[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I did not claim that video had been requested in the past. It was a possible case where private information could be released without the oversight it had in the past. Exactly what the privacy commissioner is worried about!
And if the 'mysterious' source is in the privacy office . . . should we ignore it?

You are claiming that videos of people going to the bathroom might be published publically by the government under this new policy.

That's your argument against this.

Correct. One of many concerns, but that is the one I wrote.

Xort Xort:

Despite the fact that the new policy changes none of the legislation covering the FOIA, or privacy laws in Alberta. That because an approved FOIA request is published publically they (those that process FOIA requests) are now going to do things to a lower standard.

This belief on your part is based on the evidence of 'sources said we are worried about privacy'.

Either the FOIA protects privacy or it doesn't. How many people are able to view requested information doesn't change that.

Who views it is not my concern; 'Privacy' does not apply in 'public' spaces. Every Government of Alberta facility has cameras in the lobbies, and warning signs that the data recorded by these cameras may be subject to an FOIA request! There are also cameras in the data facilities, with the same warnings.

Before, just because the data was available does not mean it was released. Now, since the Premier has overstepped his bounds and said that all data requested will be immediately released - this is the thing where the privacy protection falls down. Who got in an elevator and when is pretty much irrelevant to their privacy, but in many facilities the bathrooms doors and the elevators are in the same space. Who now decides what delineates between knowledge the public needs and voyeurism?

That is my argument, and that is similar to what the privacy commissioners are saying in the article. The need for immediate release of FOIA requests sidesteps the Privacy implications of that request.

The difference between requesting video of who gets on an elevator and who is going in a washroom is a vastly different matter that needs to be considered before the video is released. Just like if someone puts in a FOIA request for businesses that have overpaid their taxes. Should that information be released, even though it's not an illegal act?

I share some big concerns with the Privacy Commissioner on this.

Xort Xort:

Your counter argument is insane and illogical.

b8/10 for the trolling m8. You got me.

I'm not trying to troll you. You are just taking this a lot more seriously than you need to.

[BartSimpson]

I support the government making all information released under FOIA public.

Why?

Because it seems disingenuous to me to object to the government keeping something secret only so you can keep it a secret yourself.

If it is government information then the information belongs to everyone, not just the person who requested it.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I support the government making all information released under FOIA public.

Why?

Because it seems disingenuous to me to object to the government keeping something secret only so you can keep it a secret yourself.

If it is government information then the information belongs to everyone, not just the person who requested it.

I don't disagree with that either. I just have a finer screen on what needs to be 'released', and what doesn't.

Would the emergency contact list for the Premier's department be released, even though it more than likely has names, addresses and home phone numbers of his staff?

I don't think the public has a need to know that.

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Who views it is not my concern; 'Privacy' does not apply in 'public' spaces. Every Government of Alberta facility has cameras in the lobbies, and warning signs that the data recorded by these cameras may be subject to an FOIA request!

This is false. Some buildings do but not all. Further has anyone ever requested the security video taken in a government building by a FOIA request and has it ever been granted?

$1:

Before, just because the data was available does not mean it was released. Now, since the Premier has overstepped his bounds and said that all data requested will be immediately released

This is false. No where did the Premier state that all FOIA are to be granted immediately and published.

$1:

- this is the thing where the privacy protection falls down. Who got in an elevator and when is pretty much irrelevant to their privacy, but in many facilities the bathrooms doors and the elevators are in the same space. Who now decides what delineates between knowledge the public needs and voyeurism?

The people the review the FOIA, not that it matters.

$1:

That is my argument,

Which is based off the incorrect assumption that the Premier has overturned all the regulation relating to FOIA request and now everything is to be given without review.

The ONLY difference is that every granted FOIA request is also now published.

That's it.

$1:

The sources said Morrison told co-ordinators Prentice had ordered the government to start posting all documents requested through general freedom of information​ requests — for example, requests that do not explicitly seek personal information — on the government’s open data portal every Friday.

Only a fool would take that to mean any and every request will be posted without review or oversight.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Would the emergency contact list for the Premier's department be released, even though it more than likely has names, addresses and home phone numbers of his staff?
I don't think the public has a need to know that.

Good thing the FOIA has outlines for information that is released.

