WHEREAS our immigration information disclosure practices fail the 'reasonable person' test in that a reasonable person would not assume that information provided to Talossan Immigration in confidence would be posted in plain sight of Talossan citizens on Wittenberg, and
WHEREAS this practice only becomes known to prospective immigrants after they have provided their personal information by way of a contact form, and
WHEREAS some prospective immigrants would redact some elements from their application or possibly even decline to apply for citizenship in the first place if they were aware that their information will be posted on Wittenberg
THEREFORE BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosâ and Senäts of Talossa in Ziu assembled that El Lexhátx E.11 shall be amended by addition of the following section:
11.5 At the time of the initial Immigration application, prior to submission of the form, the prospective shall be notified in writing that as part of the approval process their application will be posted on a forum where it can be viewed by existing citizens, excluding such personal contact information as their physical place(s) of residence, their email address(es), their phone number(s), and other details which are by law or which ought to be explicitly confidential.
Uréu q'estadra så
Sevastáin Pinátsch
Why would a prospective need to be cautioned not to submit "irrelevant" information? We don't have any fields in the immigration form asking for information we don't need, and if they volunteer the information in the application essay, surely they think it is relevant.
1) "WHEREAS in actual practice all or most of a prospective's application is posted on Wittenberg under a thread name that names the applicant, and"
But, none of the sensitive data is posted. Email and phone numbers don't get posted in those threads, even if the applicant answers 'yes' to the PhoneOK? and EmailOK? questions. (Answering yes to those questions will have that data made available through the Chancery database, but not posted on Witt).
2) "WHEREAS some applicant information is arguably sensitive, and further include data that is irrelevant to the immigration process such as age, employment status, marital status, and"
First, the form does not contain a question on marital status.
Second, the only time employment is mentioned is in the box saying "Tell us a little about yourself, what's important to you, your ambitions, your job, your hobbies"... This box also features a guidance note that says "There is a lot to do as a citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa. Knowing some of your interests will help the current citizens to suggest to you some of the active Talossan groups and projects that that you may wish to join."
Are you seriously suggesting that immigration applications should contain near to no information about the applicant?Third, age is 100% relevant to the application process. We need to know if a person is of legal age to immigrate/vote/etc.
QuoteFurther, they must be cautioned not to submit personal information irrelevant to their application
What exactly do you mean here? Again, is this tied to the thing about "tell us about yourself"? I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am, but are you actually saying that applications should be considered where we know absolutely nothing about a person (all the way from basic interests and hobbies all the way up to including whether their name is actually real)? Plus, I don't buy that anything filled into that box counts as "data" in the context of E.11. Those statutes were written to protect a person's contact information. Those clauses are about making sure your phone number and email don't end up floating about the internet, not about limiting us from asking you what your hobbies are.
Quoteadvised of their rights to privacy under El-Lexhátx E.11
This is already done, and has been the case for quite some time.
The immigration application form contains the following phrases in its guidance notes:
- "Your mailing address (except for the city) will be kept confidential"
- "As with your mailing address, unless you request otherwise, your e-mail address will be kept confidential, for government use only"
- "Facebook and GoogleTalk ... This information is optional, however, and, like your other contact information, will not be published without your permission"
That said, it's not law that this needs to be included on the form, so there's nothing stopping a Minister (or even just a site admin) from removing those notes. I don't mind having it codified to ensure that this info becomes fixed.
Don't get me wrong. I sympathize with the thrust here. I wrote a lot of the data privacy laws back when we literally didn't have any. I agree, that stuff is important, but what it seems like your arguing for here isn't about data protection, but more towards banning data collection altogether.
I could get behind a law adding a notice to the form alerting prospectives that parts of an application will be posted on a forum. That's fair. I can support codifying the guidance notes in relation to LEX.E.11. We already do it, so that's fine. That bit in the middle about the "caution" (along with some of those WHEREAS statements) is nonsense though.
Our current contact form is still a bait and switch. Talossa already has all an applicant's personal information by the time they are presented with the follow-up notice that it will be posted on Witt, in which case they might not have wanted us to have it in the first place. No fair warning.
