|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on Jan 6, 2020 14:35:01 GMT -6
WHEREAS our immigration information disclosure practices fail the 'reasonable person' test in that a reasonable person would not assume that information provided to Talossan Immigration in confidence would be posted in plain sight of Talossan citizens on Wittenberg, and WHEREAS this practice only becomes known to prospective immigrants after they have provided their personal information by way of a contact form, and WHEREAS some prospective immigrants would redact some elements from their application or possibly even decline to apply for citizenship in the first place if they were aware that their information will be posted on Wittenberg THEREFORE BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosâ and Senäts of Talossa in Ziu assembled that El Lexhátx E.11 shall be amended by addition of the following section: 11.5 At the time of the initial Immigration application, prior to submission of the form, the prospective shall be notified in writing that as part of the approval process their application will be posted on a forum where it can be viewed by existing citizens, excluding such personal contact information as their physical place(s) of residence, their email address(es), their phone number(s), and other details which are by law or which ought to be explicitly confidential. Uréu q'estadra så Sevastáin Pinátsch |
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jan 7, 2020 2:41:55 GMT -6
1) "WHEREAS in actual practice all or most of a prospective's application is posted on Wittenberg under a thread name that names the applicant, and"
But, none of the sensitive data is posted. Email and phone numbers don't get posted in those threads, even if the applicant answers 'yes' to the PhoneOK? and EmailOK? questions. (Answering yes to those questions will have that data made available through the Chancery database, but not posted on Witt).
2) "WHEREAS some applicant information is arguably sensitive, and further include data that is irrelevant to the immigration process such as age, employment status, marital status, and"
First, the form does not contain a question on marital status.
Second, the only time employment is mentioned is in the box saying "Tell us a little about yourself, what's important to you, your ambitions, your job, your hobbies"... This box also features a guidance note that says "There is a lot to do as a citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa. Knowing some of your interests will help the current citizens to suggest to you some of the active Talossan groups and projects that that you may wish to join."
Are you seriously suggesting that immigration applications should contain near to no information about the applicant?
Third, age is 100% relevant to the application process. We need to know if a person is of legal age to immigrate/vote/etc.
What exactly do you mean here? Again, is this tied to the thing about "tell us about yourself"? I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am, but are you actually saying that applications should be considered where we know absolutely nothing about a person (all the way from basic interests and hobbies all the way up to including whether their name is actually real)? Plus, I don't buy that anything filled into that box counts as "data" in the context of E.11. Those statutes were written to protect a person's contact information. Those clauses are about making sure your phone number and email don't end up floating about the internet, not about limiting us from asking you what your hobbies are.
This is already done, and has been the case for quite some time.
The immigration application form contains the following phrases in its guidance notes:
- "Your mailing address (except for the city) will be kept confidential"
- "As with your mailing address, unless you request otherwise, your e-mail address will be kept confidential, for government use only"
- "Facebook and GoogleTalk ... This information is optional, however, and, like your other contact information, will not be published without your permission"
That said, it's not law that this needs to be included on the form, so there's nothing stopping a Minister (or even just a site admin) from removing those notes. I don't mind having it codified to ensure that this info becomes fixed.
Don't get me wrong. I sympathize with the thrust here. I wrote a lot of the data privacy laws back when we literally didn't have any. I agree, that stuff is important, but what it seems like your arguing for here isn't about data protection, but more towards banning data collection altogether.
I could get behind a law adding a notice to the form alerting prospectives that parts of an application will be posted on a forum. That's fair. I can support codifying the guidance notes in relation to LEX.E.11. We already do it, so that's fine. That bit in the middle about the "caution" (along with some of those WHEREAS statements) is nonsense though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jan 7, 2020 8:50:40 GMT -6
"11.5 At the time of the initial Immigration application, prior to submission of the form, the prospective must be notified in writing that their application will be posted on a forum viewable by other citizens. Further, they must be cautioned not to submit personal information irrelevant to their application but advised of their rights to privacy under El-Lexhátx E.11. An applicant must provide a clear photocopy of their present national identification card a form of identification issued by a legal authority from their country of origin or one in which they reside that clearly stating their legal name used for all governmental purposes in their home country to the Interior Minister to verify the simple concept that they are who they say they are, which will be kept confidential by the Interior Minister and destroyed upon verification."
