[private] r3n's second request for review

Discussion in 'Declassified Justice Archive' started by SillyString, Jul 1, 2014.

  1. SillyString

    SillyString TNPer - - -

    Messages:
    4,222
    Given the request and the brief Roman filed, do either of you have thoughts on how to rule?

    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.

    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.

    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?
     
  2. Kiwi

    Kiwi TNPer

    Messages:
    1,773
    Indeed. I think I agree with what you have here.
     
  3. SillyString

    SillyString TNPer - - -

    Messages:
    4,222
    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.
     
  4. SillyString

    SillyString TNPer - - -

    Messages:
    4,222
    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?
     
  5. Blue Wolf II

    Blue Wolf II TNPer

    Messages:
    4,622
    Fine, I recuse myself. Appoint someone to take my place. :P
     
  6. Severisen

    Severisen InFECted -

    Messages:
    210
    Does this work?

    [​IMG]
    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:


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  7. SillyString

    SillyString TNPer - - -

    Messages:
    4,222
    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! :D
     
  8. Kiwi

    Kiwi TNPer

    Messages:
    1,773
    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.
     
  9. Severisen

    Severisen InFECted -

    Messages:
    210
    Think I have fixed those. Sometimes I get capital letter happy.
     
  10. SillyString

    SillyString TNPer - - -

    Messages:
    4,222
    Okay, Asta edits:

     
  11. Severisen

    Severisen InFECted -

    Messages:
    210
    Looks amazing, and I expected nothing less!
     
  12. Kiwi

    Kiwi TNPer

    Messages:
    1,773
    Looks good - I approve.