(05-01-2017, 07:55 AM)Farengeto Wrote: I would change it to "relevant officials or institutions". Feels safer on the ambiguities.

I'm also not a fan of making the Chair the sole decider on the private halls, nor do I like the catch-all definition for the Cabinet.

Good point regarding "relevant officials or institutions." I'll fix that.

Do you have suggested alternatives for the private halls or the Cabinet's catch-all definition? I'm not entirely sure how better to address it.

(05-01-2017, 08:17 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: There are zero protections in here to prevent the politicized release of classified information. It pretty much runs roughshod over the protections that exist in the Sunshine Act. You need to consider the side effects of what you're trying to do here. The Sunshine Act led to almost all sensitive Cabinet work being done on Discord. Having no reassurance that your private words will be revealed in a witch hunt is a pretty good reason to skirt laws like this by simply not using the forum.

This also technically covers private messages, as that's "private information" that originates on the forums.

There are zero protections in the current law to prevent the politicized release of classified information by the Cabinet as well. If you have suggestions to better prevent that, I'm happy to hear them. I will clarify the language to exclude private messages, though I will note that the language I'm using is the same language already in use in the Criminal Code.

This is intended to fix the recent issue of requiring the Cabinet's permission to release information from the private halls. Let's not over-complicate it.