Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001 
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on May 4, 2019 15:43:21 GMT -6
WHEREAS A variety of interesting things happen in Talossa on a regular basis that many Talossans who do not frequent Wittenberg have no way of hearing about, and
WHEREAS Many Talossans have similar interests as other Talossans, but there is currently no way for them to contact each other, and
WHEREAS Both of these facts are detrimental to Talossa's existence, and
WHEREAS It would be great if citizens had a way to get in contact with each other, and
WHEREAS While an opt-out system would be better in theory, it is not practical given the Kingdom's current technology
THEREFORE Lex.D.8.8 is added to el Lexhatx, which reads:
FURTHERMORE Lex.E.11.4 is added, which reads:
Ureu q'estadra så:
Ian Plätschisch (Sen-MM)
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on May 4, 2019 15:44:03 GMT -6
|
|
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 May 5, 2019 15:59:55 GMT -6
I can't speak for the Government on this issue yet, but the Free Democrats certainly have concerns on privacy issues. I would invite Munditenens Tresplet to express these. In addition, I would personally add that the preamble to this bill brings up a valid issue which the content of the bill is not actually best suited to deal with. The issue being, keeping "less active" citizens in the loop. I put it to the leader of the Nigel Tufnel party: what could pestering citizens with emails do that a regularly updated Talossan Gazette, a Government-sponsored weekly "roundup of events", could not do better? Because that's been my aim for quite a while. |
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on May 5, 2019 16:46:55 GMT -6
I can't speak for the Government on this issue yet, but the Free Democrats certainly have concerns on privacy issues. I would invite Munditenens Tresplet to express these. I'll be interested to hear what he has to say, although IMO there should not be too many concerns given that the emails are aliased and it should be easy to opt-out. The Government has a pretty shoddy record of performing duties like that. For just one example, last term I put out the most comprehensive activity reports Talossa had seen for quite a while, and they were only a few sentences per Ministry! Essentially, the citizen (or group thereof) that is actually running a project will be much more inclined to promote it than will a Government functionary doing it on their behalf. Not to go all campaign mode but this is why I kept emphasizing "individual empowerment." I also have a bit of a problem with the Government deciding which non-Governmental programs they want to promote. You would also have the problem that, unless you plan on emailing the Gazette the everyone, it would simply be another website that most citizens would forget to check. This is not to say it wouldn't be great to have such a Gazette, but it needn't be either-or. |
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on May 6, 2019 4:19:53 GMT -6
is hereby amended to read:
8.4. Data Protection
8.4.1. Personal information such as, but not limited to, private mailing addresses, contact telephone numbers and private email addresses, given names, ages, date of births and national security numbers shall be held on file and shall only be accessed by the Secretary of State or The King without prior permission of the person to whom the information relates to. In all other instances permission must be obtained by the person to whom the personal information relates to.
[/quote]This reflects current practice. Of course, the intuitive thing for newbies would be to have only the SoS having access to that information. Having the monarch have access, however, creates needed redundancy in case something happens with the SoS.[/span][/quote]
Well-intentioned, but a big 'NO' from me. The default for anything like this must always be 'opt-in'. No-one wants unsolicited email addresses, emails, etc.
Additionally, why do we need aliased email addresses for citizens? There is a good reason, I'm sure, for this.
This reflects current practice.Ureu q'estadra så:
Ian Plätschisch (Sen-MM)[/quote]
Replace 'clause 1' with the relevant and exact clause number. This is easy enough to change in future.
Finally, if it is only section 8.4 to be changed, only 8.4 should be included in the bill text.
Contrâ for now.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on May 6, 2019 7:41:39 GMT -6
Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h If it were opt-in, it probably wouldn't work. In my mind, requesting Talossan citizenship is opting-in to receive emails about it, especially because, on every immigration application, there is the question: "Is it OK if Talossan citizens contact you by e-mail?" Most people say that it is. We could treat a "no" answer as an opt-out. If they say "yes", that is essentially an opt-in anyway.
The chancery already offers this functionality, which is meant to protect privacy.
