Respecting the privacy of public servants versus "we pay their salaries"
Summary
- There are 8 posts — by 7 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by syeates at 2010 Jul 30 15:53 NZST
Something that I have just started thinking about in the last few days is our choice to publish the names of public servants without their explicit consent. Examples: - http://fyi.org.nz/requests/12-a_copy_of_the_historic_places_tr#comment-6 - http://fyi.org.nz/requests/12/response/1178/attach/html/3/20100625171125416.pdf.html These two examples are not hugely contentious (except that I wouldn't be surprised if neither individual knew that their name has been published online) so serve as good first examples to examine. <hypothetical> Imagine in a parallel world, that these public servants, as a part of their jobs, responded to inquiries regarding topics that were being hotly debated under volatile circumstances. Without there knowledge or consent, as a part of "open government" we publish their names at the bottom of documents. Subsequently, a member of the public with less sense and scruples than any Open Government Ninja take some kind of action against the named public servants based on the actions/decisions/policies of the public servant's organisation. </hypothetical> - Do we think the above hypothetical is a possibility? - Are we completely happy with our current approach (because we have carefully reflected on this issue already)? - How much weight do we give to some public servants preference to *not *have their names published online (public servants are quite used to being anonymous)? - Does the publishing of their name add any value? My tentative conclusion is that in most cases, we should not publish the name of the author, unless they are the chief executive. There may well be additional privacy issues that others will think of. It will be interesting if we collectively have varying views on this. See also http://www.gould.com.au/Commonwealth-Public-Service-List-1904-p/au0102-1904.htm(NZ had a stud book once upon a time too)
Some thoughts... Within Local Government others beside CEOs formally sign official government documents and are identified on Council web sites. This suggests that their public face is part of their job and therefore they can be named. Of course this does not mean that their private address or other private details should be distributed if people happen across them. On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Matt Lane <email obscured>> wrote: > Something that I have just started thinking about in the last few days is > our choice to publish the names of public servants without their explicit > consent. > > Examples: > > - > http://fyi.org.nz/requests/12-a_copy_of_the_historic_places_tr#comment-6 > - > > http://fyi.org.nz/requests/12/response/1178/attach/html/3/20100625171125416.pdf.html
> > These two examples are not hugely contentious (except that I wouldn't be > surprised if neither individual knew that their name has been published > online) so serve as good first examples to examine. > > <hypothetical> > Imagine in a parallel world, that these public servants, as a part of their > jobs, responded to inquiries regarding topics that were being hotly debated > under volatile circumstances. Without there knowledge or consent, as a part > of "open government" we publish their names at the bottom of documents. > Subsequently, a member of the public with less sense and scruples than any > Open Government Ninja take some kind of action against the named public > servants based on the actions/decisions/policies of the public servant's > organisation. > </hypothetical> > > - Do we think the above hypothetical is a possibility? > - Are we completely happy with our current approach (because we have > carefully reflected on this issue already)? > - How much weight do we give to some public servants preference to > *not *have > their names published online (public servants are quite used to being > anonymous)? > - Does the publishing of their name add any value? > > My tentative conclusion is that in most cases, we should not publish the > name of the author, unless they are the chief executive. > > There may well be additional privacy issues that others will think of. > > It will be interesting if we collectively have varying views on this. > > See also > > http://www.gould.com.au/Commonwealth-Public-Service-List-1904-p/au0102-1904.htm(NZ > had a stud book once upon a time too) > > ----------------------------------------- > Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas: > http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2qJQnmwRl2kTMxshdaq5QR > > To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email > <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe > > Start your own free groups and site with > OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net > > Host your own online groups site with > GroupServer http://groupserver.org >
