Comments for Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia

Comment on CRU raw data loss not an accident by Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:47:02 +0000

As Mr. Hurlbut shows, the CRU is not charged with the storage of "raw Data". The data is collected, stored and owned by the national weather organizations spread across the globe. Access requests should be directed correctly.

Here in Thomson, Nova Scotia, the winter temperature is concistently 2 degrees F higher at Bob's, a 7 minute walk up the hill, than at my place. Which is correct? Probably somewhere in between. OH! NO! I just manipulated the raw data. Now I'm a fraud.

I listen to CBC charlottetown, 40 km away. The temperature reported is usually 5-6 degrees C different ( higher in winter, lower in summer) than mine. I just make the adjustment in my head. Maybe I should be arrested.

I had fun googling " computer programme mask" and " dictionary, trick".

John

Comment on CRU raw data loss not an accident by Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:07:22 +0000

As stated in the article, the "raw data " is collected by the CRU to be analysed. They don't run about taking temperatures: that is the job of weather services worldwide.

Canadian figures are collected, and stored, in Canada. This is true worldwide. Thus , the " raw data is stored in multiple national data banks. We all know this.

On data manipulation, I do it here at home. In, Thomson, Nova Scotia, the winter temperature up the hill at Bob's ( a seven minute walk with the dog) it is concistently 2 degrees F. warmer than my place. Which is correct for Thomson? I average: what a fraud I am.

I listen to CBC Charlottetown , about 40 km away. Temperatures there are about 5-6'C warmer in winter and cooler in summer than here. Which is the correct temperature for the are? I just make the adjustment in my head: I should be arrested.

People should also google " computer programme mask and masking". A dictionary will also show that "trick" has more than one meaning.

Comment on Canada on top when it comes to access to information laws says … by Home Staging Toronto

Home Staging Toronto — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:21:08 +0000

I can't but agree with Mr. Dickson, the importance of keeping the public in touch with all the bureaucratic laws and rules is fundamental to keeping our lives safe and avoiding being scammed by some governmental worker that has the knowledge and access to all the laws. It's great that all the information is available, whether online or at libraries. Good job Mr. Dickson. Thanks for sharing the article,

take care, Ella

Comment on Landmark FOI cases to bring new era of scrutiny by Greg

Greg — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:11:07 +0000

A response to your post on privacy vs FOI from Darce Fardy, President of RTKCNS:

The protection of personal privacy is one of the few mandatory exemptions under the Nova Scotia Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Below you will find the applicable section of the FOIPOP Act. This section makes it clear that in considering a request for the personal information of a third party the "public body" must consider the factors found in Section 20(2) below. The "public body" should be able to show an applicant that all of the factors in s.20(2) were considered. There is no blanket prohibition from disclosing the personal information of a third party.
However, while for most applications for information it is the public body which must prove that an applicant has no right to the information sought, in the case of a request for the personal information of a third party the burden of proof falls on the applicant. (Section 45 (2) and (3)(a). See below.
The FOIPOP expects those people who administer applications for access under the Act to do what the Act requires and take seriously their responsibilities to consider all the factors.
The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is not as complicated or intimidating as one might believe. I have underlined below those sections most relevant for an applicant.
An applicant cannot be refused information which contains the applicant's own personal information. The Courts have ruled such information belongs to the person the information is about.
DISCLOSURE HARMFUL TO PERSONAL PRIVACY
Personal information
20 (1) The head of a public body shall refuse to disclose personal information to an applicant if the disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party's personal privacy.
(2) In determining pursuant to subsection (1) or (3) whether a disclosure of personal information constitutes an unreasonable invasion of a third party's personal privacy, the head of a public body shall consider all the relevant circumstances, including whether
(2) (a) the disclosure is desirable for the purpose of subjecting the activities of the Government of Nova Scotia or a public body to public scrutiny;
(4) (c) the personal information is relevant to a fair determination of the applicant's rights;
(h) the disclosure may unfairly damage the reputation of any person referred to in the record requested by the applicant.
(4) (e) the information is about the third party's position, functions or remuneration as an officer, employee or member of a public body or as a member of a minister's staff;
(4) (f) the disclosure reveals financial and other similar details of a contract to supply goods or services to a public body;
(4) (g) the information is about expenses incurred by the third party while travelling at the expense of a public body;

Darce Fardy
President Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia

Comment on Landmark FOI cases to bring new era of scrutiny by Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 02:42:10 +0000

I was wondering if there has ever been discussion by the right to know council on the impact of privacy legislation on freedom of information policy?
It seems to me that civil servants with the Nova Scotia government have increasingly been using 'concerns' about privacy as a reason to suppress information to the public. Civil servants dealing with FOI requests routinely assume the 'moral high-ground' when suppressing information based on 'privacy concerns'- even though no one aside from them can corroborate whether their reasons are fully legitimate. Moreover priovacy is used to dissuade people from making requests as civil servants act like people making the requests are unethical for seeking such information in the first place.
The issue is of particular relevance when it comes to relations between government and researchers/university sector. As the government stores considerable information with administrative databases across departments many researchers seek access to that data.
However most of the other databases in justice, health, community services and service nova scotia are restricted and government officials refuse even to discuss how and under what conditions they could be accessed. Officials are often quite incensed when outsiders request access to these datasets even if names, phone number etc are removed. Furthermore the people who decide on whether the data can be released and on what conditions are often the same people who are managing the datasets- meaning they are often in a conflict of interest - they simply do not want the information released.
There is precedence for access -the youth criminal justice act states that researchers should have access to administrative datasets surounding youth incarcerations for legitimate purposes as long as those seeking the data have legitimate reasons and are willing to take measures to protect privacy. However the government by and large ignores that legislation even if precautions and prevention of invasion to privacy are taken into account(the removal of names, phone numbers etc.)
As the government stores a lot of important information there needs to be a greater discussion on how sensitive information can be delivered to the public. Moreover I am concerned that privacy legislation is currently being abused and perverted by governments for the benefit of the so-called 'secrecy agenda' and I believe faculties of universities, some of whom are very concerned about this issue, are simply afraid to say anything out of fear of budget cuts.