Age is relevant, yes, if the applicant is a minor. Does the public need to know if the person is 19 or 64? No.
Regarding the other data points, sure, individually they appear harmless. However, in combination they aren't. Knowing the person's real name, city and state/province, age, and occupation makes it pretty trivial to track them down. This is called residual disclosure.
Quote from: Sevastáin Pinátsch on January 07, 2020, 05:32:34 PM
Our current contact form is still a bait and switch. Talossa already has all an applicant's personal information by the time they are presented with the follow-up notice that it will be posted on Witt, in which case they might not have wanted us to have it in the first place. No fair warning.
OK. Don't have an issue with adding the "fair warning" to the form prior to submission.
QuoteAge is relevant, yes, if the applicant is a minor. Does the public need to know if the person is 19 or 64? No.
Fair enough, to a degree. The law only specifies that we need to know that a prospective meets a certain age to meet entry/voting requirements. I could support a law saying something like the immigration form does not collect a full date of birth, but the applicant must confirm they will be 14 years old by the next general elections (might get tricky as that date is always tentative and fluid, but not totally impossible)... (or even just a clause stating the Minister shall collect the DOB, but it shall not be published, but he shall still certify that a Prospective meets the minimum age requirements).
QuoteRegarding the other data points, sure, individually they appear harmless. However, in combination they aren't. Knowing the person's real name, city and state/province, age, and occupation makes it pretty trivial to track them down. This is called residual disclosure.
I hear you. I just disagree with the harsh limit you propose to impose on immigration authorities. How about a softer version of the bill, something like
"The immigration application form shall include a visible notice alerting a prospective citizen that parts of the information provided on the immigration form shall be posted on a forum for other citizens to view. The form must also include guidance notes to explain to the prospective citizen which data shall be published and which shall remain confidential per law*"
With this, we would still be free to "ask for the information" (ie: the "any and all" clause), but the prospective would have been alerted to the fact that anything they do say can be used...blah-di-blah. The way you have written the bill makes it nearly impossible to ask in the first place.
(*per law, as it seems LEX.E.11 might not be the actual correct statute as section numbering changes may have been made already but not updated on Wiki.)
Also, let's deal with the age requirement as a separate Bill.
((I want to work with you here. Not against you. But, for it to work, you will need to soften your stance and move towards the middle ground)).
Quote from: Sevastáin Pinátsch on January 07, 2020, 05:32:34 PM
Regarding the other data points, sure, individually they appear harmless. However, in combination they aren't. Knowing the person's real name, city and state/province, age, and occupation makes it pretty trivial to track them down. This is called residual disclosure.
Also, let's bear in mind that immigration boards are not visible to the non-Talossan public and are not crawlable by search engine bots. Residual disclosure is only an issue to fellow Talossans in this context, not to your macronational colleagues and neighbours.
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on January 07, 2020, 06:13:12 PM
Residual disclosure is only an issue to fellow Talossans in this context, not to your macronational colleagues and neighbours.
I guess I'm not a peculiarist in that I expect Immigration data to be handled as would be done in a real country, which is why I apply the "reasonable person" test. As you point out, it's not possible for an applicant to see what types of information are posted on Witt prior to applying.
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on January 07, 2020, 06:06:02 PM
I want to work with you here. Not against you. But, for it to work, you will need to soften your stance and move towards the middle ground.
Great. I'm open to that. I'll revise it and let you know. This week is a little busy with the Committee Hearing.
OK, I made more progress on my Hearing questions than I anticipated, so I've edited the initial post to create a re-ordered and stripped down version of the bill.
Thoughts?
