National Skills and Social Connections Survey Act

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Okay, outgoing Attorney-General chiming in here.

Given the current section of El Lexh:

C 1.2.2.3. Any information collected during the census that would individually identify any person or persons, including their contact information, shall be withheld from the public for to protect individual privacy, consistent with Lex.D.8. The only exception is that citizens may opt to have their e-mail address shared with party leaders, pursuant to Lex.D.8.5.4. Census information shall not be released under any "freedom of information" or "government transparency" requests, notwithstanding any other provisions of el Lexhatx.

It seems to me that the bolded bit is the crux here. I haven't seen that the TNC proposal requires any such information to be released to "the public" - but to the Government, confidentially. Is the Chancery's interpretation that "the public" means anyone who's not in the Chancery?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I understand that there will be a lot of logistical hurdles, in addition to the technical problem itself. But, and I'm only speaking for myself here, I am frankly sick to death of this whole thing. I feel like we are dealing with problems with the database every few months now. It's been a great tool, but it is simply impossible to rely upon it indefinitely under these circumstances, and it's probably not very fair to MPF either.

So my hope is that we can just get retire it and implement something a lot simpler.

The problem is not just the database Baron. An even larger problem is the existing privacy laws in El. Lex. I've no problem using a Google Form, for example. However, I cannot share any of that information with anyone outside the Chancery. That is where the real problem lies. This law, if enacted as written, would be illegal.

A law cannot be illegal, by definition, but I take your point. It would definitely conflict with other points of law and might not work as intended.

Hm. Breneir, maybe the thing to do here is just to take the census out of it? Is there any reason why we can't just direct the Chancery to send out a survey by itself?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

But why do you even need a law? Previous Governments sent out the National Activity Survey without need of an authorising law, and with the Chancery's cooperation

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

But why do you even need a law? Previous Governments sent out the National Activity Survey without need of an authorising law, and with the Chancery's cooperation

It was the using the Census part that necessitated the approval of the Ziu. I figured using the Census would be more efficient but technical issues with the database and the Privacy Law have negated any potential gains in efficiency.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Okay, outgoing Attorney-General chiming in here.

Given the current section of El Lexh:

C 1.2.2.3. Any information collected during the census that would individually identify any person or persons, including their contact information, shall be withheld from the public for to protect individual privacy, consistent with Lex.D.8. The only exception is that citizens may opt to have their e-mail address shared with party leaders, pursuant to Lex.D.8.5.4. Census information shall not be released under any "freedom of information" or "government transparency" requests, notwithstanding any other provisions of el Lexhatx.

It seems to me that the bolded bit is the crux here. I haven't seen that the TNC proposal requires any such information to be released to "the public" - but to the Government, confidentially. Is the Chancery's interpretation that "the public" means anyone who's not in the Chancery?

I think this needs answering as this was my understanding as well.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

But why do you even need a law? Previous Governments sent out the National Activity Survey without need of an authorising law, and with the Chancery's cooperation

It was the using the Census part that necessitated the approval of the Ziu. I figured using the Census would be more efficient but technical issues with the database and the Privacy Law have negated any potential gains in efficiency.s

Understood. My reaction is that the Census only has to be carried out once every 2 years so it's not that useful for collecting timely information on whether new citizens have skills. On the other hand, I understand the interest in making more use of the Census, which is at the moment something of a useless appendix, only really used to help inactive citizens avoid "striking out".

I'd suggest that this survey be enacted along the same lines as the old National Activity Survey, but that the incoming Government think more about how to make the Census more useful (and perhaps amend privacy law?)

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

But why do you even need a law? Previous Governments sent out the National Activity Survey without need of an authorising law, and with the Chancery's cooperation

It was the using the Census part that necessitated the approval of the Ziu. I figured using the Census would be more efficient but technical issues with the database and the Privacy Law have negated any potential gains in efficiency.s

Understood. My reaction is that the Census only has to be carried out once every 2 years so it's not that useful for collecting timely information on whether new citizens have skills. On the other hand, I understand the interest in making more use of the Census, which is at the moment something of a useless appendix, only really used to help inactive citizens avoid "striking out".

I'd suggest that this survey be enacted along the same lines as the old National Activity Survey, but that the incoming Government think more about how to make the Census more useful (and perhaps amend privacy law?)

Thank you Miestra. I'm just fine with a stand-alone survey. But every two years would be fine as far the data collection interval. I do like the idea of using the Census if we can address the database and privacy issues and am thinking of a change that specifies confidential government use.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

Okay, outgoing Attorney-General chiming in here.

Given the current section of El Lexh:

C 1.2.2.3. Any information collected during the census that would individually identify any person or persons, including their contact information, shall be withheld from the public for to protect individual privacy, consistent with Lex.D.8. The only exception is that citizens may opt to have their e-mail address shared with party leaders, pursuant to Lex.D.8.5.4. Census information shall not be released under any "freedom of information" or "government transparency" requests, notwithstanding any other provisions of el Lexhatx.

It seems to me that the bolded bit is the crux here. I haven't seen that the TNC proposal requires any such information to be released to "the public" - but to the Government, confidentially. Is the Chancery's interpretation that "the public" means anyone who's not in the Chancery?

