Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on November 26, 2020, 04:36:38 PM
Discussion of mergers between provinces would seem to be between those provinces. If two provinces want to merge, then what business is it of the others? No one from Vuode has approached the 18th Convocation about a merger, if that's something your province wants.

It seems like the only conceivable purpose for this body would be as a vehicle for provincial pushback against an encroachment of the Ziu, but that doesn't seem likely.

Barring that, if something is a national issue, why discuss it here rather than among the people elected to handle national matters in the Ziu?

Regardless, I withdraw my motion and the Government can proceed.

The government has nothing to do with this.  Yeah, "many hats" are at play, but let's not get the legal statuses confused here.  This is not a governmental project, nor is it a national initiative for the Ziu to get involved with. This is a meeting of the provincial executives (somewhat similar to COSLA (convention of local authorities), here in Scotland, but not exactly).

The purpose of this committee, as far as I gather, is that it acts as a think tank for inter-provincial matters and its members act as liaisons between their local assemblies and the other provinces and, if required, the national institutions.  I don't know...but, this seems like the perfect place for two provinces to begin discussions on mergers.

I'm hoping that after we elect the Chair that we will then all have a chance to put suggestions forward for an agenda.

(but, aye.  I'm looking forward to a vigorous discussion on mergers, particularly Vuode and MM).

That's particularly defeatist.  How about we at least try? There are quite a few highly active people on the membership this term. It is possible that something fruitful ends up coming of it. 

Following Cezembre's election of its Seneschal, we now have a full roster. 

We move to nominations for committee chair.

Do we have a replacement lined up?

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on November 19, 2020, 06:31:15 AM
What would this be used for?

Primarily, it's just so we can fully verify the identity of people who might get handed the keys to a particular asset.  It's a bit of a continuation of last week's discussion on identities, so this is a proposed solution to one of the legit concerns that was raised.

Secondly, this is a prelude to something else that was planned where the Seneschal would like some kind of way of 'hiring in outside help'; or in other words, when a Talossan can't fix it or build it we bring in a non-Talossan who can.

Third, there have actually been many instances of people playing around in the webspaces.  The language guys have server level FTP access to maintain Oversteir and site admins get appointed now and then.  So, this is just adding in a formal process surrounding all that stuff.

In the immediate short term, I can't think of any reason that licence agreements would get drawn up (other than Oversteir), but you never know when somebody will come up with some great idea and want a subdomain to host it on, or something breaks like a shoutbox plugin... loads of reasons that we might need to be giving someone admin level access rights.  I think its a good idea that we start saying if people are getting serious admin access to our systems then asking for a flash of an ID card is probably sensible.


The bit in there about expiry dates is because in the past we have found that when someone gets admin rights, the admin rights hardly ever get removed after the job is done.


(but it might also all be a rubbish idea)

Will fill in the blanks later.

Comments and questions invited and welcome.

WHEREAS

THEREFORE

The Minister of STUFF is authorised to create and enter into licensing agreements with third parties in relation to the operation and control of all national web assets.  In these agreements the Ministry of STUFF shall be the licensor and the third party shall be the licensee.

Any web asset that is surplus to requirements may be licenced to a licensee for a particular purpose and, during the term of that licence agreement, the licensee shall have control over the named web asset(s) for the specific purposes as outlined in the agreement.

Licence agreements must also be in place between the Ministry of STUFF and any third party that requests accounts or access to File Transfer Protocol (FTP), database systems, any server level technology (including webhosting control panels), any backend email systems, any subdomain, any domain, any backend dashboards for website installations where such access would give significant levels of control, any social media accounts, and any other internet based system, be it a system wholly owned by the Kingdom or not, where such levels of access is significant. 

All licence agreements shall be publicly posted and shall contain the exact terms of agreement and, whenever possible, shall be of a defined term with an expiry date, either fixed or renewable.  Upon expiry of a licence agreement that is not being renewed the Ministry of STUFF must ensure that all account accesses relating to the agreement are revoked.

Before a licence agreement can be finalised the licensee must provide a copy of identity documents that must show the legal name and address of the licensee.  These documents must be verified by both the Ministry of STUFF and the Chancery.

During the term of a licence agreement the licensee shall not be permitted to transfer the agreement to any other party. 

The existence of a licence agreement does not, and cannot, transfer ownership of any web asset.

Quote from: Açafat del Val on November 13, 2020, 02:06:30 PM
There is a difference between 'forcing a real name' and 'prohibiting fake names'. I proposed the latter.

The end result is the same.  By prohibiting assumed names you effectively force real names.  Unless there's an aspect here I'm missing?

QuoteThe US does not have similar freedoms.

Except it does.  Forgive me for using Wikipedia as my reference for this.

