the aforementioned Court case there is no law explicitly addressing Discord and how it should be handled. It's not a loophole exactly but it's a weird legal situation and we should tidy that up.

I'll go into a bit of the logic of how this is put together shortly. As for why I am here presenting this bill, I am not only one of a couple of people who has actually done this work, I am also a sitting member of the Security Council. While FoIA has been something MadJack and many others wanted to update, we have also seen an effort to apply FoIA as much as possible to the Security Council. There was a law passed last year that mandated disclosures from the Security Council, a compromise bill that sought to address the concerns of the Security Council in carefully applying FoIA by instead drafting language that mirrored FoIA with some exceptions. In practice this law has been criticized for being unclear and inviting improper execution. The Security Council's interpretation of the law has changed a couple of times, and though it is currently using a very broad application, there are many who still wrongly understand how that law works. I believe the law should be clear whenever we can arrange it, and so I took it upon myself to try my hand at the long-wished for and planned FoIA reform. I can confidently state that the draft meets the goals of the delegate and reformists while accommodating the Security Council's concerns with disclosure of their records. It also avoids the problem of parallel sections in the code by putting all the FoIA eggs in the same basket - this is the only FoIA section in our Legal Code now, and it will contain all areas of government subject to FoIA.

FoIA Reform Act:
Chapters 5 and 6 of the Legal Code are amended as follows:
Section 5.5 Disclosure of Security Council information:
26. Disclosure of private Security Council records will be regulated in the same chapter regulating disclosure of executive government records.

Clauses 27-32 shall be struck out
Click to expand...

Section 7.4: Freedom of Information Act:
Section 7.4: Freedom of Information Act:
20. For the purposes of this section "the government" refers to the Delegate and the Executive Officers, including the departments which they oversee, the Vice Delegate and Security Council, and the Speaker's office.
21. For the purposes of this section, “appropriate officers” are those officers responsible for the types of records being requested or released.
22. The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive are responsible for records related to the Executive.
23. The Vice Delegate is responsible for records related to the Security Council.
24. The Speaker is responsible for records related to the Speaker's office.
25. For the purposes of this section, classified information is that which fits any of the below definitions:
  • Real life information about any NationStates player from which there is a risk of inferring that player's real life identity and which has not willingly been disclosed to the public, including, but not limited to, an individual's name, IP address, physical address or location, phone number, place of employment or education, appearance, social media accounts, and other knowledge about a player, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
  • Real life information about any NationStates player for which there exists a reasonable real life expectation of privacy or discretion, including, but not limited to, health status, both mental and physical; financial status; personal tragedies; changes in personal status such as marriage, divorce, pregnancy, birth, or death; and other similar information, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
  • Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize any ongoing military or intelligence operations; or jeopardize the security of units and agents participating in them, or be harmful to the diplomatic interests, military interests, or security of The North Pacific.
  • Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize Security Council operations in response to threats and attempted coups.
26. Notwithstanding any process for publication, any information which meets the criteria to be classified will not be released.
27. For the purposes of this section, "government records" are those which are kept on any platform utilized by the government and are open to members of the government and anyone assisting them.
28. For the purposes of this section, “private government records” are those which are kept on any platform utilized by the government and are restricted to only the Delegate, the designated officers of the Executive, and any other individuals granted access by the Delegate; only the Speaker, the Deputy Speakers, and any other individuals granted access by the Speaker; or only the Vice Delegate, the Security Council, and any other individuals granted access by the Vice Delegate.
29. Private government records which reach one year of age will be relocated to the appropriate Declassified Archive visible to residents.
30. At any time a resident may request the release of any government record or private government record through the appropriate officers.
31. The appropriate officers will retrieve information requested from the different departments of the government.
32. Residents who do not receive this information for any reason not specifically designated in appropriate laws or regulations may file a request for the information to the court, where the appropriate officers may present evidence that addresses any claim that release of the information meets one or more of the acceptable criteria for classification.
33. Information appropriately not disclosed will be accepted as classified by a majority vote of the Court sitting as a three-member panel.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Section 5.5 Disclosure of Security Council information:
26. Disclosure of private Security Council records will be regulated in the same chapter regulating disclosure of executive government records.
27. Information eligible for declassification will be reviewed by the Vice Delegate and the Security Council. The review will redact any information that fits any of the below definitions:
  • Real-life information about any NationStates player from which there is a risk of inferring that player's real-life identity and which has not willingly been disclosed to the public, including, but not limited to, an individual's name, IP address, physical address or location, phone number, place of employment or education, appearance, social media accounts, and other knowledge about a player, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
  • Real-life information about any NationStates player for which there exists a reasonable real-life expectation of privacy or discretion, including, but not limited to, health status, both mental and physical; financial status; personal tragedies; changes in personal status such as marriage, divorce, pregnancy, birth, or death; and other similar information, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
  • Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize any ongoing military or intelligence operations; or jeopardize the security of units and agents participating in them, or be harmful to the diplomatic interests, military interests, or security of The North Pacific.
  • Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize Security Council operations in response to threats and attempted coups.
  • Comments made by previous members of the Security Council who are not able to consent to their comments being made public.
28. At any time a citizen may request the release of any private record from the Security Council through the Vice Delegate.
29. The Vice Delegate will retrieve the information and present it for a review to the Security Council. The Security Council will have 14 days to review the compiled information for any information that should be deemed classified and redact said information. Once the 14 days has elapsed, the information requested will be presented as is, with the exception of Real-life information.
30. The Vice Delegate will present the requested information, including indicators of redacted information.
31. Residents who do not receive this information for any reason not specifically designated in any laws or regulations or information they feel may have been redacted incorrectly may file a request for review from the Court, where the Vice Delegate may present evidence that addresses any claim that the release of the information meets one or more of the acceptable criteria for classification. This evidence does not need to include the redacted information itself, simply evidence as to why the information should remain redacted.
32. Information appropriately not disclosed will be accepted as classified by a two-thirds vote of the Court sitting as a three-member panel.
Click to expand...