OK
The reason I formatted it that way is because the bill deletes 8.5 and 8.6, but I can see how that would be confusing so I will change it to be more clear.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on May 15, 2019 11:26:48 GMT -6
By the way, if The Parliamentary Contact Info Accessibility Act passes, I will amend this bill to repeal it (not because I don't think it is a good bill, but because it will become redundant).
|
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on May 15, 2019 17:05:03 GMT -6
I can see the good intentions behind this bill, and I've thought for a couple weeks about ways it could be made into something more agreeable. My disagreement with the bill is just the opt-out system. I would certainly prefer an opt-in system to an opt-out system, because Talossans shouldn't be required to take the steps to remove themselves from what could become a spam list. I understand that many prospectives do "consent" to receiving emails as part of the current immigration form, and even accepting that they would have enough information on what those emails might entail to consent here, this leaves out everyone else who is already a citizen and may not have ever filled out this form. So, a "grandfather" clause might be good here, where current citizens at the time of passage of the bill would be considered "opt-outs" until they opt-in, but then that would essentially render the whole "opt-out" provision moot anyway since it would only apply to prospectives going forward. (I also have concerns that the opt out provisions could violate the EU's GDPR, but I don't have the expertise in the matter to truly say that. I do know that when the GDPR came into effect, most of the newsletters I've subscribed to by email sent something out asking subscribers to affirmatively re-opt-in, or else they would be unsubscribed by default going forward.) Aside from just changing this from opt-out to opt-in, or putting in a grandfather clause, another suggestion (though perhaps not currently technically feasible) would be to create the alias email system, but don't automatically forward the emails. They could just be sitting in a box somewhere, until the citizen affirmatively decides to use the system. Though, this setup would itself bring with it privacy concerns (being an email storage run by the Chancery), or other concerns like effectuating service of legal papers or something...yeah, this was more of an /r/showerthoughts idea. Ultimately, I think switching this to an opt-in system is the way to go. If opting out was going to be extremely simple, why can't opting in be just as simple? Otherwise, I can't support this bill in its current form. Even with the change, I would continue to have a smaller concern that these emails would trigger the SPAM filter on end-user email systems (even if they are used for the intended purpose) just like some ballots are already being flagged during the GE. By the way, if The Parliamentary Contact Info Accessibility Act passes, I will amend this bill to repeal it (not because I don't think it is a good bill, but because it will become redundant). I don't think it would be redundant even if this bill passes. A legislator could opt-out of the system, assuming that this isn't changed to an opt-in system, and there would be no way to contact the legislator as PCIA would allow for. |
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on May 15, 2019 20:42:33 GMT -6
Yep, to be in compliance with European GDPR laws we must be using opt-in. This came into effect last year (year before last?). You can't send out newsletter type email to people in the EU without them having affirmatively opted to receive them. Simply signing up to a membership does not count as opting-in for the purposes of this law. The opt-in must be explicit and separate from membership signups. Another relevant point in GDPR that will affect us here is that as well as this opt-in system, you must also have an opt-out in case the person later decides to stop receiving the mail. Further, it isn't enough to simply ask for an opt-in once. Opt-ins must be sought for each individual category of mailshot a single organisation wants to send. So, a question like "is it ok for other Talossans to contact you by email?" wouldn't be enough. Say we sent out a mail from the Chancery monthly and we also sent out a different mail from the Royal Bank and Post quarterly, then you would need to have two questions on the sign-ups asking for two explicit opt-ins. A lot of American based websites are geo-blocked in the EU as a result of these laws. Some American organisations don't want to play by those rules and instead have removed themselves from this market. |
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on May 17, 2019 8:13:17 GMT -6
I don't know too much about GDPR, so forgive me if this is not true, but I don't see how it would apply here. This program is not for newsletters. Talossa itself would not be sending out the emails; this is just a way for individuals to get in contact with each other. Does GDPR apply to individuals sending emails to other individuals? If we really needed to we could limit the number of people that someone could email at one time, or at the very least make it opt-out for everyone who isn't in the EU.