I think this needs answering as this was my understanding as well.

My concern is not necessarily in giving the government confidential information. My concern is that the law conflicts in that giving information that can identify someone is a problem. If you all want to write a law like this, I'm not standing in your way. I'm merely pointing out, perhaps clumsily, that I don't relish the thought of someone potentially suing the Chancery because someone in the government got information that could be protected, such as identifying information. The law in question uses the word "public" so perhaps a clarification of that particular piece of law as to what "public" means? Does that mean anyone outside the Chancery, or something far less specific?

In any event, I've belabored the point and will stop giving my input on this.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

Hm. Breneir, maybe the thing to do here is just to take the census out of it? Is there any reason why we can't just direct the Chancery to send out a survey by itself?

This is the crucial point. Clearly C 1.2.2.3 was written with the Census as a "real" census possibly collecting various categories of personal information (like employments, age, degrees, etc), and not a general collection of skills.

With C 1.2.2.3 written as it is I agree it's difficult to collect those «during the census» without modifying it, but as that section stands it works in achieving its original purpose.

It seems to me beyond the scope of the original idea and too unnecessarily laborious to meedle with C 1.2.2.3 just to do something that could be enacted in a more simple way without modifying a law that works.

Something like the original question at the start of this thread doesn't necessarily conflict in my view with D.8.2 or D.8.4. Of course it should be worded carefully, and individual answers of a citizen might contain personal informations that may fall within the protected areas of D.8, so every answer will need a sort of "confidentiality revision".

Also, there's no real gain in efficiency in doing it «during the census». A simple survey can be e-mailed to every citizen by the Chancery any time.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Hm. Breneir, maybe the thing to do here is just to take the census out of it? Is there any reason why we can't just direct the Chancery to send out a survey by itself?

This is the crucial point. Clearly C 1.2.2.3 was written with the Census as a "real" census possibly collecting various categories of personal information (like employments, age, degrees, etc), and not a general collection of skills.

With C 1.2.2.3 written as it is I agree it's difficult to collect those «during the census» without modifying it, but as that section stands it works in achieving its original purpose.

It seems to me beyond the scope of the original idea and too unnecessarily laborious to meedle with C 1.2.2.3 just to do something that could be enacted in a more simple way without modifying a law that works.

Something like the original question at the start of this thread doesn't necessarily conflict in my view with D.8.2 or D.8.4. Of course it should be worded carefully, and individual answers of a citizen might contain personal informations that may fall within the protected areas of D.8, so every answer will need a sort of "confidentiality revision".

Also, there's no real gain in efficiency in doing it «during the census». A simple survey can be e-mailed to every citizen by the Chancery any time.

Simultaneous collection of additional information through one distribution would be a clear gain in efficiency. The word real is playing a heavily subjective role here.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I respectfully withdraw this bill from consideration. The goal of the Service Corps Initiative remains but good points have been made by multiple contributors. The resolve clause is not contrary to any law or unfeasible with respect to enactment itself. But it is a part of a larger course of administrative action which does face technical challenges. I will seek alternative routes toward implementing the Initiative

I appreciate the contributions here which have reiterated more urgent courses of needed action that I will discuss with the incoming Cabinet.

[xpb]

One alternative to updating a database would be to create a timebank

I am a member of TimeBank Boulder and we use https://hourworld.org/index.htm to indicate what offers are made of services, and to discover what offers are out there for request. 

How it Works
Members share their talents and services, record their hours, then 'spend' them later on services others provide. Everyone's hours are equal. This is not barter. Members provide friendly neighborly favors. Together we are strengthening the fabric of local communities.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

One alternative to updating a database would be to create a timebank

I am a member of TimeBank Boulder and we use https://hourworld.org/index.htm to indicate what offers are made of services, and to discover what offers are out there for request. 

How it Works
Members share their talents and services, record their hours, then 'spend' them later on services others provide. Everyone's hours are equal. This is not barter. Members provide friendly neighborly favors. Together we are strengthening the fabric of local communities.

I am quite familiar with TimeBanking and its quite cool you are involved with it in Boulder. I participated in it while living in Maine back in 2003-2004 and made some long-lasting connections.

[xpb]

One alternative to updating a database would be to create a timebank

I am a member of TimeBank Boulder and we use https://hourworld.org/index.htm to indicate what offers are made of services, and to discover what offers are out there for request. 

How it Works
Members share their talents and services, record their hours, then 'spend' them later on services others provide. Everyone's hours are equal. This is not barter. Members provide friendly neighborly favors. Together we are strengthening the fabric of local communities.

I am quite familiar with TimeBanking and its quite cool you are involved with it in Boulder. I participated in it while living in Maine back in 2003-2004 and made some long-lasting connections.

Ok great - glad you are familiar.  It appears that a system could be established without cost, and citizens could list things that they would like to provide to others.  I have done lasercutting remotely for people then sent items by mail.  There are various consultations that can be done, data processed, etc that could be useful to put into the system, and with the networking between systems more may become aware of Talossa as a secondary purpose.  This of course would just be an altruistic, voluntary activity.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

I like this. I've never heard of it but I like it!