[Proposal] Freedom of Information Act (2020)

[New Rogernomics]

Freedom of Information Act (2020)

Proposed by: @"New Rogernomics"​

Preamble

This act will set forth the general procedure for private information being released to the public.

Section 1. Freedom of Information RequestsSection 2. Request Procedure

(1) Requesting entities must post a request, with reason(s) for the request, and the preferred date of release:

a. Once a request is received it shall be processed within a timely manner not exceeding 72 hours,
b. Requesting entities that are citizens need not file a request to quote non-personally identifiable information.

(2) Requests may declined or information omitted for the following reasons:

a. Sensitivity of the information requested, inclusive of regional security and online privacy,
b. Too broad a scope of a request, inclusive of requiring an undue burden of information,
c. Release of the information would break existing laws or treaty obligations.

Section 3. Permitted Release of Information

(1) Requests for release official documents or discussions, may be permitted so long as:

a. They have been cleared for release by the relevant officials, and forum and discord administration,
b. The request is for a general overview of a discussion or document, where if it is of a sensitive nature.

(2) Requesting entities may request or quote non-personally identifiable information, which shall include:

a. How many have voted for a candidate or proposal, during or after the vote was held,
b. Analysis of public feelings surrounding a proposed law, treaty, or candidate.

(3) Private communication may be released, if the parties consent, within reason.

Section 4. Acknowledgment of the Criminal Code

Spoiler: First Draft

Freedom of Information Act (2020)

Proposed by: @"New Rogernomics"​

Preamble

This act will set forth the general procedure for private information being released to the public.

Section 1. Freedom of Information RequestsSection 2. Request ProcedureSection 3. Appeals Process

(1) If a request is rejected it may be appealed to the Court of Lazarus where:

a. It relates to reasons of personal information at risk or general refusal of parties involved.

(2) The Court of Lazarus shall be empowered to decide the general procedures of this process:

a. It shall decide the number and scope of appeals that are permitted for a specific request,
b. It may order private information released or released with redaction(s), upon a successful appeal, within 72 hours,
d. It may uphold the refusal, in which case if another requesting entity makes a request for the same information it may result in an automatic refusal.

Section 4. Exceptions

(1) Off-Site Administration and the Assembly Speaker may also decline a freedom of information request or redact information when:

a. Releasing said information may cause OOC risks to persons or the region, such as imperiling their safety or privacy.

(2) Private Messages may be released upon approval by the Vice-Delegate, Assembly Speaker or Prime Minister, if the parties involved in the conversations agree to release the requested information.*

Section 5. Acknowledgment of the Criminal Code

 

[Capercom]

So the only way to process a request for a Lazarus FOIA is by signing up for the forums? As in, if you aren't in the forums, you cannot request a FOIA? Do you have to go through and submit your applications for your intentions of the server/region, etc before you have permissions to post a FOIA request, or is that folder open to anyone who created a fresh account with 0 posts?

 

[New Rogernomics]

So the only way to process a request for a Lazarus FOIA is by signing up for the forums? As in, if you aren't in the forums, you cannot request a FOIA? Do you have to go through and submit your applications for your intentions of the server/region, etc before you have permissions to post a FOIA request, or is that folder open to anyone who created a fresh account with 0 posts?

 

[Debussy]

In Section 2. subsection (2) there should be a way to request the delegate for information in cases that don't pertain to anything outlined.

Can we get a designated forum written into the law instead of different forum topics that will need to be found all over the forum?

Why does the court decide appeals? How many appeals can happen before a panel of 3?

 

[New Rogernomics]

In Section 2. subsection (2) there should be a way to request the delegate for information in cases that don't pertain to anything outlined.

Can we get a designated forum written into the law instead of different forum topics that will need to be found all over the forum?

Why does the court decide appeals? How many appeals can happen before a panel of 3?

Putting a designated forum in the act would be unconstitutional i.e. compelling creation of a sub forum by admins, and a bit unnecessary as admins don't need an act to create a sub forum nor has there been a case where a request to do so was outright refused.

As for the Delegate by the Mandate they can't be compelled to state why they refused someone citizenship or appointed someone to the CLS beyond the official reason they provided. It would be a bit of a redundant request, as the reason is stated in the appointment post or in case of citizenship in the citizenship thread.

The court would cover appeals, as they are allowed to interpret laws, and decide legal matters. It would have to be on a case by case basis how many appeals are granted as well, which the court can decide.

 

[Debussy]

I know the court can decide it. I'm asking how many appeals are reasonable when those appeals appear before the same panel of 3? The legislature has the power to decide the process of appeals too - even granting the case by case freedom to the court.

On the subforum, even if its unconstitutional, can the admins do it for the sake of organization?

 

[New Rogernomics]

I know the court can decide it. I'm asking how many appeals are reasonable when those appeals appear before the same panel of 3? The legislature has the power to decide the process of appeals too - even granting the case by case freedom to the court.

On the subforum, even if its unconstitutional, can the admins do it for the sake of organization?

If we were to set a number of appeals, then more than two would be overkill. That's assuming one of the requests was messed up or needed to be refined.

There is nothing in the act that states the thread can't be in it's own forum section, so yes it would likely be in its own sub forum.