The point of this bill is to get in touch with people who don't think about Talossa very much. Therefore, no matter how easy it may be to opt-in, the people we most need to get in touch with will not do it because they just aren't thinking about it (unlike opting out, where if someone wanted to do so, the need would be apparent to them). Of course, the process for opting out should be very easy and always available. Therefore, if an immigrant opts in and later realizes that was a mistake, they can easily opt-out.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on May 18, 2019 7:52:02 GMT -6
Even with the change, I would continue to have a smaller concern that these emails would trigger the SPAM filter on end-user email systems (even if they are used for the intended purpose) just like some ballots are already being flagged during the GE. I don't see why this would happen given that the emails will not be coming from the Chancery. By the way, if The Parliamentary Contact Info Accessibility Act passes, I will amend this bill to repeal it (not because I don't think it is a good bill, but because it will become redundant). I don't think it would be redundant even if this bill passes. A legislator could opt-out of the system, assuming that this isn't changed to an opt-in system, and there would be no way to contact the legislator as PCIA would allow for. It would be, as Parliamentary Contact Info Accessibility Act only allows the leaders of the houses to access the same electoral database that party leaders get to see (ie, the one where you have to opt-in). Therefore, it would still not allow the leaders of the houses to contact people who have not opted in. |
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on May 20, 2019 19:27:32 GMT -6
Does GDPR apply to individuals sending emails to other individuals? I'm not sure. I guess it would depend on context. For example, If I, as a private individual, used the system to shoot you a mail to say "Hey, how are ya? Fancy a game of online chess?"; then that would be fine. However, if I started up a new project (doesn't matter what it is for now) and then used the system to bulk mail the nation's citizenry to advertise that new project then I think we'd be falling foul of GDPR. So, going from that thought. Setting up an alias system wouldn't necessarily put the Kingdom at foul of European regulations, but the system could be used by individuals in a way that falls foul of those regulations. |
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on May 20, 2019 21:06:03 GMT -6
Even with the change, I would continue to have a smaller concern that these emails would trigger the SPAM filter on end-user email systems (even if they are used for the intended purpose) just like some ballots are already being flagged during the GE. I don't see why this would happen given that the emails will not be coming from the Chancery. Wouldn't the emails be forwarded from the Chancery's servers? (Or, at least, be forwarded from an email with the Chancery's domain?) I'm not sure; I've opted in completely with my email address being made public to party leaders. But maybe someone who has the alias system turned on can say whether 1) they had a party leader message go to SPAM and 2) whether they had their ballot go to SPAM as well. Then this itself demonstrates that the PCIA is lacking in areas. But wouldn't it also make the laws allowing party leaders sending emails redundant too? And how would this affect people who (like me) have opted to allow party leaders to see their full email addresses? Since it is the same system being used for this bill, would this mean that I've opted to allow my email address be put on a public list? Or would it mean the Chancery would have to overhaul their current system? Also, would it be possible to remain opted in to receive political emails but opt out from the public list? --- I found this information on GDPR. Haven't had the time to read it completely, but it could be helpful. The more I think about this bill as an opt-out, the more I wonder about its necessity. If you wanted to reply to an email someone sent to the alias address, then going forward that person would have your actual email address. So in essence, it would only be used for individuals wishing to start unsolicited conversations out of the blue, and the recipient's only option to preserve their privacy is not to respond to the email. As an example, I have the email addresses of many different Talossans that I've acquired in the process of being here and doing various jobs/tasks. If I needed to send an email to the Burgermiester, I already have his email address and therefore it would be unnecessary for me to use the alias. Similarly, if I didn't have the Burgermiester's email address when I became the Minister of Finance, it wouldn't take long to ask around (including to the previous Minister) to get his email, as I would need it to fulfill the duties of my office. This alias system wouldn't save me much time at all, if any, and may serve just to delay my attempts to contact someone as I wouldn't know whether they had chosen to opt-out of the system or not. I could see this system be used as a way to communicate to citizens who don't visit Witt often, yes, by sending various forms of newsletters or such (which is what the whereas sections anticipate). But (aside from GDPR) the costs of doing so outweigh the benefits. If this was changed to an opt-in system, I would gladly consider supporting it; we could even advertise it to these inactive citizens by including something in the next GE ballot. |
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on May 24, 2019 15:21:14 GMT -6
Tossing another consideration in here ... We are rightly quite concerned about privacy. But I think privacy should not extend as far as virtual anonymity. We don't want to deny ourselves the chance to discover whether some citizen is a criminal, for instance, or a prominent racist, or even a politician. Your outside-Talossan life should in general be as private as you'd like it to be, but not to the point where nobody actually knows who you are; and for people to know who you are, they probably need not only your name but some details about you.
— John R
|
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on May 24, 2019 17:08:40 GMT -6
Tossing another consideration in here ... We are rightly quite concerned about privacy. But I think privacy should not extend as far as virtual anonymity. We don't want to deny ourselves the chance to discover whether some citizen is a criminal, for instance, or a prominent racist, or even a politician. Your outside-Talossan life should in general be as private as you'd like it to be, but not to the point where nobody actually knows who you are; and for people to know who you are, they probably need not only your name but some details about you. — John R I agree with you up to a point, but I completely disagree that Talossans need to disclose every single aspect of their private lives. You have no business knowing if I am a racist or not, a politician or not, or have ever been to jail or not. Just like it would be offline and IRL. |
|
