creating new information database

46 posts / 0 new
Last post
had enough
creating new information database

I'd appreciate a few opinions. I'd like to post a project I'm working on, an information database and social research tool based on the "incident". (Nothing is, or will be, for sale, this is a personal project.)

The main potential problem is the length. The initial description will be about 20 pages of text, no figures, which I was going to post in 3 sections. After that I have a few questions about how the information is being presented, the concept, etc.

I'm not the best writer, and I include many statements related to motivation and a number of elements related to the nature of public control, but I'm not willing to take anything out. If I'm going to do it, I'm going to do it all the way.

The "incident database", or something like it, is essential if "the people" are ever going to be able to realistically exert control in our country. If "we're" ever going to truly save our country, this is one of the things we need, independent of anything else.

This particular discussion wouldn't be about debating any specific social issues, just how to present information about complex, inter-related incidents and issues in a way that's going to facilitate public discussion, decision-making and dynamic control. For real. And for everyone.

Do you think that's too much for this web-site?

If so, does anyone know of any good world forum web-sites were I might be able to post and get constructive feedback?

Ibid.

Michael Allan Michael Allan's picture

Hi Ibid,

I might be able to comment.  May I make a suggestion?  Before posting the whole text, post a short summary of the essential idea.  You probably want this at the beginning of your text, in any case.  The shorter the better.  Once people have a rough understanding, they'll be more inclined to read further, ask questions, and so forth.

Mike

Fidel

Are you talking ginormous db on th server side of things?

How about an Android app and many distributed db's stored on our handhelds? Let the people own it.

had enough

Hi Fidel and Mike,

Thank you for your input. The potential size and structure of the db are central issues which must be addressed, but they would be much better discussed, in my opinion, during the description of the work itself. There are a few different ways to approach that.

If things go as I now envision, the people will definitely own it, and since the db itself is solely a matter of presenting complete information, "modern techniques" will be very, very useful; and that's an area where I can definitely use all the help I can get. I have many ideas but sorely (ie. totally) lack on the technical side.

But none of that matters if the db, etc. isn't good, if no one trusts it. Which is why the discussion of the db structure has to include several other aspects, which is why it's so difficult to describe in a few sentences. I'm describing a fundamentally new mechanism for the determination and expression of public authority in a democracy (or other gov't style), and the db is a central element, but not all. Such as, there's the ever present bugaboo of how to get from here to there in a realistic way.

I was hoping that some would steadfastly wade through my writing and perhaps suggest how it might be summarised sufficiently, and help to correlate with current discussions in the same and related areas, if desired.

After thinking more about it I believe I can post in smaller sections dealing with specific aspects. The first one is almost done and is about 2 pages, but I'm trying to pare it down, and discusses the general concept and a description of what I believe are significant advantages to this approach.

 

Ibid.

Michael Allan Michael Allan's picture

had enough wrote:
...I'm trying to pare it down, and discusses the general concept and a description of what I believe are significant advantages to this approach.

It might be easier to summarize if you leave the commentary and critique till later.  Just say what you propose without commenting on it.  Leave all that to the discussion.  (just a suggestion)

had enough

Hi Mike,

I appreciate your input and of course understand the value of a summary description.

My greatest fear about doing that at this time is that I haven't had a chance to discuss this material with others yet, so how I say things right now may not resonate. Once the material is discussed a bit, it would be very, very valuable to me to see how others might summarise it.

I've been trying to make a summary, but it always seems weak.

What about the statement below:

"I'm attempting to create a dynamic information database which will be designed so the people can independently discuss, evaluate and correlate the many specific issues and incidents which face us as a nation; and it would be the central foundation stone for a public discussion and decision-making process that will allow not only the recognition of the "public will", but will provide the framework to define the manner that that will can be expressed in the society. While initially based on the "incident", this framework is valid for virtually all issues which require public discussion and decision."

What impression do you get after reading that?

To me it only reflects a part of the potentially extraordinary utility of what I'm doing. Right now I'm torn between having no summary and having a summary that doesn't effectively state the thing, which may turn some people off right away.

Ibid.

Michael Allan Michael Allan's picture

Hi Ibid,

I edit your summary, removing what seems unessential or speculative.

Quote:
[I propose] an [editable] database [of incidents and other issues] that people can ... discuss, evaluate and correlate ...