 

[Debussy]

There is no way to direct the creation of that forum without it being unconstitutional?

 

[temmi]

hmm, I think it would be better if any request for that sort of sensitive information would have to be made publicly on the forum or discord by the person requesting it. I think it's important that there's transparency for the citizens when it comes to people requesting private information that might involve them and the person granting that information. I don't think a private message to one person that oversees that department is good. Also, maybe it should be strictly defined as far as what type of information can be requested and what can't. I know there is a clause about redacting OOC information/denying a request for that, but it seems like that is solely up to the person granting the information to do. It would be safer if things like anything OOC like RL names, locations, email addresses, pictures etc. be protected from being requested in the act.

 

[Zapatian Workers State]

The only concern I have is that this risks the possibility of overburdening the court in the event of a deluge of appeal requests from both citizens and non-citizens about various topics. Still, short of dismissing the very notion of an appeals process, which I am not in favor of, I don't see how this could be rectified.

 

[New Rogernomics]

There is no way to direct the creation of that forum without it being unconstitutional?

I've already answered that. No existing law imposes the creation of a forum, and the mandate denies OOC administration being interfered with. So far admins haven't denied requests to alter the forum structure, and there hasn't been any issue. So such a hypothetical provision would amount to unnecessary over-legislating, even if it were legally permitted. :scratch:

 

[New Rogernomics]

hmm, I think it would be better if any request for that sort of sensitive information would have to be made publicly on the forum or discord by the person requesting it. I think it's important that there's transparency for the citizens when it comes to people requesting private information that might involve them and the person granting that information. I don't think a private message to one person that oversees that department is good. Also, maybe it should be strictly defined as far as what type of information can be requested and what can't. I know there is a clause about redacting OOC information/denying a request for that, but it seems like that is solely up to the person granting the information to do. It would be safer if things like anything OOC like RL names, locations, email addresses, pictures etc. be protected from being requested in the act.

RL information would never be required to be sent. Even if it were hypothetically a telegram or PM, they would be an intermediary, and thus be passing on an application listing who sent the request. That application would be posted on the forum for everyone to read.

 

[New Rogernomics]

The only concern I have is that this risks the possibility of overburdening the court in the event of a deluge of appeal requests from both citizens and non-citizens about various topics. Still, short of dismissing the very notion of an appeals process, which I am not in favor of, I don't see how this could be rectified.

The Court can refuse repeated requests for appealing the same topic right away, and the court can impose whatever means it feels necessary to reject burdensome requests. Otherwise the alternative method is to specify the number of permitted appeals in the act, which as I've suggested shouldn't be allowed to exceed two in the most extreme circumstances.

 

[Zapatian Workers State]

The only concern I have is that this risks the possibility of overburdening the court in the event of a deluge of appeal requests from both citizens and non-citizens about various topics. Still, short of dismissing the very notion of an appeals process, which I am not in favor of, I don't see how this could be rectified.

The Court can refuse repeated requests for appealing the same topic right away, and the court can impose whatever means it feels necessary to reject burdensome requests. Otherwise the alternative method is to specify the number of permitted appeals in the act, which as I've suggested shouldn't be allowed to exceed two in the most extreme circumstances.

Acceptable.

 

[McChimp]

I don't see the practicality in imposing a forums procedure onto making FOI requests. The criminal code has already made provision for the release of information and I don't see the point in formalising it any further.

I can see the point in adding an appeals process, though I think your proposal has overcomplicated this somewhat. Instead, you might append a third subsection (similar in wording to subsection two) to section three of the Criminal Code Act that makes provision for a majority of the court to sanction the release of information. You might also take the opportunity to bring 12:2 of the criminal code back into line with the Mandate post DRF.

 

[New Rogernomics]

I don't see the practicality in imposing a forums procedure onto making FOI requests. The criminal code has already made provision for the release of information and I don't see the point in formalising it any further.

I can see the point in adding an appeals process, though I think your proposal has overcomplicated this somewhat. Instead, you might append a third subsection (similar in wording to subsection two) to section three of the Criminal Code Act that makes provision for a majority of the court to sanction the release of information. You might also take the opportunity to bring 12:2 of the criminal code back into line with the Mandate post DRF.

Now I think about it, this should probably be made clear to only relate to civil requests i.e. publishing of documents/overall voting results in public or asking for more information on a particular issue/discussion, not criminal ones. Though it is only a draft right now, so something more to be ironed out.

 

[New Hammadi]

definitely pretty new to NS, and a lot of this goes over my head, but it seems like a good idea to have a way for people to get the government to release information. In general transparency is always a good thing. The only suggestion I have is that in section 2, about who to private message to ask for release of info, allowing all questions to be directed to one person, i.e. the prime minister or VD, might make it easier for people rather than having to track down what ever individual the law says.

 

[Karloman]

I don't really see why we should be giving out our government's sensitive information out to any foreign media that inquires. That sort of seems irresponsible to me. We should be able to keep our information private from foreign nationals!

I also found myself scratching my head a little bit at the wording. Can we make it more clear as to who should be contacted in the case that a FOIA request should be lodged? As it reads currently I (personally, at least) find it pretty hard to comprehend.