Freedom Of Information Request

[Blue Wolf II]

Section 6.3: Freedom of Information Act

17. 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.
18. All registered citizens residing in The North Pacific may request information from the Government through the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive.
19. 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
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.

I am filing a Freedom of Information request for the release of two complete threads from the NPA forums. One is titled "Request for Assistance" which was authored by me. It contains the now infamous information that Ravania stole and made a PDF file of to give to UDL members. Since half The North Pacific has already read the PDF file, I would like to see it released for public viewing just for the sake of public record and interest.

The other is titled "Re: Issues of Trust and Confidentiality", and contains information related to the Ravania scandal.

I thank the Delegate for his time.

 

[Cove]

Wolf, I'll deal with this when I'm done with work. For now, I'll lock this thread.

 

[Cove]

Request denied. My reasoning is that I don't feel that our region's military affairs should be publically disclosed in such a way and I'd prefer to protect the privacy of NPA members. I will however, note, that the information you have requested is being considered by the delegate's commission and may be released as part of a final report.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

I am now refilling this under the current administration of Delegate McMasterdonia, submitted this day, 23-24SEP13, because the timezones are all wonky and I refuse to submit to Greenwich Mean Time.

 

[Ash]

 

[Blue Wolf II]

I concur with our current MiniDef.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I'm not going to release those threads simply because that particular issue is done and dusted. The trial in the courts of law is now over and I don't see the need to extend this matter in the court of public opinion as the region has moved on from this. If there is a pressing need for it's release for some reason that I am not aware of, I am open to hearing your reasoning and being convinced of the necessity of the information release.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Uhh...maybe you aren't aware of how the FOIA works. The person making the request is not obligated to provide a reason for it. There are two very specific reasons you can deny a request and lack of necessity is *not* one of them. Information about the actions of our government are not released on a "need to know" basis. We're a transparent democracy. For reference, this clause contains the two reasons that you are allowed to deny a request:

17. 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

Emphasis is mine.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Uh...... they might not be required to do so, but there is nothing illegal about me asking for his reasoning. Thank you for reminding me that we are a transparent democracy, I had forgotten.

My point earlier is that I won't release threads simply on the basis that the issue is now dealt with and it should be public for interests sake. Simply because the issue is old does not mean that releasing the thread would not unduly impinge on the privacy of citizens.

In any case the request is denied on the privacy grounds as stated by Jamie. The regions private military affairs on this matter should not be disclosed in such a way. The private areas of the North Pacific Army give the opportunity for NPA members to speak their mind on a range of issues in a private setting. Disclosing these threads would compromise the privacy of those members who expressed their views with the private audience and setting in mind.

 

[SillyString]

Disclosing these threads would compromise the privacy of those members who expressed their views with the private audience and setting in mind.

It would. The release of any thread into a more public setting would impact the privacy of the individuals who posted in it.

The wording of the law acknowledges this - the question is whether that infringement is undue, given the potential benefit for release. I'm not sure I'm personally convinced that the privacy infringement is severe enough here to outweigh the public gain from seeing those threads. The operations of the NPA are within the scope of things the public has a vested interest in overseeing.

And since, as Wolf pointed out, one of the threads has been largely made public anyway, it would be nice for anyone who might have happened to have seen the illegal copy to not have to worry about being in violation of any espionage/confidentiality laws simply for that viewing...

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Disclosing these threads would compromise the privacy of those members who expressed their views with the private audience and setting in mind.

The release of any thread into a more public setting would impact the privacy of the individuals who posted in it.

Yes....

When you join the NPA, you expect that the privacy of what is said and done in that area to be respected by all members.You also have an obligation to act with propriety and according to the regional laws of the region as all RA members are obligated to do. Assuming that this is maintained, NPA members who sign up and contribute to our regional security in that way deserve to have the integrity of their private chambers respected. Ravania violated that trust and had to be removed because of that.

The wording of the law acknowledges this - the question is whether that infringement is undue

It is my view that the privacy infringement of releasing these threads outweighs the public gain of viewing them. I won't release them because I do not see that their is a greater public benefit that outweighs the infringement on the privacy of members of the Army that were involved in that discussion. If there is a greater public benefit that I am aware of, then make me aware of it.

And since, as Wolf pointed out, one of the threads has been largely made public anyway, it would be nice for anyone who might have happened to have seen the illegal copy to not have to worry about being in violation of any espionage/confidentiality laws simply for that viewing

Why should we take an interest in those who viewed an illegal copy? I'm just a bit perplexed. If someone has viewed it illegally that is their decision, it is not the responsibility of freedom of information requests to make a retrospective action legal or ethical. People are already very liberal with their public discussions about the goings on of the private chambers and I would hate to see that practice continued for the few private areas on this forum.

 

[SillyString]

Mcm, if I were to send you a link to a screenshot of a post from an area of the forum you're not masked to see - ignoring for the moment that you're an admin and can see everywhere - and you click it not knowing what it is... you've now viewed classified material in possible violation of the law, without any intention of committing a crime and without making a decision to do so. If you were to then pass that link on, you might yourself be guilty of the commission of a crime - even if you're passing that link on to the attorney general to file a report, if the AG is not masked to view the NPA.

If what Wolf has said is correct, and the majority of people have already viewed the contents of that thread, there is a significant interest in alleviating the risk that discussing its contents, or even acknowledging that one might have seen them, can land people in court... and also allow the AG to focus (if any of them ever chooses to bother past Ravania) on individuals whose behavior was actually criminal.