[Proposal] Freedom of Information Act (2020)

[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. cratch:

[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.