Yes except that this quickly becomes an argument not to publish any author's name. What is it about either the authors of "public" data or public servants that makes them different from anyone else? If I publish a document that contains information which is (known to be) used in formulating a decision about some issue that a nutter objects to, then what stops that nutter from taking things out on me? The answer is that it is our agreed societal mores (sometimes translated into laws) that (generally) stop the nutter from doing this, not the with-holding of the author's name. Of course, some nutters are so nutty that this fails to constrain them but that is a completely different problem. Regards Doug Hunt On 30 July 2010 13:32, Matt Lane <email obscured>> wrote: > Something that I have just started thinking about in the last few days is > our choice to publish the names of public servants without their explicit > consent. > > Examples: > > - > http://fyi.org.nz/requests/12-a_copy_of_the_historic_places_tr#comment-6 > - > > http://fyi.org.nz/requests/12/response/1178/attach/html/3/20100625171125416.pdf.html
> > These two examples are not hugely contentious (except that I wouldn't be > surprised if neither individual knew that their name has been published > online) so serve as good first examples to examine. > > <hypothetical> > Imagine in a parallel world, that these public servants, as a part of their > jobs, responded to inquiries regarding topics that were being hotly debated > under volatile circumstances. Without there knowledge or consent, as a part > of "open government" we publish their names at the bottom of documents. > Subsequently, a member of the public with less sense and scruples than any > Open Government Ninja take some kind of action against the named public > servants based on the actions/decisions/policies of the public servant's > organisation. > </hypothetical> > > - Do we think the above hypothetical is a possibility? > - Are we completely happy with our current approach (because we have > carefully reflected on this issue already)? > - How much weight do we give to some public servants preference to > *not *have > their names published online (public servants are quite used to being > anonymous)? > - Does the publishing of their name add any value? > > My tentative conclusion is that in most cases, we should not publish the > name of the author, unless they are the chief executive. > > There may well be additional privacy issues that others will think of. > > It will be interesting if we collectively have varying views on this. > > See also > > http://www.gould.com.au/Commonwealth-Public-Service-List-1904-p/au0102-1904.htm(NZ > had a stud book once upon a time too) > > ----------------------------------------- > Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas: > http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2qJQnmwRl2kTMxshdaq5QR > > To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email > <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe > > Start your own free groups and site with > OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net > > Host your own online groups site with > GroupServer http://groupserver.org >
Matt, See the FAQ's of WhatDoTheyKnow.com - the model for fyi.org http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about#officers On that page, MySociety state: Why do you publish the names of civil servants and the text of emails? We consider what officers or servants do in the course of their employment to be public information. You might also want to look at guidance produced by the UK Information Commissioner (who is responsible for both the equivalents of the OIA and Privacy Act) http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/public_authority_staff_info_v2.0_final.pdf http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/practical_application/whenshouldnamesbedisclosed.pdf and http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/detailed_specialist_guides/personal_information.pdf Hope this helps,
Andrew ---- Matt Lane <email obscured>> wrote: ============= Something that I have just started thinking about in the last few days is our choice to publish the names of public servants without their explicit consent. Examples: - http://fyi.org.nz/requests/12-a_copy_of_the_historic_places_tr#comment-6 - http://fyi.org.nz/requests/12/response/1178/attach/html/3/20100625171125416.pdf.html These two examples are not hugely contentious (except that I wouldn't be surprised if neither individual knew that their name has been published online) so serve as good first examples to examine. <hypothetical> Imagine in a parallel world, that these public servants, as a part of their jobs, responded to inquiries regarding topics that were being hotly debated under volatile circumstances. Without there knowledge or consent, as a part of "open government" we publish their names at the bottom of documents. Subsequently, a member of the public with less sense and scruples than any Open Government Ninja take some kind of action against the named public servants based on the actions/decisions/policies of the public servant's organisation. </hypothetical> - Do we think the above hypothetical is a possibility? - Are we completely happy with our current approach (because we have carefully reflected on this issue already)? - How much weight do we give to some public servants preference to *not *have their names published online (public servants are quite used to being anonymous)? - Does the publishing of their name add any value? My tentative conclusion is that in most cases, we should not publish the name of the author, unless they are the chief executive. There may well be additional privacy issues that others will think of. It will be interesting if we collectively have varying views on this. See also http://www.gould.com.au/Commonwealth-Public-Service-List-1904-p/au0102-1904.htm(NZ had a stud book once upon a time too) ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas: http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2qJQnmwRl2kTMxshdaq5QR To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org