Section 7.4: Freedom of Information Act:
20. For the purposes of this section "the government" refers to the Delegate and the Executive Officers, including the departments which they oversee, the Vice Delegate and Security Council, and the Speaker's office.
21. For the purposes of this section, “appropriate officers” are those officers responsible for the types of records being requested or released.
22. The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive are responsible for records related to the Executive.
23. The Vice Delegate is responsible for records related to the Security Council.
24. The Speaker is responsible for records related to the Speaker's office.
25. For the purposes of this section, classified information is that which fits any of the below definitions:
  • Real life information about any NationStates player from which there is a risk of inferring that player's real life identity and which has not willingly been disclosed to the public, including, but not limited to, an individual's name, IP address, physical address or location, phone number, place of employment or education, appearance, social media accounts, and other knowledge about a player, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
  • Real life information about any NationStates player for which there exists a reasonable real life expectation of privacy or discretion, including, but not limited to, health status, both mental and physical; financial status; personal tragedies; changes in personal status such as marriage, divorce, pregnancy, birth, or death; and other similar information, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
  • Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize any ongoing military or intelligence operations; or jeopardize the security of units and agents participating in them, or be harmful to the diplomatic interests, military interests, or security of The North Pacific.
  • Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize Security Council operations in response to threats and attempted coups.
26. Notwithstanding any process for publication, any information which meets the criteria to be classified will not be released.
27. For the purposes of this section, "government records" are those which are kept on any platform utilized by the government and are open to members of the government and anyone assisting them.
28. For the purposes of this section, “private government records” are those which are kept on any platform utilized by the government and are restricted to only the Delegate, the designated officers of the Executive, and any other individuals granted access by the Delegate; only the Speaker, the Deputy Speakers, and any other individuals granted access by the Speaker; or only the Vice Delegate, the Security Council, and any other individuals granted access by the Vice Delegate.
29. Private government records which reach one year of age will be relocated to the appropriate Declassified Archive visible to residents.
30. At any time a resident may request the release of any government private record from the Government through the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive the appropriate officers.
31. The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive The appropriate officers will retrieve information requested from the different departments of the government.
32. Residents who do not receive this information for any reason not specifically designated in appropriate laws or regulations may file a request for the information to the court, where the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive the appropriate officers may present evidence that addresses any claim that release of the information meets one or more of the acceptable criteria for classification.
33. Information appropriately not disclosed will be accepted as classified by a majority vote of the Court sitting as a three-member panel.
Click to expand...
Section 5.5 Disclosure of Security Council information:
26. Disclosure of private Security Council records will be regulated in the same chapter regulating disclosure of executive government records.
27. Information eligible for declassification will be reviewed by the Vice Delegate and the Security Council. The review will redact any information that fits any of the below definitions:
  • Real-life information about any NationStates player from which there is a risk of inferring that player's real-life identity and which has not willingly been disclosed to the public, including, but not limited to, an individual's name, IP address, physical address or location, phone number, place of employment or education, appearance, social media accounts, and other knowledge about a player, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
  • Real-life information about any NationStates player for which there exists a reasonable real-life expectation of privacy or discretion, including, but not limited to, health status, both mental and physical; financial status; personal tragedies; changes in personal status such as marriage, divorce, pregnancy, birth, or death; and other similar information, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
  • Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize any ongoing military or intelligence operations; or jeopardize the security of units and agents participating in them, or be harmful to the diplomatic interests, military interests, or security of The North Pacific.
  • Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize Security Council operations in response to threats and attempted coups.
  • Comments made by previous members of the Security Council who are not able to consent to their comments being made public.
28. At any time a citizen may request the release of any private record from the Security Council through the Vice Delegate.
29. The Vice Delegate will retrieve the information and present it for a review to the Security Council. The Security Council will have 14 days to review the compiled information for any information that should be deemed classified and redact said information. Once the 14 days has elapsed, the information requested will be presented as is, with the exception of Real-life information.
30. The Vice Delegate will present the requested information, including indicators of redacted information.
31. Residents who do not receive this information for any reason not specifically designated in any laws or regulations or information they feel may have been redacted incorrectly may file a request for review from the Court, where the Vice Delegate may present evidence that addresses any claim that the release of the information meets one or more of the acceptable criteria for classification. This evidence does not need to include the redacted information itself, simply evidence as to why the information should remain redacted.
32. Information appropriately not disclosed will be accepted as classified by a two-thirds vote of the Court sitting as a three-member panel.
Click to expand...