Better not say it would "allow for the recognition of the public will".  The word "allow" is too weak here.  If it enables a public will via a framework of some kind, then that's a stronger statement provided you back it up with a sentence or two of explanation.  What kind of framework?  How does it transform data into a will?  These essentials belong in your summary.  Avoid dressing them up; present the bare facts of the proposal.

If you run into difficulty at some point, then it might indicate the need for more thought on the proposal itself.

Mike

had enough

Establishing "democracy" is the goal, whatever that means. My head swims at the thought of it. But it has to be done, sooner or later.

There are a number of daunting obstacles to establishing a realistic alternative to the current political system(s). But if there is going to be a democracy where public input is a fundamental aspect, then a dynamic, trusted and complete information source is the central foundation stone. The integrity of the entire system would be dependent on the integrity of that single element.

The incident database, or information database, or whatever name, is meant to provide a trusted sortable and historical source of facts and opinions so that when people come together for a discussion, it's not about disputing facts, but about the pros and cons of the proposed solutions, or whatever the discussion is about. Each time there's a discussion, new points of information may be added, but nothing removed unless redundant, irrelevant or shown to definitely be false (in which case we may want to keep a file on that to see how information can be distorted and why).

The kind of information that's included is going to determine what "the people" are going to be able to do, and it's the process of analysis that's going to allow us to do it.

Those aspects are the main body of the details of my work, which is in it's infancy, but still takes a few pages to explore. Before that, I think a few other things should be noted.

I look at this in a very realistic way. I don't want to have to depend on magic for anything except a better car.

In my opinion, the best kind of participatory gov't is one where the people don't have to participate. I know I don't want to have to constantly vote, and I think most others would agree, but the critical thing is that we can find out the things we need to know, and take action when it's seen to be necessary.

We already have a political system in place, pathetic as it is, and maybe a lot can be salvaged. I'm talking about canada here, but the concepts are valid for any political system in any country. All political systems are similar in a number of ways, and any "new" system is also going to show those. While very general, they still provide an initial orientation for analysis.

A few common threads for all political systems:

    (1)someone or something makes decisions,
    (2)those decisions are applied
So talking about changing the nature of the decision structure is only part of the issue, and the real application of those decisions is just as important, even more so. The ability to identify and deal with issues for both those elements will be requirements for any lasting "democratic" political system, in my opinion.
    (3)we're always going to have to hire people to "represent" us, ie. public servants.
In despotic, traitorous regimes, like our current one, the "public" servants serve the interests of the "state", not the people. But, that's a perversion, not a theoretical norm. Our problem there is that we either don't have suitable laws in place to protect us from that, or the existing written laws are sufficient but not being applied as intended. Those are the kinds of things we have to figure out, and will be able to.
And there has to be discussions related to the technical aspects of public control, and along with that discussions related to "public morality", the integrity of our country, etc.; for if we ever actually do achieve "democracy".

Questions like, "is fraudulent use of our national military (to commit crimes against humanity) an act of treason", "do we want to be the police of the world", "is the people or the gov't the 'country'", "do we accept one industry being sacrificed in order to promote another", "what limits must be placed on the signing of trade and other agreements", "what level of secrecy is acceptable", "are secret laws valid", "are 'term limits' an attack on future generations that's hidden in plain sight", "would you agree to a deal that gave you 10% more now if it meant your children would have 10% less in their time", etc., etc.; need to also be discussed.

My approach has a number of advantages with respect to the determination and application of public authority:

    (1)virtually all issues, even like those above, can be discussed within the same logical framework, and so can be correlated directly to both the decision structure and the decision application mechanism, whatever they turn out to be.
    That means that when there are public discussions, and decisions are reached, we can define exactly how to implement the decision. So, it can't be technically perverted while going through the application process, which involves the written law and the application of the written law.
    (2)allows a dynamic evaluation of the current social system, for both the decision and the application.
    (3)the database will be designed for investigation. That may sound like an impossible task, given the myriad issues which would need it, but it depends how you look at it. I believe we can, as a group, investigate problems and come to reasoned solutions, including defined changes in law, for the vast majority of issues. I could be wrong as with everything, but I have a great deal of confidence it can be done. At least I haven't seen anything yet that suggests it can't.
    (4)if the database pans out like I envision it, it will be useful for looking at current specific incidents and issues in order to figure out what to do; but also, being a sortable and historical database, it allows a correlation of the many incidents and issues based on more fundamental social elements and attitudes. The extent that can be done will depend on the nature of the input categories.
    (5)the road from here to there is built during the discussion itself, and is inherent in any decisions. Change is a matter of instituting the agreed changes in laws as described, which may be as simple as deleting one file and copying another in it's place. Change doesn't have to be tumultuous.
    (6)can be greatly simplified with respect to the requirement for public input. It may be that once we install a few main laws that govern the actions of politicians, for eg., there won't be much need for constant public input there, as long as we can always find out about things and take meaningful action when required.

