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 18, 2009 9:52:03 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? Is there anybody out (in) there? Just nod if you can hear me. Is there anyone home?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 18, 2009 14:10:32 GMT -6
QUANGOS should definitely not be included. If they are included, it should be in a separate bill to preserve the general thrust of this one, I think. Do we even have any?
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Aug 19, 2009 16:35:55 GMT -6
The CUG?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 19, 2009 18:02:44 GMT -6
I think it may be necessary that they be covered by this bill, but I'm not certain. Is it possible to excise that and put it in a subsequent bill, for further consideration, S:reu MC?
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Aug 20, 2009 3:35:36 GMT -6
Im currently thinking that this bill should cover government only. I am authoring a second bill for the next clark down the road that will cover NGOs with language more relevant to them.
so in effect there will be;
The Freedom of Information and Privacy (Govermental) Act and The Freedom of Information and Privacy (Non-Governmental) Act.
I have updated this bill to reflect this.
|
|
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 20, 2009 10:00:43 GMT -6
Or the Senator from the illustrious province of Atatürk. But thanks for the add!
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Aug 20, 2009 12:53:00 GMT -6
(2.5) The records would endanger the life or safety of officers or officer's families if the information was disclosed. What if the records would endanger the life of anybody else?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2009 13:55:27 GMT -6
(2.5) The records would endanger the life or safety of officers or officer's families if the information was disclosed. What if the records would endanger the life of anybody else? I think taken out of context, that line seems to be a little too narrow. However, it belongs in a paragraph which basically states that military records cannot be released if their release would endanger the lives of service members or their families. So, for example, let's say we had a Naval base with base housing, the general public cannot simply request blueprints to base housing, including entry points, or gain access to the security roster which shows which guards were at the gate and when they changed shifts. That information would endanger the lives of officers and their families. I would imagine that the military would have information that, if released, would result in harm to someone who was not in the military that was not otherwise covered elsewhere in that same paragraph. That's just my reading.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Aug 20, 2009 15:54:52 GMT -6
Or the Senator from the illustrious province of Atatürk. But thanks for the add! Oops. Many Apologies S:r Senator.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Aug 22, 2009 17:52:01 GMT -6
Final call for input before clarking.
|
|
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 22, 2009 19:50:17 GMT -6
Final call for input before clarking. The bit about QUANGOS is still in Section 1, Clause (1). I thought it was agreed that QUANGOS weren't to be included in this bill. Otherwise this Right Honorable Brad Holmes (Senator - Atatürk) gives his thumbs up!
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Aug 22, 2009 20:03:05 GMT -6
Yep, your right, I forgot to change it. FIXED!
|
|
|
Post by Iustì Carlüs Canun on Sept 8, 2009 13:22:38 GMT -6
Does this bill not go against 25RZ99? Specifically, in that it takes the snail-amil addresses off the Citizen Rolls.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Sept 14, 2009 16:12:35 GMT -6
and, FURTHERMORE the bill referenced 25RZ99 is hereby repealed due to the fact that the Freedom of Information sections above renders 25RZ99 unnecessary while adding a level of optional privacy to the same concept.
|
|