[HyperionTheEvil]

It's a Nixonian type of thing try to flood them with to much information, didn't work then, wont work now.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I don't disagree with that either. I just have a finer screen on what needs to be 'released', and what doesn't.

Would the emergency contact list for the Premier's department be released, even though it more than likely has names, addresses and home phone numbers of his staff?

I don't think the public has a need to know that.

What if all of his staff live at the same address and it's this place:



Would you want that kept secret?

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I don't disagree with that either. I just have a finer screen on what needs to be 'released', and what doesn't.

Would the emergency contact list for the Premier's department be released, even though it more than likely has names, addresses and home phone numbers of his staff?

I don't think the public has a need to know that.

What if all of his staff live at the same address and it's this place:



Would you want that kept secret?

Yes. We are free to pursue whatever religion we want.

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Who views it is not my concern; 'Privacy' does not apply in 'public' spaces. Every Government of Alberta facility has cameras in the lobbies, and warning signs that the data recorded by these cameras may be subject to an FOIA request!

This is false. Some buildings do but not all. Further has anyone ever requested the security video taken in a government building by a FOIA request and has it ever been granted?

If there are GoA facilities that don't have cameras in every elevator lobby, I have never seen one.

As for the requests, I have no idea. I'm sure if you are curious about it, there is somewhere to look it up. I know they have been requested for criminal investigations.

[DrCaleb]

now that I have a few minutes. . .

Xort Xort:

$1:

Before, just because the data was available does not mean it was released. Now, since the Premier has overstepped his bounds and said that all data requested will be immediately released

This is false. No where did the Premier state that all FOIA are to be granted immediately and published.

Nowhere has he said it won't. Admittedly, it's rumor around here, but the news is that the reason the Privacy Commissioner wasn't consulted on this was to do an end run around her. This is because there has been political interference in the past with FOIP requests and she is currently investigating it.

Xort Xort:

$1:

- this is the thing where the privacy protection falls down. Who got in an elevator and when is pretty much irrelevant to their privacy, but in many facilities the bathrooms doors and the elevators are in the same space. Who now decides what delineates between knowledge the public needs and voyeurism?

The people the review the FOIA, not that it matters.

Assuming the rumors aren't true . . . you'd be correct.

Xort Xort:

$1:

That is my argument,

Which is based off the incorrect assumption that the Premier has overturned all the regulation relating to FOIA request and now everything is to be given without review.

The ONLY difference is that every granted FOIA request is also now published.

That's it.

$1:

The sources said Morrison told co-ordinators Prentice had ordered the government to start posting all documents requested through general freedom of information​ requests — for example, requests that do not explicitly seek personal information — on the government’s open data portal every Friday.

Only a fool would take that to mean any and every request will be posted without review or oversight.

So, we are back to name calling?

The Privacy Commissioner said pretty much the same thing as I did:

$1:

Clayton said she doesn’t oppose the simultaneous release of government information, but is concerned about the objectives, process, nature of the disclosures and whether the names of applicants are going to be released.

“There’s the potential that it might be seen to be disincenting media from making FOIP requests, or it might be seen as a way of burying information, or it might be seen as a way of targeting individuals,” she added.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/ ... mmissioner

Xort Xort:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Would the emergency contact list for the Premier's department be released, even though it more than likely has names, addresses and home phone numbers of his staff?
I don't think the public has a need to know that.

Good thing the FOIA has outlines for information that is released.

Assumes that they will be followed. We'll have to see what the Premier's policy actually is. The suspicion is that this whole new directive is to prevent the Media from conducting the same sort of investigation that brought down Redford by requesting her flight logs.

If true, then I suspect that the Premier will go the 'full disclosure' route, because it is the most damaging to the Media and makes him look like he's being more fair and open.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Yes. We are free to pursue whatever religion we want.

I used that example because Scientology is infamous for infiltrating government agencies and using them to advance the interests of their church. Their 'Operation Snow White' is well documented by various governments around the world.

So would it be of public interest to find out that an entire political staff was made up of Scientologists who may well be using their posts to retaliate against their church's enemies?

Sorry, but if you want complete privacy then you should not work for government.

Find another career.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Yes. We are free to pursue whatever religion we want.