I'm only supporting this bill if what is in red is included. Otherwise, contrary to other claims, a reasonable person absolutely knew in 2006, 2014, and 2020 that the information not marked "confidential" was susceptible to being published on Witt, and therefore this bill is superfluous and unnecessary.
|
|
Açafat del Val
Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 112 
Talossan Since: 10-15-2017
|
Post by Açafat del Val on Jan 7, 2020 9:05:12 GMT -6
Are you seriously suggesting that immigration applications should contain near to no information about the applicant? Yes, he is. The whole of the preambulatory clauses is plainly arrogant. I could get behind a law adding a notice to the form alerting prospectives that parts of an application will be posted on a forum. That's fair. I can support codifying the guidance notes in relation to LEX.E.11. We already do it, so that's fine. That bit in the middle about the "caution" (along with some of those WHEREAS statements) is nonsense though. If this were rewritten with those items in mind, then I'm behind it. Otherwise, as it is currently written, the whole bill is nothing more than a temper tantrum. |
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Jan 7, 2020 11:13:59 GMT -6
...An applicant must provide a clear photocopy of their present national identification card clearly stating their legal name used for all governmental purposes in their home country to the Interior Minister to verify the simple concept that they are who they say they are, which will be kept confidential by the Interior Minister and destroyed upon verification. FYI, in the United Kingdom there is no such thing as a national identity card. Similarly, there is no one legal name that has to be used by any individual, provided that the individual (a) provides any UK official who has right to know, on request, sight of deed polls (if they exist), and (b) does not hide any connection between pseudonyms, and (c) does not endeavour to pass themselves off as some other individual, and (d) does not deny their use of any pseudonym which they have actually used. There is no single legal name, in the UK, used for all government purposes. (As an example, my own daughter, perfectly legally, uses two different names). Thus the suggested condition might well be impossible for a UK citizen to fulfil. Moreover, the passing across of such sensitive information, is something that no "sane" or worldly wise individual would do. By "sane" here I mean that 1) Talossa, for all that we love her, is - to the outside world - an unknown entity. It is a group of no visible international standing in the commonly accepted meaning of those words. Passing across such sensitive identifying information to an outside body, on the request of that body, is just the kind of thing that scamming requests. The worldly wise will not send us such information. 2) In many nations it is against their national law to make or to pass such copies around. The worldly wise, and the respecter of their own national laws, will not send us such information. 3) An outsider has absolutely no reason to trust Talossa. Thus even though we promise to destroy any such information, and we promise it honestly, someone outside of Talossa has no reason to believe us. The worldly wise will not send us such information. This suggested condition CANNOT (not just "should not") be included in Talossa's Laws. |
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jan 7, 2020 11:38:21 GMT -6
...An applicant must provide a clear photocopy of their present national identification card clearly stating their legal name used for all governmental purposes in their home country to the Interior Minister to verify the simple concept that they are who they say they are, which will be kept confidential by the Interior Minister and destroyed upon verification. FYI, in the United Kingdom there is no such thing as a national identity card. Similarly, there is no one legal name that has to be used by any individual, provided that the individual (a) provides any UK official who has right to know, on request, sight of deed polls (if they exist), and (b) does not hide any connection between pseudonyms, and (c) does not endeavour to pass themselves off as some other individual, and (d) does not deny their use of any pseudonym which they have actually used. There is no single legal name, in the UK, used for all government purposes. (As an example, my own daughter, perfectly legally, uses two different names). Thus the suggested condition might well be impossible for a UK citizen to fulfil. Moreover, the passing across of such sensitive information, is something that no "sane" or worldly wise individual would do. By "sane" here I mean that 1) Talossa, for all that we love her, is - to the outside world - an unknown entity. It is a group of no visible international standing in the commonly accepted meaning of those words. Passing across such sensitive identifying information to an outside body, on the request of that body, is just the kind of thing that scamming requests. The worldly wise will not send us such information. 2) In many nations it is against their national law to make or to pass such copies around. The worldly wise, and the respecter of their own national laws, will not send us such information. 