"Several federal court rulings have set precedents regarding both court decreed name changes and common law name changes (changing the name at will), including Lindon v. First National Bank. In Christianson v. King County, 239 U.S. 356 (1915), the Supreme Court accepted a name changed using the common law method as a legal name (more detail of the decision accepted by the Supreme Court is found at 196 F. 791 (1912)).

As of 2009, 46 states allow a person legally to change names by usage alone, with no paperwork, but a court order may be required for many institutions (such as banks or government institutions) to officially accept the change."

This is almost the same situation as the one I described for the UK.  Just 4 of the 50 US States disallow the practice of adopting an new name to be used at will and in everyday settings.  A certification process does exist, similar to the UK's deed poll system, if the person wanted to use the name for official purposes that process would be required, such as recording the name on identity documents or for entering into contracts. But, for everyday stuff, like introducing yourself to neighbours and new friends, no.

Quote
For one, it would be grounds for fraud to walk around using different names.

No, it wouldn't.  The mere act of introducing yourself and going by a name different to the one that your parents gave you is not fraud.  Using the name to enter into contracts, evade debts, secure identity documents, however, is. There is a difference.

QuoteFor two, all (or nearly all) of the states require a process far more strenuous than you are describing. I have two personal friends who changed their names in the last 5 years, and it was not nearly as simple as paying some fees. A person has to send put out an ad in a newspaper whose audience is larger than a certain number; they have to send certified mail to all their creditors, and prove to the court that those creditors have received ALL POTENTIAL NOTIFICATION that the name change occurred; they have to wait X number of days so that members of the public may protest against the change; and they have to carry documents for the rest of their lives to prove why their legal name is now different than their birth name.

It seems each State has it's own rules on how strict the process would be, but, again, the process is only required if they wanted the name change recorded on official documents, against bank accounts, and things like that.  None of that happens in Talossa, so it's all moot.

QuoteFor three, I strongly contest the assertion on its merits, anyways, that you can go around with "whatever name you so choose". Sure, in the narrowest sense possible, that is true and no one will stop you. But you cannot rightly purchase a car under "Steve Mccaw" while paying down a mortgage under "Julius Pumpernickel".

Two different things there, though.  Buying the car or paying the mortgage required entering into some form of contract and both examples would have required producing identity docs. Of course, then, both scenarios would have to be played out under the same name as only one set of identity docs would be considered legal. However, those are not examples of going around with whatever name you so choose; ie. using a name in the community for non official purposes.

QuoteYeah, the government cannot and will not proscribe any particular names - so I very well could change my own surname to Pumpernickel - but I most certainly cannot walk around the community using two different names depending on who I want to fool. Actors don't get two stage names, and even when they use one, both the government and anyone who gives them money have every legal right to know their "real name" and their whereabouts (in addition to the legal power to find them and compel answers).

At least in the U.S., what you're describing would be fraudulent and constitute a cause of action for any civil suit... especially if any money was exchanged.

If you got a new neighbour tomorrow and he introduced himself as William and for the next few months you went about believing his name to be William, but then accidentally got a bit of his mail through your door and seen that his name was not actually William... I seriously, seriously doubt you would have any cause for action.  Fraud has not occurred there.

QuoteI'm gonna have to sternly agree to disagree. It is absolutely my right as a Talossan to know that the person on the other side of the table is real, acting in good faith, and answerable to a court of law.

I'm not entirely convinced we do have that "right". It would simply be your preference.

QuoteThe entire fiasco of Guy Incognito is that, if it were not for his own failure to perpetuate his lies and hide them better, then one day he could have disappeared and taken Talossa's treasury/website/other property with him... and we would have ZERO recourse to recover any of it.

Quote
I do not care if someone uses a Talossan name. After all, look at me. What I do mind is when someone makes themself unanswerable to our laws.

That was fixed under Townsend.  We would have their real and legal names.  Again, if you want to strengthen the verification process, say by demanding a copy of ID docs, I can probably get behind that.

Whether they go around with an assumed name or not wouldn't affect any of the concerns you raise.  We would have their real and legal names on file.

QuoteBottom line, if you can't trust Talossa enough with your "real name", then you don't belong here. Either you have a malicious agenda, you are flaky, you are trying to undermine the sovereignty or validity of our government, or combinations thereof.

I agree, which is why the immigration process requires a real and legal name to be provided.

QuoteIt is possible to prohibit "fake names" at the same time as allowing "street names". These things are not mutually exclusive.

Can you elaborate on that?  I don't understand what you mean or how it would be achieved. 

***

Final copy/paste as it is relevant:

"Under U.S. nationality law, when aliens apply for naturalization, they have the option of asking for their names to be changed upon the grants of citizenship with no additional fees. This allows them the opportunity to adopt more Americanized names.[25] During the naturalization interview, a petition for a name change is prepared to be forwarded to a federal court. Applicants certify that they are not seeking a change of name for any unlawful purpose such as the avoidance of debt or evasion of law enforcement. Such a name change would become final if within their jurisdiction, once a federal court naturalizes an applicant."