Section 7.4: Freedom of Information Act:
20. For the purposes of this section "the government" refers to the Delegate and the Executive Officers, including the departments which they oversee, and the Vice Delegate and Security Council.
21. For the purposes of this section, “appropriate officers” are those officers responsible for the types of records being requested or released.
22. The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive are responsible for records related to the Executive.
23. The Vice Delegate is responsible for records related to the Security Council.
24. For the purposes of this section, classified information is that which fits any of the below definitions:
  • Real life information about any NationStates player from which there is a risk of inferring that player's real life identity and which has not willingly been disclosed to the public, including, but not limited to, an individual's name, IP address, physical address or location, phone number, place of employment or education, appearance, social media accounts, and other knowledge about a player, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
  • Real life information about any NationStates player for which there exists a reasonable real life expectation of privacy or discretion, including, but not limited to, health status, both mental and physical; financial status; personal tragedies; changes in personal status such as marriage, divorce, pregnancy, birth, or death; and other similar information, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
  • Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize any ongoing military or intelligence operations; or jeopardize the security of units and agents participating in them, or be harmful to the diplomatic interests, military interests, or security of The North Pacific.
  • Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize Security Council operations in response to threats and attempted coups.
25. Notwithstanding any process for publication, any information which meets the criteria to be classified will not be released.
26. For the purposes of this section, “private government records” are those which are kept on the forum or any Discord servers utilized by the government which are restricted to only the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive, or only the Vice Delegate and the Security Council.
27. Private government records which reach one year of age will be relocated to the appropriate Declassified Archive visible to residents.
28. At any time a resident may request the release of any private record from the Government through the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive the appropriate officers.
29. The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive The appropriate officers will retrieve information requested from the different departments of the government.
30. Residents who do not receive this information for any reason not specifically designated in appropriate laws or regulations may file a request for the information to the court, where the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive the appropriate officers may present evidence that addresses any claim that release of the information meets one or more of the acceptable criteria for classification.
31. Information appropriately not disclosed will be accepted as classified by a majority vote of the Court sitting as a three-member panel.
Click to expand...
Section 5.5 Disclosure of Security Council information:
26. Disclosure of private Security Council records will be regulated in the same chapter regulating disclosure of executive government records.
27. Information eligible for declassification will be reviewed by the Vice Delegate and the Security Council. The review will redact any information that fits any of the below definitions:
  • Real-life information about any NationStates player from which there is a risk of inferring that player's real-life identity and which has not willingly been disclosed to the public, including, but not limited to, an individual's name, IP address, physical address or location, phone number, place of employment or education, appearance, social media accounts, and other knowledge about a player, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
  • Real-life information about any NationStates player for which there exists a reasonable real-life expectation of privacy or discretion, including, but not limited to, health status, both mental and physical; financial status; personal tragedies; changes in personal status such as marriage, divorce, pregnancy, birth, or death; and other similar information, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
  • Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize any ongoing military or intelligence operations; or jeopardize the security of units and agents participating in them, or be harmful to the diplomatic interests, military interests, or security of The North Pacific.
  • Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize Security Council operations in response to threats and attempted coups.
  • Comments made by previous members of the Security Council who are not able to consent to their comments being made public.
28. At any time a citizen may request the release of any private record from the Security Council through the Vice Delegate.
29. The Vice Delegate will retrieve the information and present it for a review to the Security Council. The Security Council will have 14 days to review the compiled information for any information that should be deemed classified and redact said information. Once the 14 days has elapsed, the information requested will be presented as is, with the exception of Real-life information.
30. The Vice Delegate will present the requested information, including indicators of redacted information.
31. Residents who do not receive this information for any reason not specifically designated in any laws or regulations or information they feel may have been redacted incorrectly may file a request for review from the Court, where the Vice Delegate may present evidence that addresses any claim that the release of the information meets one or more of the acceptable criteria for classification. This evidence does not need to include the redacted information itself, simply evidence as to why the information should remain redacted.
32. Information appropriately not disclosed will be accepted as classified by a two-thirds vote of the Court sitting as a three-member panel.
Click to expand...

