|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jan 2, 2016 9:51:13 GMT -6
I am extremely unhappy that the Chancery is unilaterally making all of these decisions. We are a tiny country, and we just keep making it harder for us to communicate with each other. No one was going to register a party in order to get 200 email addresses to sell, and in trying to prevent that entirely imaginary problem, you have helped push Talossans further apart from each other and ignored the wishes of many Talossans -- like me -- who didn't give you permission to change their privacy settings. Oh, and it's the Ziu who forced me to do so... I didn't act unilaterarly, the Ziu passed a law making it so. I just had forgotten which law, but I remembered at the back of my head that I wasn't supposed to share the full list of voters.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jan 2, 2016 9:56:29 GMT -6
8.5. Information Available to Political Party Leaders 8.5.1. An Electorate Database shall be made available to political party leaders.8.5.2. The Database shall only be accessible by leaders of parties which have been fully registered with the Chancery and provincial officers, provided the conditions in D.8.5 are met. 8.5.3. The Database shall contain the following information on each of the Kingdom's Citizens only: Name, Province, E-Mail address. 8.5.4. The E-Mail address of a citizen shall only be made available to party leaders if the citizen has opted-in to receive election communications 8.5.5. Measures shall be taken to ensure that the database is kept non-public and can only be viewed by the audience intended. 8.5.6. Additional information may be held upon the database against any given person ONLY if that person requests such information to be included. 8.5.7. Any citizen may request to opt-out of having their E-Mail address included in this database for any reason at any time by notifying the Chancery. As it turns out, this is wrong! www.talossa.ca/files/bills.php?bill=15&cosa=47&clark=4Ammended Lex to say: But Lex was not updated.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 2, 2016 10:16:23 GMT -6
The electorate database already existed -- or was supposed to. I know, because I had access to it last time, and it gave me the ability to contact Talossan citizens. I couldn't contact everyone, since some names were greyed out because some people didn't opt-in and their info wasn't visible, but the vast majority.
Now when I look at the system, I see that 231 out of 243 citizens no longer have any option selected, because the Chancery has overridden so many people's preferences.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 2, 2016 10:18:00 GMT -6
8.5. Information Available to Political Party Leaders 8.5.1. An Electorate Database shall be made available to political party leaders.8.5.2. The Database shall only be accessible by leaders of parties which have been fully registered with the Chancery and provincial officers, provided the conditions in D.8.5 are met. 8.5.3. The Database shall contain the following information on each of the Kingdom's Citizens only: Name, Province, E-Mail address. 8.5.4. The E-Mail address of a citizen shall only be made available to party leaders if the citizen has opted-in to receive election communications 8.5.5. Measures shall be taken to ensure that the database is kept non-public and can only be viewed by the audience intended. 8.5.6. Additional information may be held upon the database against any given person ONLY if that person requests such information to be included. 8.5.7. Any citizen may request to opt-out of having their E-Mail address included in this database for any reason at any time by notifying the Chancery. As it turns out, this is wrong! www.talossa.ca/files/bills.php?bill=15&cosa=47&clark=4Ammended Lex to say: But Lex was not updated. You are quoting back 8.5.4 at him, which is already in the law he just listed for you.
|
|
Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN
Puisne Justice; Chancellor of the Royal Talossan Bar; Cunstaval to Florencia
Dame & Former Seneschal
Posts: 1,157
Talossan Since: 4-5-2010
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on Jan 2, 2016 10:32:25 GMT -6
Since we went from Opt-out to opt-in, I do not have a choice by law but to set all citizens to "no contact", until they opt-in otherwise. That's not entirely correct, since the law cannot have retrospective force, it can reasonably be assumed that those on the list prior to the change in the law consented to be opted in to political communications. Therefore, in my opinion the Chancery overstepped its role in opting all citizens out, instead it should of set all prior citizens to a default of "opt-in" and given them the opportunity to "opt out" via a email notification. The change in law should not of had the effect of opting everyone out till they opt back in again, instead it should of preserved the status quo that was in effect prior to its enacting unless explicitly stated otherwise in the bill.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jan 2, 2016 10:47:59 GMT -6
Since we went from Opt-out to opt-in, I do not have a choice by law but to set all citizens to "no contact", until they opt-in otherwise. That's not entirely correct, since the law cannot have retrospective force, it can reasonably be assumed that those on the list prior to the change in the law consented to be opted in to political communications. Therefore, in my opinion the Chancery overstepped its role in opting all citizens out, instead it should of set all prior citizens to a default of "opt-in" and given them the opportunity to "opt out" via a email notification. The change in law should not of had the effect of opting everyone out till they opt back in again, instead it should of preserved the status quo that was in effect prior to its enacting unless explicitly stated otherwise in the bill. That's an interesting opinion I had NOT considered. When the Anti-Spam law came in place in Canada, it WAS retroactive, but that doesn't mean ours is! Perhaps we should put by default all of the citizens which were citizens on the day of that law to have opted-in, and newer ones not to have so?
