|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 31, 2009 3:58:13 GMT -6
When I joined, Michael Pope asked for a copy of my ID card. That (or a copy of another ID document) should become compulsory again. This I won't support. To be honest, if Lord Hool had asked for my Driving licence or ID Card I would not be here today. There is no way I would provide a copy of something so valuable to a complete stranger over the net.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2009 8:54:36 GMT -6
Before I was aware of the whole Kingdom/Republic situation, I happened upon the Republic's website when I was hoping to become a Talossan. There, I was asked for a copy of my Driver's License. No way.
I went back to my search and learned more about the secession and that new found information, coupled with the fact that the Kingdom did not require ID enticed me to join.
I have to worry about identity theft, I sure as heck am not furnishing copies of my ID that can be altered and from which information about me can be taken. Absolutely not. If we ever did require it, that would be the day I renounce, I don't want my name on anything that is storing that much personal data. You're just asking for trouble when you store that much data without having effective means of securing it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2009 16:09:46 GMT -6
I LOVE this bill. And yes, party leaders should be able to access data like home addresses and telephone numbers. Numbered (or lettered) sections is a good idea. Whoe there! So for a simple $20 registration fee I have full access to people's personal information?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2009 19:55:27 GMT -6
I LOVE this bill. And yes, party leaders should be able to access data like home addresses and telephone numbers. Numbered (or lettered) sections is a good idea. Whoe there! So for a simple $20 registration fee I have full access to people's personal information? I'm with V, absolutely not. If a party leader wants personal information on party members, they can make new members fill out an intake form.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Aug 9, 2009 16:05:55 GMT -6
You guys do know that party leaders have access to this for $20 RIGHT NOW! right??
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2009 16:13:59 GMT -6
Well then, let's get passing some legislation to end that practice.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Aug 9, 2009 16:24:53 GMT -6
ok. So Party leaders cant access personal info, however, I would say except email address.
lets bear in mind that any immigration minister can also get this info...as it is sent to him. He is always the first to see such stuff.
anything else?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2009 18:34:11 GMT -6
Letting the government have that information is one thing. Letting party leaders have it is another.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2009 19:04:12 GMT -6
Well then, let's get passing some legislation to end that practice. I would second whatever is proposed and aid in the writing process.
|
|
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 Aug 10, 2009 8:21:56 GMT -6
I'm with V, absolutely not. If a party leader wants personal information on party members, they can make new members fill out an intake form. Parties don't win elections by just campaigning to their members.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2009 8:34:14 GMT -6
I'm with V, absolutely not. If a party leader wants personal information on party members, they can make new members fill out an intake form. Parties don't win elections by just campaigning to their members. I'm okay with keeping emails public. After all, it is fairly easy to figure out most people KOT email. But there should be an "opt-out" option. My personal phone number and address is really none of your business. lol
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Aug 10, 2009 15:17:33 GMT -6
post removed.
This post contained a previous version of the bill, please see the first post in the thread for the most up-to-date version of this bill.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2009 15:36:27 GMT -6
I'm with V, absolutely not. If a party leader wants personal information on party members, they can make new members fill out an intake form. Parties don't win elections by just campaigning to their members. They don't need my address to campaign. They can have my e-mail address, if I choose to disclose it. If I don't, I would say that means I don't want any other political opinions crowding my own.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Aug 10, 2009 15:56:02 GMT -6
Updated to reflect most views expressed thus far, including an opt-out on political party stuff.
Unless there are any further thoughts I am more than happy to clark as it is now.
Any more co-sponsors?
|
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on Aug 11, 2009 7:12:18 GMT -6
I'd throw my hat in this ring, aka co-sponsor. My only problem is with this language in the opening of the bill: "... all citizens of the Kingdom of Talossa (over the age of 14) has the inalienable legal rights to access information ..." First, it has a grammatical error. All citizens have the right, not has the rights. Second, it's clearly an inalienable right because otherwise the bill wouldn't have any cases where the "right" is clearly alienated from the people. Third, we need to be very careful as we decide that everything is an inalienable right. At some point it is perfectly reasonable to restrict many of the so-called "inalienable" rights. How about language to the effect of: ... Ziu that the government of the Kingdom of Talossa has the duty and responsibility to make public information about the government's cabinet ministries within the guidelines set below; ... One additional, minor thought regarding QUANGOS: I don't really think that NGOs, QUA or not, should be included. If they're a private company, their business is their business. If they're publicly traded, their shareholders can fight the battle to learn what they want to learn within the confines of the free market (aka pulling money). The "trade secrets" clause is too vague and too hard to defend since the NGO would have the burden of proof to restrict that info. What are other people's thoughts on QUANGOS?
|
|