Section 7.4: Freedom of Information Act:
20. For the purposes of this section "the government" refers to the Delegate and the Executive Officers, including the departments which they oversee, and the Vice Delegate and Security Council.
21. For the purposes of this section, “appropriate officers” are those officers responsible for the types of records being requested or released.
22. The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive are responsible for records related to the Executive.
23. The Vice Delegate is responsible for records related to the Security Council.
24. For the purposes of this section, classified information is that which fits any of the below definitions:
  • Real life information about any NationStates player from which there is a risk of inferring that player's real life identity and which has not willingly been disclosed to the public, including, but not limited to, an individual's name, IP address, physical address or location, phone number, place of employment or education, appearance, social media accounts, and other knowledge about a player, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
  • Real life information about any NationStates player for which there exists a reasonable real life expectation of privacy or discretion, including, but not limited to, health status, both mental and physical; financial status; personal tragedies; changes in personal status such as marriage, divorce, pregnancy, birth, or death; and other similar information, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
  • Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize any ongoing military or intelligence operations; or jeopardize the security of units and agents participating in them, or be harmful to the diplomatic interests, military interests, or security of The North Pacific.
  • Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize Security Council operations in response to threats and attempted coups.
25. Notwithstanding any process for publication, any information which meets the criteria to be classified will not be released.
26. For the purposes of this section, “private government records” are those which are kept on any platform utilized by the government and are restricted to only the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive, or only the Vice Delegate and the Security Council.
27. Private government records which reach one year of age will be relocated to the appropriate Declassified Archive visible to residents.
28. At any time a resident may request the release of any private record from the Government through the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive the appropriate officers.
29. The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive The appropriate officers will retrieve information requested from the different departments of the government.
30. Residents who do not receive this information for any reason not specifically designated in appropriate laws or regulations may file a request for the information to the court, where the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive the appropriate officers may present evidence that addresses any claim that release of the information meets one or more of the acceptable criteria for classification.
31. Information appropriately not disclosed will be accepted as classified by a majority vote of the Court sitting as a three-member panel.
Click to expand...
Section 5.5 Disclosure of Security Council information:
26. Disclosure of private Security Council records will be regulated in the same chapter regulating disclosure of executive government records.
27. Information eligible for declassification will be reviewed by the Vice Delegate and the Security Council. The review will redact any information that fits any of the below definitions:
  • Real-life information about any NationStates player from which there is a risk of inferring that player's real-life identity and which has not willingly been disclosed to the public, including, but not limited to, an individual's name, IP address, physical address or location, phone number, place of employment or education, appearance, social media accounts, and other knowledge about a player, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
  • Real-life information about any NationStates player for which there exists a reasonable real-life expectation of privacy or discretion, including, but not limited to, health status, both mental and physical; financial status; personal tragedies; changes in personal status such as marriage, divorce, pregnancy, birth, or death; and other similar information, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
  • Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize any ongoing military or intelligence operations; or jeopardize the security of units and agents participating in them, or be harmful to the diplomatic interests, military interests, or security of The North Pacific.
  • Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize Security Council operations in response to threats and attempted coups.
  • Comments made by previous members of the Security Council who are not able to consent to their comments being made public.
28. At any time a citizen may request the release of any private record from the Security Council through the Vice Delegate.
29. The Vice Delegate will retrieve the information and present it for a review to the Security Council. The Security Council will have 14 days to review the compiled information for any information that should be deemed classified and redact said information. Once the 14 days has elapsed, the information requested will be presented as is, with the exception of Real-life information.
30. The Vice Delegate will present the requested information, including indicators of redacted information.
31. Residents who do not receive this information for any reason not specifically designated in any laws or regulations or information they feel may have been redacted incorrectly may file a request for review from the Court, where the Vice Delegate may present evidence that addresses any claim that the release of the information meets one or more of the acceptable criteria for classification. This evidence does not need to include the redacted information itself, simply evidence as to why the information should remain redacted.
32. Information appropriately not disclosed will be accepted as classified by a two-thirds vote of the Court sitting as a three-member panel.
Click to expand...