**Note: I always use "law" in the absolute broadest sense, which is anything that's more than an expression of personal opinion. So, if it has an effect anywhere, it's a law. Semantics can be dealt with at the very end.**

The structure of our political system may be basically OK, we just have to be able to see where and how it's not, and be able to "fix" whatever is found, without having to trust politicians.

Those aspects are much easier to explore using real examples, and if the discussion continues I'll do that a bit later. There are a number of other significant points, but they'll come out over time.

So this discussion is about the structure of the incident database, what kind of associated information to include in order to investigate, understand and correlate the cause and effect relationships for the myriad issues important to society, points susceptible to sabotage, how potential solutions could be described, associated concepts related to the nature of public control, etc.

In the end we'll have a database format and a description of the ways it can be used, as well as an information linkage system designed to simplify, as well as make the database searchable and sortable according to socially relevant aspects. A few other things too.

It's not about debating the pros and cons of any specific incident or issue right now, but about providing enough information so that all sides agree that facts (whatever they turn out to be) and their individual opinions are represented to their satisfaction, and about ensuring that all issues can be effectively and consistently related to more fundamental aspects of society, when desired.

If anyone's still with me, next post I want to discuss the reasoning behind what categories to include for each incident or issue. That requires an understanding of what we "need to know", which requires a discussion of how problems and issues are expressed in our society.

To start that I want to introduce a real example, the time several years ago when 3 police in quebec infiltrated a protest group during a protest outside a hotel where there was an international political meeting that the people were excluded from, and very aggressively attempted to instigate violence. The police were "outed" by the boots they wore (thankfully).

I'm sure most reading this remember that. That's an extremely serious incident in my view, and one which has a very specific set of information requirements to help pinpoint both the nature of the real problem(s) and how to solve it. And it also has more subtle elements important to the basic nature of our country.

That will provide an initial database framework, and then other real incidents, and more fundamental issues (such as Section 13, the role of our national military, etc.), can be examined in order to recognise the similarities and differences in the type of information required to be useful in showing what we need to see, in order to both determine and apply what we need to do. It shouldn't take too long until we have an input format which will be useful for the vast majority of issues.

Of course, there's the problem of even if we do solve it, if we can't apply it, it's worthless. That's true, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Right now we're building the road to the bridge, and just keeping our eye on it in the distance.

One last thing to consider before ending this post to start working on the next. (Believe me, I don't know if I'll ever stop either.)

I think the hardest part about something like this, ie. creating a way for the people to have real control in a democracy, will be the final acceptance of democracy.

Democracy isn't justice. And this particular work is about facilitating democracy.

So, up to now, does this seem like a project(s) worth pursuing?

Ibid.

had enough

**Note: I'll focus on "bad" things at the beginning, since they're more pressing, but once complete this database will also be able to track the "good" aspects of our society, in order to see what we may be doing right as well. In the end, hopefully we'll be able to make the number of bad things go way down, and the good way up.**

In the next post I want to spend a fair bit of time looking at the quebec incident mentioned in the last post, but before that, just a few words about the physical nature of the database itself. Food for thought right now, and no decisions have to be made.

Wikipedia is probably the most obvious thing to compare this to, but there are many others. For wikipedia you can type in a search term or click on a link, and you go to a summary information page. Information is listed, determined by public input which has been vetted using some criteria. Within the discussion are links.

That's the format for pretty much all web-pages I believe. Nothing new. And when this work is done, it will have a web-site, and so the general web format will be the same, such as links. What's going to differ is the type and format of the information, and the vetting criteria, which is part of what we're going to discuss.

To give you a feeling of how the database would fit in to society.