I used that example because Scientology is infamous for infiltrating government agencies and using them to advance the interests of their church. Their 'Operation Snow White' is well documented by various governments around the world.

So would it be of public interest to find out that an entire political staff was made up of Scientologists who may well be using their posts to retaliate against their church's enemies?

Sorry, but if you want complete privacy then you should not work for government.

Find another career.

I disagree. Civil servants are also the 'public', and 'citizens' and still have constitutional rights. Politicians on the other hand, choose the spotlight and have no expectation of 'complete' privacy. I do think their families and home life is off limits though.

And that is also the danger of such 'freedoms'. Some people choose poorly. In the case of Scientology we should follow the examples of many countries that have labelled it as a 'cult', and remove the freedom of religion it enjoys.

[Canadian_Mind]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Before, it would have to be looked at through the eyes of 'privacy' before being released. For example, if you request video from everyone going in to the 5th floor women's bathroom last Friday for a certain building, the request could be denied on privacy grounds. Now, it could end up on the website without that oversight.

It's bad in the same way that your wife asking you to answer truthfully and without thinking asks if "those pants make her look fat". Nothing good can come from that answer.

I'm all for more transparent government, but I think this will backfire. Trolls always find a way to sow their mischief.

The way I understand it, the requests go through normal channels wiht the only differnece being that, when the decision to release has been made, it is posted publicly, as opposed to just being provided to the person requesting the information.

If, as you say, there is less oversight to prevent the publication of personal information then I would oppose it too.

Dr. Caleb, this is how I read it as well.

This is why the media is crying so much about not getting scoops anymore.

[DrCaleb]

You might very well be right C_M. Until the Premier releases the new guidelines, all we have is speculation.

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

now that I have a few minutes. . .
Nowhere has he said it won't.

It would be against the law to release all requested information if that information was protected and not to be released. Not everything requested is given due to a number of guidelines and laws. Not that this new policy changes any of that.

At best you have an argument against the FOIA not the publication policy.

$1:

Assuming the rumors aren't true . . . you'd be correct.

What you are suggesting is that the government is going to violate the law, and start publishing private information without review. Their is no evidence that this is going to happen, or would any sane person believe a rumor to that effect.

$1:

The Privacy Commissioner said pretty much the same thing as I did:
'Clayton said she doesn’t oppose the simultaneous release of government information, but is concerned about the objectives, process, nature of the disclosures and whether the names of applicants are going to be released.

“There’s the potential that it might be seen to be disincenting media from making FOIP requests, or it might be seen as a way of burying information, or it might be seen as a way of targeting individuals,” she added.'

Which is wildly short of your claim of anything at all requested like emergency contact information for the Primer's office will be published.

The Privacy Commissioner has one job, to protect the privacy of people. Not to judge the government on their objectives.

$1:

Assumes that they will be followed.

Yes, we do otherwise your suggesting a massive conspiracy in the government to break the law.

$1:

We'll have to see what the Premier's policy actually is. The suspicion is that this whole new directive is to prevent the Media from conducting the same sort of investigation that brought down Redford by requesting her flight logs.

The policy is to publish the released FOIA requests publically, from what I've read and some people I've talked to.

I don't care if the media might lose out on a scoop or exclusives. Boo hoo. I don't trust the media to present information without bias so having the chance to review their sources is nice.

Frankly the media should be required to publish their sources. Otherwise they can just make up anything they want and claim a source said it.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You might very well be right C_M. Until the Premier releases the new guidelines, all we have is speculation.

And you should speculate that the government will follow the law.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I disagree. Civil servants are also the 'public', and 'citizens' and still have constitutional rights. Politicians on the other hand, choose the spotlight and have no expectation of 'complete' privacy. I do think their families and home life is off limits though.

I disagree. And I say that as someone whose salary, classification, name, and home address are public information. The day I retire or quit my info comes off that list, but for now it goes with the job. Doesn't bother me a bit save for the junk mail that shows up at the house.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And that is also the danger of such 'freedoms'. Some people choose poorly. In the case of Scientology we should follow the examples of many countries that have labelled it as a 'cult', and remove the freedom of religion it enjoys.

Okay, fine. Say it's labeled a cult. Isn't it in the public interest to know that a staff office is populated by people who belong to a dangerous cult?