Section 7.4: Freedom of Information Act:
20. For the purposes of this section "the government" refers to the Delegate and the Executive Officers, including the departments which they oversee, and the Vice Delegate and Security Council.
21. For the purposes of this section, “appropriate officers” are those officers responsible for the types of records being requested or released.
22. The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive are responsible for records related to the Executive.
23. The Vice Delegate is responsible for records related to the Security Council.
24. For the purposes of this section, classified information is that which fits any of the below definitions:
  • Real life information about any NationStates player from which there is a risk of inferring that player's real life identity and which has not willingly been disclosed to the public, including, but not limited to, an individual's name, IP address, physical address or location, phone number, place of employment or education, appearance, social media accounts, and other knowledge about a player, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
  • Real life information about any NationStates player for which there exists a reasonable real life expectation of privacy or discretion, including, but not limited to, health status, both mental and physical; financial status; personal tragedies; changes in personal status such as marriage, divorce, pregnancy, birth, or death; and other similar information, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
  • Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize any ongoing military or intelligence operations; or jeopardize the security of units and agents participating in them, or be harmful to the diplomatic interests, military interests, or security of The North Pacific.
  • Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize Security Council operations in response to threats and attempted coups.
25. Notwithstanding any process for publication, any information which meets the criteria to be classified will not be released.
26. For the purposes of this section, “private government records” are those which are kept on any platform utilized by the government and are restricted to only the Delegate, the designated officers of the Executive, and any other individuals granted access by the Delegate; or only the Vice Delegate, the Security Council, and any other individuals granted access by the Vice Delegate.
27. Private government records which reach one year of age will be relocated to the appropriate Declassified Archive visible to residents.
28. At any time a resident may request the release of any private record from the Government through the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive the appropriate officers.
29. The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive The appropriate officers will retrieve information requested from the different departments of the government.
30. Residents who do not receive this information for any reason not specifically designated in appropriate laws or regulations may file a request for the information to the court, where the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive the appropriate officers may present evidence that addresses any claim that release of the information meets one or more of the acceptable criteria for classification.
31. Information appropriately not disclosed will be accepted as classified by a majority vote of the Court sitting as a three-member panel.
Click to expand...

When I embarked on this, I realized that the subject was not nearly as difficult as anticipated. Since the Security Council bill already mirrored FoIA, all I had to do was strip out the specifics to that section and fold it into the existing structure. In practice we have seen how ho hum the disclosure process has been with the Security Council, and at this point nearly everything subject to release has been released. Given our experience with that process, I deemed it unnecessary to place more restrictions on the process that aren't consistent with FoIA, and they have been removed in this bill. Other than uniting the two areas in one place, this bill explicitly outlines the disclosure rules for Discord. The process we are utilizing now is now codified in this bill. Considering the fact that much of the executive server is virtually public as long as someone is a member of the executive staff (something residents can do in nearly all cases), this law specifically identifies the delegate's cabinet areas, just like original FoIA did with the forum. As far as the Security Council goes, there is a single Discord channel on TNP's general server which would now be subject to disclosure as well. And believe it or not - that is all the bill does! In some ways it wasn't nearly as big a deal as some people thought, and did not require a ton of engineering.

