|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 4, 2016 10:25:59 GMT -6
Instead, you guys want CONTROL over the data. You want a list of email addresses so you can run your political campaigns completely out of the Chancery's hands. This is kind of a separate matter but: yes, that's true. Now that you point it out, this is another problem with the whole proposed setup. Everything about the country shouldn't be run through the Chancery, especially not political campaigns. The danger is acute and historically has been a remarkably serious issue. EDIT: This should not be read as any sort of reflection on MPF's integrity, which is unimpeachable. He's pretty awesome. But it's just something to consider.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Jan 4, 2016 10:49:47 GMT -6
No, the point I was making was that clearly a ton of citizens are open to sharing their email addresses. Maybe you missed the larger bit about why encouraging people to do so would be beneficial? The issue is not that a concern for privacy is divisive or somehow wrong -- well, I don't think so, anyway -- but that it's not the only concern. I absolutely agree you should have the option to keep your email address private from everyone, and decline all political communications. But I'm saying that we may not want to make that the default. When we do that, we're actively encouraging people to do that... nudging them along the way. We should be nudging them into being open with their fellow Talossans, at least to begin with, even if we also want to make sure they have the option to remain completely private. (a) Yes, and my point is that people being open to it does not mean one should necessarily assume all are, or would be happy for their e-mail to be shared by anyone who pays the registration fee. I didn't miss the part about why encouraging people would be beneficial, and I'm sure there's a good argument to be had about why it might be a nice idea for party leaders to encourage people to opt-in, but that's not what this discussion is about, and it certainly doesn't count in your argument's favour. (b) Really? Because I've read a couple of times now that people are scared that privacy = mistrust, which is a patently unfair characterisation of informational safety and prudence.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jan 4, 2016 11:27:00 GMT -6
Sorry, but what is there in current law that doesn't allow for an email alias? Because the current law, which Litz claims is not retroactive, only offers opt-in, while the old law only allowed opt-out. This means that: 1 ) If I put email alias on the old citizens, I am violating the old law, so the party leaders can sue me 2 ) If I put email alias on the new citizens, I am violating the new law, so those citizens can sue me.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jan 4, 2016 11:30:37 GMT -6
Yes, I know all of that! And if you follow the thread "Update on the database work", you can see the concrete steps I am taking to facilitate this! But this has NOTHING to do with the topic of privacy! Yes it does! If we switch the default privacy setting to be letting mailers be sent to the secret emails (the obvious solution IMHO), we would need to make sure other people know how to take it over if need be But that's a completely different subject: Who takes over!!! The Database was ALREADY nationalized and I am taking ACTIVE steps to make it SoS neutral: that ANY SoS after me can do everything I do!!! This is just a confusing of the issues! On one side there is the privacy and the email blasting, which currently is handled by me, and on the other side, there is my succession. I plan to remain SoS for at least 3 more Cosa, so my succession isn't on the issue UNLESS someone plans to fire me, which again, would be another topic!!!
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jan 4, 2016 11:32:13 GMT -6
Instead, you guys want CONTROL over the data. You want a list of email addresses so you can run your political campaigns completely out of the Chancery's hands. This is kind of a separate matter but: yes, that's true. Now that you point it out, this is another problem with the whole proposed setup. Everything about the country shouldn't be run through the Chancery, especially not political campaigns. The danger is acute and historically has been a remarkably serious issue. EDIT: This should not be read as any sort of reflection on MPF's integrity, which is unimpeachable. He's pretty awesome. But it's just something to consider. But that's the point! the database is currently being nationalized, and will be run thru a Royal Clerk, who will be independant from the Chancery, even if for the next 3 Cosa at least, the Royal data clerk will ALSO be the SoS. So why bring the issue of who manages the data in the middle of a privacy debate???
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 4, 2016 11:46:50 GMT -6
CCX, the benefits of encouraging people to opt-in aren't relevant to a discussion about whether or not we should make opt-in the default choice? I think that it's pretty much exactly on point. Talossa benefits from having a country that is a community, and from being a place where we encourage people to stay in touch and interact with the nation. Every little bit we can do helps with that, including nudging people towards staying in contact while still providing an option for greater privacy.