Let's say the quebec police incident just happened now. It's on TV, or somehow the people have it pointed out, so some people are outraged by it and want to look in to it more. They go on the internet to the database home page and type in "quebec police" to search. Up pops a list of incidents, etc. which have the quebec police involved.

In the "newest incident" category, there it is, and a click brings up the summary info page. It just happened, so not all the information is put in yet. The person that started the page put in the info they had, like the names and dates, participants, description of the main issue (here might be called abuse of police power, or use of police for political purposes, or maybe grievous violation of the public trust by police, etc.), and other info. There are a number of ways to describe things, and the description of the main issue doesn't necessarily define the only way the page would be referenced.

Over the next few days, more details are added, such as the "order of authority declaration", there's a copy of the law which is seen to be most relevant, and people have put in comments about it.

Someone pointed out that there are several things we have to look at here, 1) the appropriate law since it seems to have failed us, 2) how the order of authority may have been perverted to allow something like this, notwithstanding the problem with the written law (ie. do the police still have an implied duty), 3) who's ultimately responsible for the order, etc. Those are some of the things we want to find out.

Let's say the incident was discussed over the next month (after the first week the facts section was fairly complete, and the focus was on opinion). For discussions, private or on TV, etc., the information summary is used for reference. Pieces of unique information are added here and there, but after the first while it's generally not about adding information, but discussion and ensuring relevant options are presented suitably.

In the "proposed solution" section, or whatever name, there's 2 slightly different drafts of the proposed change to the written law and comparison points, with links to pro and con opinions. In your own discussions, most people recognised that we needed to change the law itself, but the exact changes still have to be finalised.
But, along with the problem with the written law, there's the recognition that the order of authority was corrupted, with a link to how, so the police were influenced to be nothing more than a political goon squad, and the result could have been disastrous for citizens, so this is being put forward for further analysis (I'd start a new sheet for it, if necessary) and the link is provided.

Say you click the link to the second part. The summary page shows the issue is: it's believed the police are being used as a political goon squad, regardless of any implied duty to the people inherent to their position as a public servant.

This is a more core issue of society, and the quebec incident is a reflection of it. For this page, there's also a list of links to summary pages for other incidents which are also reflections of this issue (such as, I think it was in montreal(?) during those ridiculously pompous "G" meetings that "judges" were despicably abusing their power by issuing arbitrary edicts designed to keep individuals from taking part in protests.).

We have to find out what laws are supposed to be protecting us from that. I don't know them myself right now, but the question is put out there that we need to list the written laws that are supposed to be controlling that, and the information request could be defined more precisely, if necessary. Maybe there aren't any, maybe they're vague, maybe a lot of things, let's get a copy of the real laws and then we'll see. We don't have to trust politicians, we can see it for ourselves.

If there were no laws or they're inadequate, then we'd have to decide if our society can tolerate the police being used in that way by politicians (realising the disaster, even death, that could have happened at the quebec police incident, and other real consequences, etc.). What is the primary duty of the police. If we decide we won't allow them to be used as political goons, then laws would be proposed and the pros and cons noted.

So an incident was brought to the attention of the people, an information sheet was created, opinions were recorded about the nature of the problem and what to do, and more core issues important to our society were pinpointed, which allowed us to go deeper, in order to identify the real problems.

Once the real problems are identified, solutions are proposed, and the role of politicians in this world would be to look at the proposals, and if there are any potential problems, they point them out and explain if necessary. As individuals, politicians could put in points to consider and their opinions about changes, etc., but they couldn't arbitrarily change anything themselves behind our backs.

That's the general idea. How well that can be done depends on the structure, etc., which will be discussed.

We still have the problem of even when we do come to decisions, we can't implement them. For now that's true, but it won't be that way forever. Fortunately, there's no need to even worry about that now until the information system is better understood.

The physical size and nature of the database itself is another point probably in the forefront of most people's minds. How big is it and how would it be managed. This is where I'd very much appreciate input as we go along.