I won't play dumb here: I know that if anything is going to be contentious, it will be the aspect of the bill related to the Security Council. As a long time member of that body, I am sympathetic to the philosophy we have seen guide the SC's response to the last disclosure effort. But we have the benefit of a year of hindsight, and the region has the benefit of seeing all the threads that have been released. Back when that bill was proposed and debated, I made the case that it wasn't nearly as interesting or secretive or shady as some people seemed to imply with how aggressively they demanded to take a peek. Gossip hounds and nosy busybodies were no doubt disappointed by what they found, and people who liked to take pot shots at the SC moved on to attacking other aspects once this was removed as a viable attack line. This may sound a bit cynical, but I do believe that there was a lot of exaggeration and perhaps boredom involved in the nastier sides of those arguments. We all know better now, we have seen the content for ourselves. I do not believe the Security Council has anything to fear from completing the disclosure arc and being on the same system and time table as the executive and I do not believe the public has any reason to expect a different sort of log reading experience. For my part, I hope that my fellow Security Councilors will see the merits of this change, reflect on the actual experience we have had with disclosure and not their worst fears, and will support this bill as a whole.

That all being said, as simple as I thought this was, there may be aspects I have not considered, or my fellow SC members may feel that our initial discussions on this topic should maybe have a more public airing so that the RA, who will ultimately vote on this bill, can decide if they are persuaded or not. That is why we have this process, and if anyone does have suggestions for further alterations, let's hear them.
 
Last edited:
Honestly this is a very reasonable proposal. Given the grounds we had laws contradicting one another, and I think you did very well expressing how these changes will be. I like the fact it keeps it simple, and cleans up the legislation as a whole.
 
Aside from some changes which seem fairly common-sense to me, it looks like the biggest change is that current and former Security Councillors will no longer have to consent to their comments being made public.
Edit: and while we’re at it, why not include the Court as well?
 
Last edited:
Will the SC be required to go back and declassify information that was redacted under the previous bill that is now subjected to declassification?
 
Comfed:
Aside from some changes which seem fairly common-sense to me, it looks like the biggest change is that current and former Security Councillors will no longer have to consent to their comments being made public.
Edit: and while we’re at it, why not include the Court as well?
Click to expand...
This response is precisely why I felt this was a worthy endeavor. The law didn’t actually require SC members to consent to the release of their comments. That was an assumption people made when that law was originally passed, and initially was how the SC enforced it. This was rectified during Cretox’s time as Vice Delegate - the requirement is only that the former SC members be around when the comments are released so they’re aware this law changed. The idea was we didn’t want people who engaged in discourse assuming it was going to stay private to not be around to potentially defend themselves. As I have argued in this thread, our experience doing these releases tells us this was largely an overblown fear because the content in question isn’t something to get worked up over.

I’m not sure what you’re hoping to get from the Court that you don’t already. There’s already a procedure for this in the Court and it continues to abide by it. I suppose you could argue that those procedures could always be changed and therefore you need this enshrined in the legal code, but I believe you always have that option should the Court one day suddenly eliminate that part of its procedures.
Dreadton:
Will the SC be required to go back and declassify information that was redacted under the previous bill that is now subjected to declassification?
Click to expand...
No. The law does what the law says.
 
Pallaith:
No. The law does what the law says.
Click to expand...
Wait...if the law says certain information has to be disclosed without specifying a time period, then all information that fit that description should be disclosed, right? When we first passed the Security Council declassification bill, we started from the earliest SC records, not whatever happens after the bill is passed.

Also, regarding clause 31, which has always been part of the FOIA law but I'm always a bit unsure about what it actually means, is it intended to relate to clause 30? As in, Residents can file a request with the Court if the relevant officer doesn't fulfill the request, and the Court will then hear evidence and vote on whether the information should be classified?
 
Gorundu:
Wait...if the law says certain information has to be disclosed without specifying a time period, then all information that fit that description should be disclosed, right? When we first passed the Security Council declassification bill, we started from the earliest SC records, not whatever happens after the bill is passed.

Also, regarding clause 31, which has always been part of the FOIA law but I'm always a bit unsure about what it actually means, is it intended to relate to clause 30? As in, Residents can file a request with the Court if the relevant officer doesn't fulfill the request, and the Court will then hear evidence and vote on whether the information should be classified?
Click to expand...
The law states categories of information that are to be considered classified, you are highlighting a type of information that used to be considered classified by the old law that would not be considered classified by this one. In that sense you are correct. However, Dreadton’s question was whether the law required the SC to go back and redo already released disclosures - it does not, as you can see by its provisions, but the law already provides a remedy to that situation which you have also highlighted.