I guess thus highlights the difference between central and local government. In local govt we operate under LGOIMA which provides for a much higher degree of transparency. If stuff is contentious then it is normally, as far as responses go, pushed up to the appropriate senior manager who is, in theory, laid to take the heat. I know that every email I send as the CIO of Auckland Regional Council, whether internally or externally, is subject to disclosure so I write my emails in that knowledge. As an aside, the ARC maps site, http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/aucklandregionviewer provides access to our Cultural and Heritage Index at no cost - you just need to add the layers via the Map Content widget. You can use REST APIs to programmatically get the info. We don't all charge for info! John Holley <email obscured> <email obscured> +64 275 952 625 Sent from my iPad On 30/07/2010, at 1:32 PM, Matt Lane <email obscured>> wrote: > Something that I have just started thinking about in the last few days is > our choice to publish the names of public servants without their explicit > consent. > > Examples: > > - > http://fyi.org.nz/requests/12-a_copy_of_the_historic_places_tr#comment-6 > - > http://fyi.org.nz/requests/12/response/1178/attach/html/3/20100625171125416.pdf.html
> > These two examples are not hugely contentious (except that I wouldn't be > surprised if neither individual knew that their name has been published > online) so serve as good first examples to examine. > > <hypothetical> > Imagine in a parallel world, that these public servants, as a part of their > jobs, responded to inquiries regarding topics that were being hotly debated > under volatile circumstances. Without there knowledge or consent, as a part > of "open government" we publish their names at the bottom of documents. > Subsequently, a member of the public with less sense and scruples than any > Open Government Ninja take some kind of action against the named public > servants based on the actions/decisions/policies of the public servant's > organisation. > </hypothetical> > > - Do we think the above hypothetical is a possibility? > - Are we completely happy with our current approach (because we have > carefully reflected on this issue already)? > - How much weight do we give to some public servants preference to > *not *have > their names published online (public servants are quite used to being > anonymous)? > - Does the publishing of their name add any value? > > My tentative conclusion is that in most cases, we should not publish the > name of the author, unless they are the chief executive. > > There may well be additional privacy issues that others will think of. > > It will be interesting if we collectively have varying views on this. > > See also > http://www.gould.com.au/Commonwealth-Public-Service-List-1904-p/au0102-1904.htm(NZ > had a stud book once upon a time too) > > ----------------------------------------- > Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas: > http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2qJQnmwRl2kTMxshdaq5QR > > To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email > <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe > > Start your own free groups and site with > OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net > > Host your own online groups site with > GroupServer http://groupserver.org
The good news is there seems to be consensus, and it seems that I was being overly conservative.
This is me wiping my brow that I don't have to solve that problem.
rowan On 30 July 2010 14:42, Matt Lane <email obscured>> wrote: > The good news is there seems to be consensus, and it seems that I was being > overly conservative. > > > ----------------------------------------- > Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas: > http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/u7C4izwY6jFZcat9hAMlh > > To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email > <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe > > Start your own free groups and site with > OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net > > Host your own online groups site with > GroupServer http://groupserver.org >
In a similar vein, a couple of years ago we went through a process before publishing images of mokomokai (preserved heads). A report on our consultation can be found at: http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-MokoDiscussionPaper.html There is a similar set of issues relating to the publishing of whakapapa Maori (genealogy), which I understand is currently a challenge for some government units.
cheers stuart
Loading…
Privacy | Acceptable Use | Terms of Service | About OnlineGroups.Net | Contact OnlineGroups.Net
Start an OnlineGroups.Net site for easier email collaboration in your organization.
Powered by GroupServer, the open source web-based mailing list manager.