From a technical standpoint, what would it take to have the following:

    -web-site containing home page, contact info, etc. just like any of the millions of web-sites, say we want to have 100 pages, if possible

    -separately, say 20 different discussion forums, just like any of the thousands that operate now

    -the incident database itself, which ideally would be sortable and isolated but downloadable from the internet. There are different ways this can be formatted, but for the sake of discussion, say we're going to use a simple Excel spreadsheet, and aim for 10,000 initial incident entries, and after that 2,000 entries per year. Each entry would have, say 5 pages worth of text, in the standard database format of field headings, and then text in the fields, say 50 fields in the summary page. Some entries will require time lines, etc. (such as Section 13), so each entry contains links to related pages. **Note: the number of incidents per year should decrease dramatically after the initial large volume of input. If this system works as it should, we'll be taking care of the core problems, so there will be much fewer bad things happening; and when they do, we can see them and take care of them right away.**

    -the web-site would have a search program, so a person can go on the web-site and type a search term, say "quebec police", and a list of links to incidents and issues, starting at the most recent, would be displayed, and clicking the link would bring up the standard summary page. Within the text in the summary page are links going deeper in to the issue, the types of which will be discussed.

So what would the above take, technically. I'd appreciate cost estimates, if anyone is in to that kind of thing, but I realise it's a very vague description. It will be a while before that anyway. The specifics can be tweaked, this is a starting point.

There are issues of potential volume, complexity, sabotage, etc. to be confronted (and which will be discussed later), but assume they've been suitably accounted for, how do you think the above information system would change our society. It would take getting used to, just like anything.

There are also background discussions and lists to discuss, but that will be done in the next post.

I thought I'd hold off starting the main discussion till the next post, because there I'd like to go in to great detail regarding the quebec police incident. It will involve probably #(cough)##(cough) more pages of text, and I hope to elicit some constructive feedback, so the question is, given the above discussions, do you think it's worth it to at least keep trying?

A final comment for this post. Looking at the above, it may seem an impossible task. But, even the most complex subject can be made manageable by good organisation based on common sense. If problems are approached in the most ridiculous way possible, then of course everything you do will fail. Society is complex, but there are threads of continuity we can take advantage of. For this, to me, it's not a matter of whether it can be done, but how it can be done.

Ibid.

benw

Hi,

I came here after I saw your comment on the News Challenge site. I think you might be interested in my project, Reasonwell. (Here's my entry.) It's a site for conducting debate based on argument mapping. The underlying structure is heavily based on ideas from github and stackoverflow.

Cheers,

- Ben.

had enough

Hi Ben,

I'm having trouble signing on to your program, so I'll have to look at it later.

Many of the projects on the Knight challenge would integrate perfectly with my work, such as yours, one that was going to define political hierarchies or something like that, and many of the others. I think that's because they mainly deal with the technical aspects of large scale discussion management and information exchange, and my work deals with finding a consistent and logical information framework for the myriad discussions and decisions important for society, independent of any technology.

My work would also provide the required core information system for the "information party" entry, I think.

The logical framework I hope to describe for social discussions will also be investigative and allow dynamic evaluation, but how it's constructed will determine how well that can be done. It might be surprising how far that can be taken.

I'm still wrapping my head around my own work, and I was hoping to describe and discuss it, including detailed reasoning, with the hope that once the information exchange requirements are better defined, others would help to see how technology can be integrated in order to provide what we need, technically, for "national" discussions.

Do you think it would be worth it for you to be a part of this discussion, in order to determine how your work would integrate and what tweaks might be useful within this context? Do you get a positive or negative impression from what I've written so far.

Ibid.

had enough

Just to add a bit to the last post.

I'm working to find a good logical framework for social discussions by looking at society in general, and recognising some basic similarities about the problems (and good things) that happen, the current authority structure, and what we want to be able to do.

Any political process involving public control must involve public discussion, and discussion needs information. But it's the kind of information itself that's going to determine the nature and extent of the discussion, which will determine what kinds of decisions can be made. So the nature of the information is going to control the decision process, and that's why if people don't trust and use the information system, we might as well just go shoot pool and drink beer instead of doing this.

So I'm creating a (inter)national information database system, based on the idea of a briefing report, designed to fit the bill.

There are a number of things to consider in order to do that, and one, for eg., is the recognition that the only way the people can exert authority, in any political system, is through the laws.

When there is no change in laws, there is no change.

I'm talking about real change here, to spare our children from having to constantly deal with fundamentally the same problems as we have to now. In order to solve our problems, and not just throw a cloak over them (such as by just hiring a "good person"), we have to change the laws. There's no other way.

