[PASSED] Public Access to Court Records

[Imperium Anglorum]

An idea struck me while trying to find a solution. Have you considered a mandate to state the justification for redaction? Differentiating between "this redacted is for privacy", "this is redacted for national security" and "this is redacted for <third compelling need>", even if only in the broadest terms, would give the public a bit more insight, create slightly more transparency, into the redactions.

I think that's a decent idea; I put it under a "extent practicable" clause, because it would have the same sort of differential privacy concerns that I spoke about above.

This is something I know something about. The US Census justifies differential privacy with similar arguments (as a researcher using government data, it is very annoying). That said, under current wording, if there exists a compelling need for stripping that data, the information would be so stripped.

Perhaps I phrased it poorly -- I'm asking for where you think the limits of compelling need are. If, say, we have a child abuse court case. The identity of the child is protected, but what if evidence used in the trial could, if compiled, hypothetically be used to identify the child? Again, the identity is fairly obvious, but there's a grey area between "obviously private" and "obviously in the public interest" which I'd like you to clarify a bit before I know if the 2ai test hits the mark.

What you're concerned about is a reidentification attack, which is the justification for why the Census talks about differential privacy. Such attacks only became feasible because of the scope of the data that is publicly available about people today. In the past, it would not have been necessary to impose strict limits on releases to prevent reidentification, as the lack of computers and huge publicly available datasets (held by private companies and populated by the users mostly) would have made it effectively impossible to do that. It is much easier to do such an attack today, and I think that's why a flexible standard works best.

[Attempted Socialism]

An idea struck me while trying to find a solution. Have you considered a mandate to state the justification for redaction? Differentiating between "this redacted is for privacy", "this is redacted for national security" and "this is redacted for <third compelling need>", even if only in the broadest terms, would give the public a bit more insight, create slightly more transparency, into the redactions.

I think that's a decent idea; I put it under a "extent practicable" clause, because it would have the same sort of differential privacy concerns that I spoke about above.

Sure, that's fair.

Perhaps I phrased it poorly -- I'm asking for where you think the limits of compelling need are. If, say, we have a child abuse court case. The identity of the child is protected, but what if evidence used in the trial could, if compiled, hypothetically be used to identify the child? Again, the identity is fairly obvious, but there's a grey area between "obviously private" and "obviously in the public interest" which I'd like you to clarify a bit before I know if the 2ai test hits the mark.

What you're concerned about is a reidentification attack, which is the justification for why the Census talks about differential privacy. Such attacks only became feasible because of the scope of the data that is publicly available about people today. In the past, it would not have been necessary to impose strict limits on releases to prevent reidentification, as the lack of computers and huge publicly available datasets (held by private companies and populated by the users mostly) would have made it effectively impossible to do that. It is much easier to do such an attack today, and I think that's why a flexible standard works best.

I didn't know there was a term for it. At any rate, after going through my old case files I realised how sterile they are with regards to personal information. If the cases we used at university are broadly representative, I'm guessing courts already have some expertise in redactions and a test like the one you propose. I have no more concerns for the time being.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm going to set category and strength for this proposal as "Regulation: Legal Reform", per Sanctaria on the WA Discord.

[Attempted Socialism]

Not that you need my permission, but I agree (To the point I assumed it would be the category).

[Imperium Anglorum]

To be submitted the day after tomorrow. "It's been announced."

[Morover]

OOC: Is the unidentified character in between the preamble and the operative sections of the proposal intentional? It doesn't look good.

[Comfed]

And, those of us that don’t have judicial branches?

[Attempted Socialism]

And, those of us that don’t have judicial branches?

If you don't have a court system at all, there's no real mandate placed upon you. Court documents would presumably not even exist. If you mean you don't have the judiciary as a separate branch of government, but you do have courts, then it surely applies to those courts.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Is the unidentified character in between the preamble and the operative sections of the proposal intentional? It doesn't look good.

I can't identify it.

[Hanshire]

(Image)
Public Access to Court Records
Category: Regulation | Strength: Legal Reform

---

Whereas court records are fundamental to the ability for the public to learn of and execute effective oversight on their judicial systems :

And whereas people of limited financial means have unconscionable financial barriers to their access of such documents :

And whereas it is the case that in many nations, knowledge of judicial decisions and doctrines is required to fully understand the law as it is enforced rather than as it is stated in text, meaning that such barriers make it difficult for poor people to determine what the law actually is :

Now, therefore, be it enacted by the World Assembly, by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows :

1. Member nation court systems must to the best of their ability provide open access to unsealed court documents and their redacted derivatives in person, upon request, and online, charging no fees for the provision of such services. Reasonable limitations may be made to ensure the breadth of public access and the good faith of accessors. No limitation may be enforced on the ability of member nation inhabitants to read or reproduce such documents; nor may any copyright be recognised or enforced over documents produced by member nation courts.
   
