[BartSimpson]

Oh, and the names of people who file FOIA requests should be public so the public will be able to see if any individuals or groups are possibly abusing the FOIA process.

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

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

And she can't do that until the government makes the policy clear.

Xort Xort:

$1:

Assumes that they will be followed.

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

And that would surprise . . .who? Not anyone that has been paying attention. And the laws they really want to break, they just repeal.

Xort Xort:

$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.

Again, speculation. I hear different. Until there is a policy, we won't know.

Xort Xort:

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.

I do care. Not if they don't get exclusive, I care if this policy makes them stop investigating the government. That's their job, and I don't have time to do it myself.

And being forced into revealing their sources only ensure they never get any whistle blowers again. I prefer they show they are trustworthy through deeds. Which is why I can't stand cable news networks.

Xort Xort:

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.

If I thought they would be following the law, that would be a unique circumstance of late. I don't live in that fantasy world.

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And she can't do that until the government makes the policy clear.

The privacy commissioner has an ongoing job. A new policy doesn't change that job. But even still the commissioner doesn't have the job to question the government's objective. If what was reported is correct the commissioner should be looking for a new job.

$1:

And that would surprise . . .who? Not anyone that has been paying attention. And the laws they really want to break, they just repeal.

Has the government tabled a bill to strip the privacy protections? No.

You're being very silly now.

$1:

Again, speculation. I hear different. Until there is a policy, we won't know.

You hear the same I'm hearing only you are jumping to the most illogical anti government conclusion. You are wrong now, and will be wrong in the future.

Claiming that we just don't know and we have to see the policy before we can be sure is moronic. The government isn't going to violate privacy laws, or change the law/act so they are not in violation. They are just going to publish what is released when a FOIA is accepted.

$1:

I do care. Not if they don't get exclusive, I care if this policy makes them stop investigating the government. That's their job, and I don't have time to do it myself.

They will keep investigating the government. It's still news and will still bring eyes and ears.

$1:

And being forced into revealing their sources only ensure they never get any whistle blowers again. I prefer they show they are trustworthy through deeds. Which is why I can't stand cable news networks.

What they wouldn't get is upset people trying to damage their employers by making statements from a position of authority they have no right to take.

A real whistle blower will still come forward and do what is right.

$1:

If I thought they would be following the law, that would be a unique circumstance of late. I don't live in that fantasy world.

You live in the biggest of fantasy worlds, one populated by the evil government that's out to commit crimes just for the fun of it.

The point at hand with you isn't the FOIA or the policy to publish released material. It's that you don't trust the government and think they are criminals. Two wildly different issues. This would explain your stupid examples of what you think the government will do with this policy change.

[bootlegga]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

What I take from this is the government is giving more freedom of information. Is this correct? How is this a bad thing?

It's bad because this is an attempt to stifle long term investigations - like the one that requested Alison Redford's flight logs, which ultimately brought down her government.

Same goes for political organizations - I may not like the Wildrose, but I do respect their ability to dig up dirt to use against the government - like the recent revelation about $875,000 in roaming fees for AHS employees.

Now, if the CBC or Wildrose requests information from the Premier's office (or any government entity), everyone else in the province will know 24 hours after the CBC/Wildrose receives the documents.

This is an attempt to stifle criticism of the government, pure and simple.

[andyt]

Can you explain how it stifles criticism to more widely disseminate info that is negative towards the govt? If there is a 24 hour delay, the criticism that it prevents scoops by the media doesn't even seem to apply. I just can't see the problem with this policy.

[bootlegga]

It stifles criticism because not every FOIP request brings out a piece of gold, but it may lead you in a certain direction. So you keep digging and digging until you find a nugget - but this will alert other organizations of your investigation, making it harder to get that scoop.

And in the world of politics and news, that scoop means everything.

[andyt]

If that's enough to stop the media from digging, then shame on them. Basically the argument seems to be that government secrecy is good because it makes the media try harder.