There are a number of "realities" like that, which I recognise as threads of continuity that can be taken advantage of. Society is complex, but the authority structure really isn't.

So virtually all public discussions must relate to the relevant specific laws. Shouting "We want change." isn't anywhere near enough, just ask the people in Egypt.

The next discussions will be in detail about a single incident, because I want everyone to see the reasoning why each piece of information is included, and what we can realistically expect to be able to do.

When all is said and done, when something is put forward for public discussion, I want a single standard summary page everyone can access, containing specific points of information (including relevant laws and proposed changes), links to the associated aspects related to it, as well as a public discussion mechanism, such as Dreamwell, at relevant points within it's individual information matrix. Each issue will have more than one point requiring discussion, most likely.

The system I'm working to create is meant to provide enough information so the people can trace cause and effect through the social authority structure, for any gov't system, and to point the attention of the people to immediate solutions as well as the underlying causes.

If the cause is that a single person right at the end of the authority structure, or outside it, is simply committing a crime, it isn't practical for the people to be able to go that far every time. Theoretically we could, but there's no need. We want to be able to trace to a specific point within the authority structure, where we'd hand it off to police, start another discussion about that point, etc.

So, let's say 4 police beat a helpless person for fun and were caught on video. Purely theoretical of course, since nothing like that could ever happen in the holy, magical democracies we live in today.

On the summary sheet for the beating, there's the standard information of date, time, place, individuals involved, etc., and there's also a hierarchy figure showing the gov't departments which were associated with it. An actual tree would be useful here, such as the hierarchy of the police department for that kind of thing. Who takes the report, who hands it off to who, forensics report, who makes what decisions.

An individual cop takes the report, gives it to his sergeant, for eg. The sergeant looks at it, and makes sure it's complete, and may make some decision about it, and passes it higher up. Ultimately, charges are laid and it goes to court. There's nothing here that can't be defined exactly, including the technical authority at each level. So if the sergeant puts the report in the garbage, does he have the authority to do that.

Say everything is fine up to the trial, and all is fine there except the judge arbitrarily disregards the key evidence and says the police were just doing their job, and let them off with no penalty.

The summary information page for the beating itself shows the authority hierarchy tree, and the trial is highlighted, because the trial is where justice was derailed, according to some at least. So lack of justice for the beating is traced to the trial mechanism.

One click brings up the trial summary information page for that particular incident. There's the standard facts about time, place, individuals, agencies, etc., and the authority hierarchy tree for the trial process has "sentencing" highlighted. A click brings up the sentencing summary page.

Each link layer in a single incident wouldn't have to show the common standard information, but just a link to the summary page for it. The sentencing page would show a starting comment that the judge imposed personal opinion without regard to law, or whatever. How this is a general threat to justice might be a point recorded under an appropriate heading.

As with most pages, the sentencing page would show the law(s) relevant for that point. Etc. There may not be any laws governing that, which we should know.

So lack of justice in the beating incident is a reflection of a judge being able to make arbitrary decisions with impunity (presumably), and that's what has to be addressed. An independent sheet would be started for that. Also, on the trial summary sheet, since it's a more core issue, there'd be a list of links to other incidents where there were problems in the trial process, if desired.

Since it's a simple database structure, a double sort would bring up a list of incidents where there were problems with the trial, and there were also problems in the sentencing. Comparing the incidents in that list would show similarities and/or differences in the circumstances, to see if there's a specific bias, etc.

Sorting will allow dynamic evaluation, depending on the nature of the data fields, which is one of the things to discuss.

The above example is for an incident, but abstract discussion issues can also be within the same format, and all can (and must) be related to the specific laws that are relevant.

Ibid.

had enough

In this post, I'd like to start looking in great detail at the quebec police incident mentioned earlier.

There'll literally be thousands and thousands of specific incidents like this, which are reflections of deeper, more fundamental aspects, and we're not going to necessarily want to look in extreme detail at every one.

But, any information system based on a single input format is going to have to deal with all the issues. Since this one is a fairly distinct incident with deeper threads, it's a good one to get an initial format.

So for now, don't worry about how it fits in with everything else. The goal of this part is to understand as much about this particular incident as possible. To do that, different kinds of information are required. As always, these are a starting point, and input is appreciated.