No.  I would have to vote against any measure trying to force a "real name" only rule.  I try to make it a habit not to vote for things in Talossa that are more authoritarian and limiting than the laws of my resident country.

"We're not supposed to just be an internet message board -- we're supposed to be a community."

I agree.  So, let's look at all this with a derivitist viewpoint and that quote in mind...

In the UK I am free to go about my daily life using whatever name I so choose.  This can be as simple as going by Eddie instead of Edward, or choosing to interchange both depending on how I feel.  I actually do this, both at home and in Talossa.  I can also choose to go by any random name.  If I decide I don't like my surname, I can just decide, right here and right now, to start using a different one.  If I fancy sounding more pompous in life I might want to choose to change my name to Reginald Nigel Hargreaves and it would be completely allowed. I don't need special certificates or anything if I want to do that.  I'm sure the US has similar freedoms.

Of course, a limit applies.  I can't have it printed on my driving licence or open a bank account in this new name unless I go through the 'deed poll' process.  I say "process", but all I need to do is fill out a form and pay a fee.

When would it not be allowed?  There might be more circumstances in the UK where it would not be allowed, but for now the only relevant answer is immigration.  People coming into the country must provide immigration authorities with real details, obviously.  However, once they have left the immigration buildings and have gone into the community, they can start going about using whatever name they wish. 

That is the Talossan status quo (-ish).  We demand that a real and legal name is collected during immigration.  We verify that to the best of our ability.  After that, we leave it up to the person to have the freedom to go by whatever name they wish for whatever reason they wish. 

Bottom line.  It is none of anyone's business, other than for official reasons, what a person's birth name might be unless they choose to tell you.  The fact that somebody might not like that is, well, gradnă.

I think I would support tougher measures of identity verification; that's fair enough.  I think it will hurt immigration numbers, but I can get behind it. However, I will not support the abolition of deed polls / introduction of a "real names only" law.  Again, I try to make it a habit not to vote for laws in Talossa that restrict freedoms to a degree where I would be less free in Talossa than I would be in my resident country of the UK.

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on November 04, 2020, 04:41:09 PM
Am I mistaken in thinking that the Ziu could just pass a law to fix the problem?

It already did.  The Pete Townsend Act that I mentioned above.

Here it is here: https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/13669/pete-townshend-who-bill?page=1

The Act gave my Ministry very broad powers to verify the identity of all prospective citizens.  The method of ID check I have chose to implement (in the first instance) is a soft-check by social media, but whenever that fails to satisfy me (or the Immigration Secretary) then I conduct further checks.  There are a small handful of times when I have felt the need to conduct further checks.  Sometimes, these further checks lead to the applicant providing more documentation and sometimes these checks lead to the applicant being unwilling to do so, in turn leading to rejection.  As far as is reasonably practicable, this Ministry, over the past two governments, has verified the "real world" identity of every single applicant that has been posted to the immigration forum.  The old policies that allowed GuyIncognitoGate to happen (which were in place all the way back to the mid noughties) have been tightened to prevent that from ever happening again.  So, there isn't a "problem" to fix.

Please also note this WHEREAS clause from the act:  "WHEREAS no-one is suggesting that people should use their "street names" in easily Google-searchable Talossan forums, but that the Kingdom should have confidence that everyone here is a real person with a first name, hind name and address (to quote Ezra Pound), even if this is not publicly disclosed;"

This government is of the view that as long as the true identity of an applicant is provided and verified at the time of immigration then there is no major problem requiring further fixes.

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on November 02, 2020, 11:30:22 AM
I have inquired of the A-X on this matter.  Thank you very much for your excellent reply.  I won't venture an opinion about IDs, but I do think it will harm our shared Talossan community if this trend increases.  I understand that you can't speak to whether or not any of those understandable reasons are at hand here, but I will just urge you to do everything you can to just nudge people to their real names.  I appreciate you are just trying to manage a difficult situation, though.

Just FYI, in the future, I don't think it's wise to change a casual question to a formal legislative inquiry that has the force of law.  I have a philosophical objection to anyone adjusting conversations like that in general, but this seems particularly an area that we should be careful about.

My apologies.  I didn't put any thought into how rigid the Terp system actually is. I wrote the thread title without really thinking about it.  Feel free to remove the Terp tag and rename the thread to something more casual if you prefer.

I take issue, though, with your comment that the conversation has been adjusted.  It hasn't.  Your question was moved to a more appropriate venue and is still displayed exactly as originally posted and my reply was given as it was always going to be given regardless of it being a "terp" or not (in fact, my reply was originally posted in the immigration thread and moved along with the question).  The contents of this thread, sans discussion over terps, is exactly as it always was and would have been regardless of venue or thread title.  Again, apologies for naming it a Terp, though.

