[Newsbot]

Title: Alberta plans document dump of freedom of information requests
Category: Provincial Politics
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2015-02-19 06:18:39
Canadian

[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?

[Zipperfish]

Yeah, I think Prentice just did an end-run around his critics on that one.

[Xort]

All I see is people crying that they can't use the freedom of information act to score hits on the government if the information they requested is made public.

Too bad.

[DrCaleb]

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?

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.

[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.

[BartSimpson]

The CIA used this same tactic against the son of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. The son had filed a FOIA to 'prove' his parent's supposed innocence in the Soviet nuclear spying debacle. Instead the CIA made the entire file public and proved the treason of the Rosenbergs beyond any doubt.

It shut down the little proghole ASAP.

[Xort]

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.

Has the government ever released security recordings before? Also what makes you think that privacy doesn't apply anymore?

$1:

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

Who are the trolls? Reporters, NGOs, activists, the government?

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

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.

Has the government ever released security recordings before? Also what makes you think that privacy doesn't apply anymore?

The article.

$1:

Sources said the freedom of information co-ordinators were blindsided by the Prentice directive and immediately identified several problems the new policy could create, including:

The potential for privacy breaches.

Xort Xort:

$1:

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

Who are the trolls? Reporters, NGOs, activists, the government?

Why limit it to them? Troll are trolls, they just want to watch the world burn.

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The article...
'The potential for privacy breaches.'

They FOIA never allowed private information to be released outside of personal requests.

If the government lets private information go to a reporter that's an equal violation to publishing it publicly.

The problem isn't publishing FOIA requests, it's the FOIA in general.

Also I love unnamed government sources making unsupported claims.

But again when has the government released video footage of people going to the bathroom? That's your example so I would like to see something backing that up.

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

But again when has the government released video footage of people going to the bathroom? That's your example so I would like to see something backing that up.

Your strawman has no straw.

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Your strawman has no straw.

WTF?

"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."

That is what you just said.

And your claiming that privacy protections no longer apply because, 'sources said' they are worried about privacy?

The only one making strawmen here is you.

[Xort]

Caleb you are either a moron of the highest quality or a troll of internet legend.

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Your strawman has no straw.

WTF?

"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."

That is what you just said.

And your claiming that privacy protections no longer apply because, 'sources said' they are worried about privacy?

The only one making strawmen here is you.

Xort Xort:

But again when has the government released video footage of people going to the bathroom? That's your example so I would like to see something backing that up.

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?

[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.

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.

Your counter argument is insane and illogical.

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