   
2. The public has a presumptive right to all court documents, and such documents may only be sealed: (a) upon order of a judicial officer who has determined the specific and contextualised existence of a compelling need which (i) supersedes the public's interest in open access and (ii) is essential to preserve or advance the public interest or (b) if it is required by World Assembly legislation. When a court document is sealed, member nation courts must create and release a redacted derivative without the information that fails the test in the section above and, to the extent practicable, give reasons for the exclusion of such information.
   
   
3. All unsealed court documents and their redacted derivatives pertaining to a case must be deposited, upon the case's conclusion and within a reasonable time frame, with the Universal Library Coalition.

We feel this is a dangerous act. What the grvenment goes through can be overwhelming. To protect the people we should keep these thing private for their sake.

[Imperium Anglorum]

More non-placets...

[Imperium Anglorum]

We're voting.

[Honeydewistania]

Good proposal, for

[Shoalhaven]

The Grand Council of the Community of Shoalhaven has resolved to vote against this resolution. Our reasoning for doing so is outlined in the attached statement:

[Sidhe]

Under the belief that the exact letter of the law, being the most important and presiding part of Sidhe legalism, must be known to all and sundry members of it's populace, We resolve to support this.

[Old Hope]

[...}

[...]

1. All unsealed court documents and their redacted derivatives pertaining to a case must be deposited, upon the case's conclusion and within a reasonable time frame, with the Universal Library Coalition.

OOC:House of Cards. GAR 78 ceases to exist, except this one, then this does absolutely nothing because it does not say what the Universal Library Coalition is, is supposed to do, or allows access to, and because it does not even establish it.

[Honeydewistania]

[...}

[...]

1. All unsealed court documents and their redacted derivatives pertaining to a case must be deposited, upon the case's conclusion and within a reasonable time frame, with the Universal Library Coalition.

OOC:House of Cards. GAR 78 ceases to exist, except this one, then this does absolutely nothing because it does not say what the Universal Library Coalition is, is supposed to do, or allows access to, and because it does not even establish it.

House of Cards allows for reference to committees or organisations in the WA

[Great Robertia]

"Believing in transparency and openness regarding its citizens, the delegation of Great Robertia casts its vote in favour of this resolution."

[Old Hope]

OOC:House of Cards. GAR 78 ceases to exist, except this one, then this does absolutely nothing because it does not say what the Universal Library Coalition is, is supposed to do, or allows access to, and because it does not even establish it.

House of Cards allows for reference to committees or organisations in the WA

OOC:Usually. Yes. A clause like "Expands the duties of the Universal Library Coalition to ...." is ok. This clause here, however, only gives the member states duties in relation with the ULC, but it does not give the ULC any duties in return. That is House of Cards.

[Kenmoria]

House of Cards allows for reference to committees or organisations in the WA

OOC:Usually. Yes. A clause like "Expands the duties of the Universal Library Coalition to ...." is ok. This clause here, however, only gives the member states duties in relation with the ULC, but it does not give the ULC any duties in return. That is House of Cards.

(OOC: That is not House of Cards. If GA #078 ceases to exist, then the ULC will still exist because it will have been implicitly created by this proposal. Although there won’t be a library for people to access, it is still very possible to give laws in a pdf to a committee, where they can be stored on some novel gnomish network.)

[Old Hope]

OOC:Usually. Yes. A clause like "Expands the duties of the Universal Library Coalition to ...." is ok. This clause here, however, only gives the member states duties in relation with the ULC, but it does not give the ULC any duties in return. That is House of Cards.

(OOC: That is not House of Cards. If GA #078 ceases to exist, then the ULC will still exist because it will have been implicitly created by this proposal. Although there won’t be a library for people to access, it is still very possible to give laws in a pdf to a committee, where they can be stored on some novel gnomish network.)

(OOC: Except that this library does NOT have ANY duties given to them due to this resolution, not even the duty to STORE things. A clause like "Affirms the duties of the ULC to store these documents..." would be fully enough. But it is not in this resolution.)

[Hanshire]

The Grand Council of the Community of Shoalhaven has resolved to vote against this resolution. Our reasoning for doing so is outlined in the attached statement:

(Image)

We agree with this statement. Our nations know what's best for our people

[Araraukar]

(OOC: Except that this library does NOT have ANY duties given to them due to this resolution, not even the duty to STORE things. A clause like "Affirms the duties of the ULC to store these documents..." would be fully enough. But it is not in this resolution.)

OOC: Still not house of cards. It would be better worded the way you kind of put it, but mentioning an existing committee (the library counts as one, for rules) by name does not a HoC violation make.

[Anistria]

From: Oscar Lancaster, Anistrian Representative to the World Assembly

The Government of Anistria supports this resolution.

[Great Clotet]

The Kingdom of Great Clotet is mostly in favour of this legislation, but calls to question the need to reveal all court records. Many documents are simply not in the public interest. Great Clotet votes in favour, yet does so cautiously.