No, a concern for privacy is not the same as mistrust. But encouraging people to default to higher levels of privacy does foster some mistrust, and we can't willfully pretend that isn't true. As so often, we're looking at a trade-off. If we nudge people into fencing themselves off from contact from the country, then people will be a little less open with each other. That might be a sacrifice we're willing to make, but we should be aware of it.
MPF, I was just addressing one of the points you made. I don't think it's a good thing for campaigns to be forced to rely on the Chancery or work through it.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Jan 4, 2016 14:02:14 GMT -6
I think you've twisted what I'm saying somewhat, though I suspect you know what I mean. I'm sure there are a great number of benefits to people opting in, but that does nothing to advance your earlier point on why we should have a system other than one of opting in in the first place. Regardless, if you are so concerned with having people involved, why is it that this is only of particular import during election time and securing votes?
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jan 4, 2016 14:44:04 GMT -6
Sorry, but what is there in current law that doesn't allow for an email alias? In past years we made kingdomoftalossa.net e-mail aliases available to any citizen who wanted one, which helped address some people's concerns about their main personal email address being made public. I was under the impression that the plan was to do the same thing with talossa.com. I'd rather be cmsiervicul@talossa.com than 140@talossa.ca. In any event, it's hard for me to imagine having to rely on *only one* e-mail address. I haven't done that since, oh, 1996?
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Jan 4, 2016 14:51:05 GMT -6
Sorry, but what is there in current law that doesn't allow for an email alias? In past years we made kingdomoftalossa.net e-mail aliases available to any citizen who wanted one, which helped address some people's concerns about their main personal email address being made public. I was under the impression that the plan was to do the same thing with talossa.com. I'd rather be cmsiervicul@talossa.com than 140@talossa.ca. In any event, it's hard for me to imagine having to rely on *only one* e-mail address. I haven't done that since, oh, 1996? I apologise of its already been mentioned, but one can set up email alerts via probaords-one can choose what to get an email about (e.g., personal messages, notifications on your posts). I think woever if MinStuff after the election needs to get people educated about this-if necessary by sending them an email ;-) Its also possible to add Wittenberg to an RSS reader-I use Feedly, it works quite well. Can be a bit repetitive as the threads keep appearing each time there is a new post, but I may have set it up wrong. Then there's always the media, (cough, cough). My pointis that CResti is right to question whether we're in 1996, since thee are so mny ways citizens can keep in touch now...
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 4, 2016 15:10:38 GMT -6
I think you've twisted what I'm saying somewhat, though I suspect you know what I mean. I'm sure there are a great number of benefits to people opting in, but that does nothing to advance your earlier point on why we should have a system other than one of opting in in the first place. Regardless, if you are so concerned with having people involved, why is it that this is only of particular import during election time and securing votes? I guess the logic would be like this: A There are benefits to having people be accessible by their community. B There are benefits to giving people options for privacy. C If we can do both, that would be better than only doing one. D Nudging people towards openness to their community, by making opt-out the default, would allow us to have A and B at the same time. That is better than only having B. That's why I think opt-out is better. As to your last question, it's always been a concern... I mean, I've been running Beric'ht Talossan since 2014, without ever missing a deadline, in large part because I love the fact that it helps make Talossa into a bit more of a community! It's also fun and a free press is important, but there's a reason we do a pseudo-paper edition and base ourselves off subscribers.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jan 5, 2016 13:49:06 GMT -6
FYI, I have opted in to Chancery emails. Mainly because I want to see whether other party leaders have the cojones to send me anything.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Jan 5, 2016 14:17:29 GMT -6
I've opted in to receive e-mails from the Chancery as well.
|
|
|
Post by Breneir Itravilatx on Jan 5, 2016 14:22:40 GMT -6
I've opted in as well. The TNC will be sending out its election platform to all citizens electing to receive political communications via email before posting on Witt.
|
|