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jan 2, 2016 10:50:22 GMT -6
The electorate database already existed -- or was supposed to. I know, because I had access to it last time, and it gave me the ability to contact Talossan citizens. I couldn't contact everyone, since some names were greyed out because some people didn't opt-in and their info wasn't visible, but the vast majority. Now when I look at the system, I see that 231 out of 243 citizens no longer have any option selected, because the Chancery has overridden so many people's preferences. There was only 1 list of citizens: the full census. In the past, you could see all of them. No one had explicitly opt-ed out. With the new law which requires an Opt-in, I built a privacy system. But Litz's opinion that the law isn't retroactive is very interesting, and perhaps I should figure out which is the law citizen to have joined the Kingdom by the time the law was promulgated and set all of those before that as "Reveal" by default
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jan 2, 2016 10:54:41 GMT -6
Greta Mutti would have the last Citizen under the old system, as she joined on the last day of the clark of February 21st 2015.
She is citizen #464.
Therefore, all citizens with a citizenship number equal to or below 464, would have, if no setting is set, their privacy set to "Reveal".
How can I get a confirmation that this is legal?
I just do it and hope not to get sued for violating the law?
Screw it, NO ONE seemed to defend my position of protecting the privacy and instead, everyone thinks I am overstepping, so I will do that.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jan 2, 2016 10:59:58 GMT -6
It is done.
In the list of voters for party leaders, the Reveal part now has 2 colors: Those in Red were in the old Database and will need to opt out.
Those in Green have opt-ed in.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jan 2, 2016 11:00:24 GMT -6
As a reminder, the aliases (such as 101@talossa.ca) do not work yet! I will work on them tomorrow morning.
|
|
|
Post by Breneir Itravilatx on Jan 2, 2016 11:03:19 GMT -6
I will be seeking the repeal of the Communications Privacy Act which changed an 'opt-out' which clearly had no issues into a situation where we are fixing issues created by a past fix to again...a nonexistent problem.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jan 2, 2016 11:10:26 GMT -6
I will be seeking the repeal of the Communications Privacy Act which changed an 'opt-out' which clearly had no issues into a situation where we are fixing issues created by a past fix to again...a nonexistent problem. No problem! Especially since I now made the privacy tool, now we have a real opt-out. If you get the ziu to fix it, possibly taking my tool into account, I will apply it.
|
|
|
Post by Breneir Itravilatx on Jan 2, 2016 11:14:32 GMT -6
We had a real opt-out before your 'fix'. That is why AD said earlier that he was not able to send political communications to ALL citizens since some had actually opted-out. The key piece of information for me is that in the past the vast majority of citizens DID NOT opt-out nor were there any complaints before this change was made.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Jan 2, 2016 11:14:53 GMT -6
Greta Mutti would have the last Citizen under the old system, as she joined on the last day of the clark of February 21st 2015. She is citizen #464. Therefore, all citizens with a citizenship number equal to or below 464, would have, if no setting is set, their privacy set to "Reveal". How can I get a confirmation that this is legal? I just do it and hope not to get sued for violating the law? Screw it, NO ONE seemed to defend my position of protecting the privacy and instead, everyone thinks I am overstepping, so I will do that. I think it's best in the future to consult legal counsel before changing something in the Chancery that was changed by the Ziu. Sir Alexandreu is your legal counsel, right? Also, you have me as DSos and I am most certainly a lawyer and can advise you as well.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Jan 2, 2016 11:16:06 GMT -6
If I recall, the law was changed to opt-in for a reason, though I'll have to dig up the old threads on the bill to be sure. In any event, the opt-in system could work just fine if we were to add the option on both the census and on the immigration application; if we were to pass a law changing it back, then we would have those citizens after 464 but before the law gets changed still on an opt-in basis, which could complicate things even more.
|
|