Yes, I kind of figured your question was more casual than not.  I just felt the discussion didn't belong in an active immigration thread. Then when I was moving it a Terp made most sense in the moment.

I agree, by the way.  The policy isn't ideal.  I would rather prospectives were required to be open books (I believe most of us do), but, as I mentioned, this policy was put in place hot on the heels of the UC's ruling that fake names given during immigration didn't constitute fraud.  I could have went severe and strict following the passage of the Townsend Act.  I didn't feel wholly comfortable at that time putting in place a system that required immigrants to provide official ID.  I'm still not wholly comfortable with that, but the longer I do this job the more my appetite for it grows. 

Also, the Seneschal voiced opinion (which I agree with) that she didn't see a major issue with people using a deed poll name, so long as they still tell us their real name in the background.

I tried to reach a sensible balance with it all.  I think that balance is working okay for now seeing as it hasn't caused a load of controversy.

To answer your question about the Pinatsch case; I don't actually know the status of that.  I've not been keeping tabs.

STUFF

i) The figure for web hosting is a necessary expense. The bill is not actually due until next summer, but shall fall payable prior to the formation of the next government (ie: when this current government goes into caretaker status during the next election period).  The bill covers 12 months of web hosting from summer 2021 to summer 2022 and also the domain renewal for Talossa.com for that same time period.

ii) the request of $30 for a social media budget is intended to be used to "boost" selected posts on Facebook as posted on the Kingdom's official Facebook page.  The intention is to spend this sum once per month for 6 months at around $5 per spend (6*5=30).  The posts being "boosted" will be for citizenship drives (ie: 'join talossa' posts), of which we will do x4, and also for coin/stamps sales drives, of which we will do x2.  These sales drive posts may help pay for the project and my goal would be that $30 of sales be achieved by those 2 drives to pay for the social media budget. The purpose of "boosting" posts is to increase exposure of those posts to a greater audience (that is that Facebook will display those posts to more people based on how much you spend, similar to Facebook Ads).

iii) The Ministry is available to answer any questions on these budget requests.

iv) It is the intention of the Ministry of STUFF to carry out a redesign of the coin/stamps page on the website to make them appear more appealing (I think we need some nicer and more higher res images and some text tweaking to include more calls to action). Meanwhile, it is the intention of the Ministry of the Interior to start sending all prospective citizens some 'point of sale' literature (which shall be made by MinSTUFF) (basically a JPEG version of the website sales page) in an attempt to increase sales of these items.  At some stage during this Cosa session, we may also send out a mass mailer to all citizens with the sales literature as a sales drive.

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on October 31, 2020, 08:47:01 PM
May I ask how many citizens have a availed themselves of this pseudonym service? I wasn't aware that was a thing we were doing.

This practice came in as a result of the Sebastian Penache case.  The courts final ruling on that was very weird, as you probably remember.  So, rather than allow that to ever happen again and to happen without us knowing about it, Interior allows the practice, but now demands (under Pete Townsend) that an applicant provide a method for us to verify their legal name.  This allows folk to continue their 'incognito' statuses for whatever reason, but ensures that we still know who they are.

This is the middle ground compromise.  We either have it be completely open with little to no protection on things like electoral fraud or from sock puppets and Guy Incognitos or we go whole hog in the other direction and have a strict 'real name only' rule, but to truly enforce that we would need a strict ID card requirement.  I think this compromise works better than those two extremes.

To your question, without checking (but I can go and double check this if you need) no citizens have naturalised under this practice as far as I can remember.  However, a number of applicants have applied under assumed names, but what we find is that those that do this don't actually go on to become full citizens.  To this date, the only person going around in Talossa using a pseudonym is Sebastian Penache, I believe.

By the way, this isn't just about internet privacy and incognito pseudonyms.  There are various legit reasons that someone may wish to become Talossan using a name other than the name printed on their macronational identification, such as divorced surnames or transgender name changes.  So, to prevent those legitimate cases ever ending up a cause for fraud charges, we permit them to use a different name as long as they have been truthful and open to begin with during immigration.

In case you are wondering, and in anticipation of follow up questions on this, in almost all cases we now ask the applicant to provide at least one link to a social media account in their true and legal name.  We have a look at that profile, ensure it is in the legal name of the applicant and just generally check for any signs that the account is legit (age of account, etc).  Interestingly, in the past week or so the Immigration Secretary has actually forwarded me two cases where the applicant was unwilling or unable to provide details for a social media verification check.  One of those cases went to an 'immigration interview' with myself where the applicant did go on to provide me with adequate evidence (although that person wasn't actually applying using a 'deed poll' name; they just don't use social media).  The second case was where they applied using just a forename and no links to social media.  Upon further communication that applicant provided a surname, but still refused to provide any links to a social media profile.  This application was rejected.