Quote from: Sevastáin Pinátsch on January 06, 2020, 02:31:13 PM
WHEREAS our immigration information disclosure practices fail the 'reasonable person' test in that a reasonable person would not assume that information provided to Talossan Immigration in confidence would be posted in plain sight of Talossan citizens on Wittenberg, and
WHEREAS this practice only becomes known to prospective immigrants after they have provided their personal information by way of a contact form, and
WHEREAS some prospective immigrants would redact some elements from their application or possibly even decline to apply for citizenship in the first place if they were aware that their information will be posted on Wittenberg
THEREFORE BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosâ and Senäts of Talossa in Ziu assembled that El Lexhátx E.11 shall be amended by addition of the following section:
11.5 At the time of the initial Immigration application, prior to submission of the form, the prospective must be notified in writing that as part of the approval process, their application — excluding contact information — will be posted on a forum where it can be viewed by existing citizens.
Uréu q'estadra så
Sevastáin Pinátsch
As it is written above, including the preambulatory clauses, I would vote in favor of this bill if/when clarked. However, I would suggest some edits for the sake of style:
"At the time of the initial Immigration application, prior to submission of the form, the prospective
must shall be notified in writing that as part of the approval process
[comma removed] their application
— excluding contact information — [no more dashes] will be posted on a forum where it can be viewed by existing citizens,
excluding such personal contact information as their physical place(s) of residence, their email address(es), their phone number(s), and other details which are by law or which ought to be explicitly confidential."
All together: "At the time of the initial Immigration application, prior to submission of the form, the prospective shall be notified in writing that as part of the approval process their application will be posted on a forum where it can be viewed by existing citizens, excluding such personal contact information as their physical place(s) of residence, their email address(es), their phone number(s), and other details which are by law or which ought to be explicitly confidential."
Quote from: Sevastáin Pinátsch on January 08, 2020, 08:45:34 AM
I guess I'm not a peculiarist in that I expect Immigration data to be handled as would be done in a real country, which is why I apply the "reasonable person" test. As you point out, it's not possible for an applicant to see what types of information are posted on Witt prior to applying.
I want it on record that I really very much despise this phrase: "a real country". Anyone who thinks that Talossa is "not a real country" should not be a citizen, let alone a sitting MC or Senator. Either a person respects the sovereignty of Talossa, its laws and its legitimacy, or they don't, and it's quite a case of cognitive dissonance to suggest or think that calling Talossa "not a real country" is anything else than a disrespect for its sovereignty, laws and legitimacy.
To be snarky, I wouldn't expect Senator Guy Incognito to have the same ideas as the rest of us on what "real" means :D
Yeah, surely being on the side of saying pseudonyms are acceptable in lieu of providing a 'legal name' falls more on the side of Peculiar than Derivitist?
Anyway, the Bill as rewritten looks ok to me.
I've expressed my feelings at this bill on the old Witt. As written, I intend to vote against it. It is wholly unnecessary and recent updates to the immigration form already accomplish its goal.
I'm about to cast my votes.
Upon a final reading of this bill I have noticed something that I hadn't noticed earlier:
"excluding such personal contact information as their physical place(s) of residence"
Until such time as provincial assignment is not tied to geographic location, this can't work.
Because we can't evaluate someone's suitability as a Talossan without knowing which province they'd be assigned to?
Quote from: Sevastáin Pinátsch on February 03, 2020, 09:45:49 AM
Because we can't evaluate someone's suitability as a Talossan without knowing which province they'd be assigned to?
No. You're right. We don't necessarily *need* to post the location, but it's rather useful to do so.
Seriously, what is your problem? There is nothing wrong with an application getting posted displaying just the city/state. Never once has somebody's street address been posted. Never once has somebody's neighbourhood or zip code been posted. And it'll never happen, not only because we know better, but because we actually already have laws limiting how this data is to be handled.
We only ever disclose the city, state (if applicable) and country. This is mainly for two reasons. First, as said, for provincial assignment. Second, is for people who are geographically close to each other to have a chance at forming some kind of relationship/friendship/bond/etc. If a prospective showed up in the future that came from Glasgow or nearby, don't you think it would be cool for me and that person to know we live near each other? Wouldn't you like to know if someone from your home town became Talossan so that you could maybe become friends? Or, are you just content living in your secret 'closet Talossan' bubble? If being Talossan is such a danger to you, why do you even bother?
Enough of the tantrum. Get a grip, chief.