Your reading of 31 is correct, it follows from 30.
 
As Pallaith has previously stated, I very much support this. It's a necessary change and one I'm keen to see pass.
 
I chalk up the lukewarm response and silence on this proposal to the ongoing holidays, so I’m just checking in real quick and letting you guys know that I would like to get a vote going next week if things continue the way they’re going currently.
 
I don't believe we should be limiting FOIA requests only to Discord servers or the forum. Seems like you're creating an easy out for anyone that wants to avoid transparency.

That being said, the VD would have to go unredact some materials (which I have no issue with and I strongly support).
 
Praetor:
I don't believe we should be limiting FOIA requests only to Discord servers or the forum. Seems like you're creating an easy out for anyone that wants to avoid transparency.

That being said, the VD would have to go unredact some materials (which I have no issue with and I strongly support).
Click to expand...
And what other sources would you extend FoIA to? Their private messages? I think that would be a tough sell.
 
Pallaith:
And what other sources would you extend FoIA to? Their private messages? I think that would be a tough sell.
Click to expand...
forum.thenorthpacific.org

FOIA Request: Government Communication with Banned Nations

Under the Freedom for Information Act, I would like to request all government records of communication with nations that were banned from the region in the last month regarding their in-game bans. This is to include telegrams, forum messages, discord messages, or any other form of communication...
forum.thenorthpacific.org forum.thenorthpacific.org
 
Pallaith:
And what other sources would you extend FoIA to? Their private messages? I think that would be a tough sell.
Click to expand...
I think it's better to not say what the sources are. As it stands, the government could use IRC/Skype/Slack/etc.
 
If everyone is fine with the idea, I’ll setup the vote today, and link this debate thread to the vote so that debate may continue.
 
Last edited:
Praetor:
I think it's better to not say what the sources are. As it stands, the government could use IRC/Skype/Slack/etc.
Click to expand...
Generally I prefer not to begin the process of listing specifics when it’s likely the list will frequently change. I didn’t believe that would be the case here, but I suppose I can’t discount the possibility.

I am glad we started covering this ground though, because I think it’s really easy to be imprecise and therefore overly broad in making these requests. My proposed language doesn’t really do anything about that, and I think it should. Right now it’s just making it difficult for some people to be precise about sources of information, which isn’t what I had in mind. I’ll throw together a revision later tonight.
Tree of Wisdom:
If everyone is fine with the idea, I’ll setup the vote today, and link this debate thread to the vote so that debate may continue.
Click to expand...
I appreciate you making this offer, but this is highly unusual. I will request when I want a vote to begin, which is the regular practice and clearly outlined in Speaker procedures. Especially given we’re in the process of ironing out a few details, I wouldn’t be moving forward with a vote quite yet. The version of the bill I advance is at this point likely going to look different from what was put out there originally. On top of that, I see you made the voting thread already, which is jumping the gun on a few levels, considering it completely bypasses the formal debate period. While I could just make the motion now and use that period to make further revisions, I don’t know how many revisions we will be making or how long that process will be so that would also be premature.

We will get this to the finish line, don’t worry. But there’s no reason to rush.
 
Pallaith:
Generally I prefer not to begin the process of listing specifics when it’s likely the list will frequently change. I didn’t believe that would be the case here, but I suppose I can’t discount the possibility.

I am glad we started covering this ground though, because I think it’s really easy to be imprecise and therefore overly broad in making these requests. My proposed language doesn’t really do anything about that, and I think it should. Right now it’s just making it difficult for some people to be precise about sources of information, which isn’t what I had in mind. I’ll throw together a revision later tonight.

I appreciate you making this offer, but this is highly unusual. I will request when I want a vote to begin, which is the regular practice and clearly outlined in Speaker procedures. Especially given we’re in the process of ironing out a few details, I wouldn’t be moving forward with a vote quite yet. The version of the bill I advance is at this point likely going to look different from what was put out there originally. On top of that, I see you made the voting thread already, which is jumping the gun on a few levels, considering it completely bypasses the formal debate period. While I could just make the motion now and use that period to make further revisions, I don’t know how many revisions we will be making or how long that process will be so that would also be premature.

We will get this to the finish line, don’t worry. But there’s no reason to rush.
Click to expand...
This problem can be easily addressed by just having it catch all platforms that would be used for government purposes.
 