And you mentioned the Wildrose party - surely they don't care if their digging hands a media outlet a scoop - that would be exactly what they want.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

If that's enough to stop the media from digging, then shame on them. Basically the argument seems to be that government secrecy is good because it makes the media try harder.

And you mentioned the Wildrose party - surely they don't care if their digging hands a media outlet a scoop - that would be exactly what they want.

The point is it's anti-competitive - once your FOIP goes through, your competitors will see what your doing, and instead of having to start from scratch like you did, they start ahead of you, saving time and money (FOIP requests aren't free).

And of course the Wildrose wouldn't care if the CBC or Global saw their FOIPs, but they would care the the PCs, Liberals and NDP saw them. Competition is relative...

[Canadian_Mind]

bootlegga bootlegga:

It's bad because this is an attempt to stifle long term investigations - like the one that requested Alison Redford's flight logs, which ultimately brought down her government.

Same goes for political organizations - I may not like the Wildrose, but I do respect their ability to dig up dirt to use against the government - like the recent revelation about $875,000 in roaming fees for AHS employees.

Now, if the CBC or Wildrose requests information from the Premier's office (or any government entity), everyone else in the province will know 24 hours after the CBC/Wildrose receives the documents.

This is an attempt to stifle criticism of the government, pure and simple.

At the end of the day, the job of the media is to provide information, not infotainment. I don't really get why being the first to announce a breaking news story is such a big deal, you only have the spotlight for about 5 minutes until the rest figure out what's up.

As for the government organisations themselves, I don't like the concept of only one person or agency holding the information. It could very easily turn into a "Do this or we'll reveal this" scenario.

Frankly if the only reason they are making FOIA requests is to make money off of them, then they are doing it for the wrong reason. I'm sure Redford would have been exposed either way, and that the AHS roaming debacle would have been exposed either way... Not because it's profitable, but because it's outrageous. Regardless of exclusive rights to the info or not, the parties that made the request would have had something to gain by making them; and, I think they would have made them anyway.


But, seeing as how we're on the topic of government transparency, what do you think would be the best method for distribution of information and government transparency?

[bootlegga]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

bootlegga bootlegga:

It's bad because this is an attempt to stifle long term investigations - like the one that requested Alison Redford's flight logs, which ultimately brought down her government.

Same goes for political organizations - I may not like the Wildrose, but I do respect their ability to dig up dirt to use against the government - like the recent revelation about $875,000 in roaming fees for AHS employees.

Now, if the CBC or Wildrose requests information from the Premier's office (or any government entity), everyone else in the province will know 24 hours after the CBC/Wildrose receives the documents.

This is an attempt to stifle criticism of the government, pure and simple.

At the end of the day, the job of the media is to provide information, not infotainment. I don't really get why being the first to announce a breaking news story is such a big deal, you only have the spotlight for about 5 minutes until the rest figure out what's up.

As for the government organisations themselves, I don't like the concept of only one person or agency holding the information. It could very easily turn into a "Do this or we'll reveal this" scenario.

Frankly if the only reason they are making FOIA requests is to make money off of them, then they are doing it for the wrong reason. I'm sure Redford would have been exposed either way, and that the AHS roaming debacle would have been exposed either way... Not because it's profitable, but because it's outrageous. Regardless of exclusive rights to the info or not, the parties that made the request would have had something to gain by making them; and, I think they would have made them anyway.


But, seeing as how we're on the topic of government transparency, what do you think would be the best method for distribution of information and government transparency?

Nobody is doing it just to make money - that may be a by-product for news organizations, but they don't just report the news to sell ads. Investigative journalists investigate, looking for things that fall through the cracks, while opposition parties do it to hold the government accountable.

As for transparency, the current FOIP system works pretty well. Things like Navigator, the Sky Palace, abuse of government aircraft, sky high roaming fees and a host of other problems were brought to light because of it.

An old saying fits best IMHO...if it ain't broke, don't fix it.