3) An outsider has absolutely no reason to trust Talossa. Thus even though we promise to destroy any such information, and we promise it honestly, someone outside of Talossa has no reason to believe us. The worldly wise will not send us such information. This suggested condition CANNOT (not just "should not") be included in Talossa's Laws. I fixed the national identification card. The US does not issue them either. I was thinking more along of state ID. I disagree with your point about UK law. Respectfully, I appreciate that you are, as a matter of fact, British. And I appreciate that there is a state known as the United Kingdom. But the law of England and Wales is not necessarily the law of Scotland and Northern Ireland, or many of the overseas territories. Scotland, as a matter of law, does record names. But that aside, even in the UK you must record a new name somewhere to start using it on government forms. Relevant to where I live, prior to marriage, my husband and I wanted the same surname, but neither of us were particularly attached to our respective surnames. So we came up with an entirely new name. Under New York law, I could have simply started using that name provided it wasn't for fraud. But what I could not do is get a driver's license, vote, purchase property, open a bank account, or do anything legal with that name because there was nothing legal to tie it to me. So for the lost cost of $60, I filed a petition and got a court order with the new name. I then had to publish my intent to change my name for 60 days, and once I proved to the court that this occurred, the order was entered. Now I had the ability to change my name on social security card (this is a national number that all citizens and permanent residents have) and the DMV (my driver's license). Importantly, once I changed my name on my social security cards, my credit cards were a breeze t update. But you know what I could not do? Update my social security card or any other state issued form with the new name until I got that court order. Why is the court order important? Simple--it creates a clear chain of identity and establishes that I am not taking on a new legal name for the purpose of fraud. This presumption attaches to a marriage license, which is why they can also be used to change a person's name if they take their spouse's surname. The condition would not be impossible for your daughter to fulfill. There is literally, on the form, three spots to enter your actual, legal name, other names you go by, and other aliases. A person could simply state, "yes, this is my name on my identification but this is the name I go by." There is nothing difficult about this. Kindly enlighten us all, if you adopted an entirely new name tomorrow, would NHS, or whatever administrative agency issues drivers license, permit you to just change that name without any formal court order or something else pointing to your permitted use of that name? How does the State ensure that you are not That point of this is, I could have used my new name, but I could not represent it as my true, legal name. You seem to misunderstand this. Please tell me how you think it would go if you moved to the United States and used a name other than what is on your United Kingdom passport on your immigration papers. (1) Maybe, maybe not. (2) I'm calling nonsense on this. Please cite explicit countries that make it illegal to copy a state issued identification card and provide it elsewhere on request. Please cite explicit laws that would make it illegal for a person to produce that copy even if they redacted certain information (certainly, I would redact my home address and NYID number, as well as other information, on my driver's license; or my passport number, etc.). (3) And Talossa has no reason to trust an outsider. Respectfully Ian, your assertions are not based in fact. |
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jan 7, 2020 12:45:48 GMT -6
Ian, yes, we in the UK can go about calling ourselves whatever we want, but only up to the point that we need to use our 'legally recorded name' for official purposes.
Say, tomorrow I decide my name is Hamish McBrave. That's fine. Until I try to open a new bank account, get a new copy of my driving licence (or taxi medallion), update my passport, change the name on my NHS card, submit tax returns in that name, etc.
I *can* have the new name put on all these things, but a simple Deed Poll would not be enough. I would need to go register the Deed, pay a small fee and have it recorded officially.
You make it sound like the UK is completely lax with this, but if I went down to the bank and tried to open an account even using names like Eddie, Ed or Ted they would refuse. They would only open an account in the name of Edward. That's what's on my birthday certificate and is what authorities know me by.
If I wanted to immigrate to Milwaukee, I would need to inform US authorities that my name is Edward G. I could not put Hamish Mc. on the form even if I could show evidence of my using that name in the past. They would only accept my name to be whatever is on my official documents. Yes, an official legal name can be changed by registering a Deed Poll, but I could not just go about using two different names and use one for some official purposes and the other for others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on Jan 8, 2020 11:50:33 GMT -6
I'd like to thank everyone for their comments, particularly Eðo Grischun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on Jan 8, 2020 12:21:20 GMT -6
as it is currently written, the whole bill is nothing more than a temper tantrum. Alrighty then. |
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Feb 1, 2020 22:31:45 GMT -6
I'm about to cast my votes.
Upon a final reading of this bill I have noticed something that I hadn't noticed earlier:
"excluding such personal contact information as their physical place(s) of residence"
Until such time as provincial assignment is not tied to geographic location, this can't work.
|
|