I have provided a revision per my discussion with Praetor, it was much simpler than I had envisioned at first, mostly because I decided not to sweat the broad/sweeping requests some people might end up making. I don't know how to tighten that up without it being too complicated, the tweak I tried works and I think the existing language will handle the broad requests concern just fine.
 
Hm. Perhaps can we word it to incorporate any cross-discussion between Executive and the Security Council or is that already incorporated to that effect?
 
Praetor:
Hm. Perhaps can we word it to incorporate any cross-discussion between Executive and the Security Council or is that already incorporated to that effect?
Click to expand...
The spaces covered by the law sometimes invite others to participate. In the event those others are part of the discussion, that cross-discussion would be included. The key is that it’s the cabinet and the SC areas, not which particular people are involved in the discussions in those places.
 
Pallaith:
@Praetor have your concerns been sufficiently addressed? With the new term starting I was hoping this could move forward.
Click to expand...
"and are restricted to only the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive, or only the Vice Delegate and the Security Council"

I think this bit is too narrowly focused. Bringing in a non-designated officer of the Executive to a channel/group means that any of that discussion is now able to avoid being released. And there is nothing that states what makes someone designated. For example, I don't see anything that would compel an Advisor to the Delegate to be a designated officer, as such, the Executive Council chat wouldn't be able to be subject to an FOIA as the channel isn't restricted to just the Delegate and the designated officers.
 
I’d suggest the wording “and are both operated by the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive or the Vice Delegate and the Security Council and not visible to all residents”
 
Regrettably, I think @Praetor has a point. Strictly looking at wording I can see someone playing with legalese and weaseling out of disclosure even if doing so ignores years of precedent and practice. I did address this earlier when I pointed out that it is common for the VD or the delegate to allow people outside the SC or the cabinet respectively to sit in on cabinet discussions, and that such additional people are not considered to be members of either body simply because they’re there. It also doesn’t mean they’re designated members of the executive in the case did the delegate. It’s absurd that adding such a person to the channel means it is no longer subject to disclosure, but as they say, better safe than sorry. I’ll provide a tweak later tonight.
 
I would like to motion this to a vote, and I also request an abbreviated formal debate period, followed by an expedited scheduled vote. This has sat on the shelf long enough.

@Fregerson
 
Pallaith:
I would like to motion this to a vote, and I also request an abbreviated formal debate period, followed by an expedited scheduled vote. This has sat on the shelf long enough.
Click to expand...
The Office notes the motion to vote.
Given the request for an abbreviated formal debate period, I am shortening it to 3 days, ending at (time=1642817460) (your forum time). Thereafter, a vote will be scheduled immediately, lasting for 5 days.
 
Alright so, more significant changes have been applied. Following a robust discussion with Praetor, I have created a second type of record to distinguish from private government records. Since defining private government records could impact what residents may request, I have eliminated the "private" distinction. I also figured it would make sense to include the Speaker's office in the list, so it's there now. There is also language that includes all the relevant parties - so anyone helping the government, or the staff itself, and anyone granted access to those spaces. That about sums it up. Barring any glaring issue or objection, this will be at vote tomorrow evening.
 
So you've made a separate definition for "government records", but it's not used anywhere in the section?
 
Gorundu:
So you've made a separate definition for "government records", but it's not used anywhere in the section?
Click to expand...

Praetor:
Putting a government in front of record would solve that.
Click to expand...
Guys, look:

30. At any time a resident may request the release of any record from the Government through the appropriate officers.

This used to read “private record from the Government.” I removed private so that it would be any government record. So you want me to post “any government record from the Government.” That seems redundant. If this clause was understood to mean the same thing as private government record, I don’t see why this doesn’t also work.
 
Pallaith:
Guys, look:

30. At any time a resident may request the release of any record from the Government through the appropriate officers.

This used to read “private record from the Government.” I removed private so that it would be any government record. So you want me to post “any government record from the Government.” That seems redundant. If this clause was understood to mean the same thing as private government record, I don’t see why this doesn’t also work.
Click to expand...
How about:

30. At any time a resident may request the release of any government records from the appropriate officers.
 
Gorundu:
How about:

30. At any time a resident may request the release of any government records from the appropriate officers.
Click to expand...
This is truly TNP at its finest, I got to hand it to you. Your completely pointless change has been made.
 
I’m fairly confident I hold a minority opinion here. This proposal should not be retroactive. On principle I believe that, absent consent, any comments made with the expectation of privacy should remain private. I may have quaint notions of common courtesy in that respect, but I really don’t think it’s a nice thing to do to people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top