[private] Declassification of Court Records

SillyString

SillyString

TNPer
-
-
I would like to start going through the old court archives and begin declassifying private discussions. The time frame I am thinking on this is to review anything older than one year and make it available for public viewing unless there are compelling reasons otherwise.

Does this meet with your approval? If so, I'll go ahead and request a new archive forum and some autotools and get to work. If not, what are your objections and what would you prefer?
 
Question for Wolf: How do you feel about this thread being declassified? Since you're a sitting justice, I don't want to immediately release you and FALCONSHOUTS' bickering unless you're okay with it.
 
Flemingovia has asked for guidance on how we want to approach declassifying threads which are younger than 1 year. These are my tentative thoughts:

- For threads which are younger than 1 year but older than 6 months, declassify upon specific request unless there is a genuine ongoing concern with doing so, with a tendency toward release where possible.

- For threads which are younger than 6 months but occurred in prior terms, consider declassifying upon specific request that lays out a legitimate need, with a tendency toward caution. "Legitimate need" might be "I am investigating allegations of misconduct by a justice and need access to this discussion thread", where "I want to read it please" would probably not be sufficient.

- For threads which are part of the current judicial term, do not declassify except in exceedingly rare cases.

Thoughts? Further refinement?
 
What would you two think of adding something to the Adopted Court Rules about this? To codify it for future courts?
 
DD told me he would work on this but apparently did not. :P So here's a draft of my own:

Chapter 5: Declassification and Privacy

Section 1: Declassification of Records
  1. Private Court records, in either the Justices' private forum or the private archive, which reach one year of age will be relocated to the Declassified Justice Archive.
  2. Private Court records which have reached six months of age may be released early in the same manner when requested by an RA member.
  3. Private Court records which are younger than six months but predate the sitting Court may be requested by an RA member and released if the Court finds a compelling benefit to their publication.
  4. Private Court records from within the term of the sitting Court will not be released.
Section 2: Privacy of Information
  1. Information protected as private is defined as follows:
    • 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.
  2. The Court will not release Private information during its declassification process. This may take the form of withholding a thread in its entirety, or producing a copy of of the original thread with the Private information or posts redacted.
Click to expand...

Thoughts? Note that the language of section 2 is yanked from an RA bill I'm drafting, so may become redundant if I ever get around to proposing it. But until then, I like it there.
 
Hey, slave narratives and beer aren't going to take care of themselves. :P

I like the draft, though I do wonder if it should be made explicit that the records are for completed court cases/reviews? Sometimes court cases last longer than 6 months or a year and I would hate for someone to request declassification of court records that were still active because it had passed a time limit. Does that make sense, or am I totally off base?
 
Eek! There's another thing we should update:

1.1.7:
In the case of indictments seeking to impose penalties on a Defendant prior to the conclusion of a trial, including their removal from the region or expulsion from the Regional Assembly, the procedures established by the Legal Code must be followed as stated and will override any conflicting adopted rules and procedures of the Court.
Click to expand...

Since we replaced the section of the legal code that that referred to, I propose we strike it entirely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top