I think the information needed most often can be separated in to 5 main categories:

    1) physical facts with respect to the incident itself, primarily for identification and initial statements,
    2) related physical facts to be able to trace cause and effect through the authority structure, which includes the written law,
    3) correlation to more fundamental aspects, like morality, constitutional rights, national integrity, posterity, etc.
    4) proposed solutions, opinions and discussions, including changes in law, and
    5) associated information to help with organisation and sort/search utility

I want to look at each of those in turn, the first one in this post. For each section, only some specific information is added for the quebec police incident, so the post isn't too long, but it's just to give the idea.

1) physical facts with respect to the incident itself

    When, where, who, what, why, basically, with links. More when relevant.

    i) When    -date of incident
                -2007

    ii) Where    -location of incident
                -Fairmont Le Château, Montebello, Quebec (street address too)

    iii) Who    -gov't individuals involved
                -Stephen Harper (prime minister of canada)
                -etc.
            -gov't agencies involved
                -Surete Quebec (SQ)(quebec police)
                -RCMP (national police)
                -CSIS (national secret service)
                -etc.
            -non-gov't individuals involved
                -David Coles, (union, CEP President)
                -etc.
            -non-gov't agencies or groups involved
                -Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP)
                -etc.
            -foreign entities involved
                -secret service
                -foreign gov't individuals
                -etc.

    iv) What    -the incident or issue, simple as possible description, could have more than one
                -security and prosperity partnership of north america (SPP) (called NAFTA 2.0) meeting protest: undercover police infiltrated a protest group and aggressively attempted to instigate violence

    v) Why    -perceived motivation for incident; could have more than one
                -the police were used as political goon squads in order to manipulate public political opinion

    vi) Links    -to news articles, etc., if available

When a sheet is started for this, others would help fill in each category. The purpose of this set of information is to define the basic physical facts primarily, and express the reason why it has an information sheet for it.

So 6 main sections to start. Where there's more than one entry, like for individuals involved, all could be shown, or it could be simplified, and links to the full list.

That's going to be determined by the tech requirements to provide what I want, as well as how it might be irritating to see a long list on the summary page, such as for this one. Others wouldn't have as many.

But, that's just a matter of organisation, not concept.

Next post I was going to look at the second type of information, which includes the written law. That's where the real fun starts.

Ibid.

had enough

Here, one of the goals is to start figuring out the details of the problem or issue. The quebec police affair is an incident, so something has happened that shouldn't have happened, and we want to figure out the real problem(s) and what can be done about it.

This information is about the written law and the application of the written law, which are the 2 elements relevant for the application of authority. It's meant to point to where in the authority structure there are problems or issues that have to be examined, and ensure that the potential ramifications to society in general are recognised and put forward for discussion.

Keep in mind for all this discussion that it may seem a lot more complicated than what it is. That's because I'm very "technical" (ie. fastidious, prissy, anal, take your pick) with respect to definitions and explanations, and everything is included, but the final work will strive to be logical and highly intuitive, with as little text as possible.

The second set of information is:

2) related physical facts to be able to trace cause and effect through the authority structure, which includes the written law.

    i) list of current relevant written laws, with link
        -copy of the written laws most relevant
            -law governing actions of police while undercover (I think this was changed a number of years ago, but not sure)
            -general duty of police to protect the people, if there is one, is there an oath, etc.
            -etc.
        -list common law or other interpretations, if relevant
        -if laws are too long or complex, summary statements would be included
        -possible discussion points, if different interpretations, etc.
        -etc.
    ii) opinions of whether the law is sufficient or not
        -discussion points, to define problems
        -other examples of what it would allow
        -examples of what it would protect
        -etc.
    iii) hierarchy tree
        -for front line police orders, compare different conditions
        -for investigation of the police actions
        -etc.
    iv) list of individuals, agencies, etc. that are outside the standard authority tree, but interacted in the process (this could be incorporated in to iii), above, or treated separately)
        -politicians
        -police
        -foreigners
        -etc.
    v) points of interest regarding anything in this part
        -in case there's something that all should note
        -etc.

Once we have the required true, complete and trusted information, next is the evaluation process. I think it will be very useful to create general background information sheets, so people can reference them to help analyse the information. For eg., there are only so many ways that something can be "wrong" within the authority system, and if we're aware of them, it should be easier to spot them.

Potential perversions of the law, from writing to street:

    1) the terminology of the written law is vague, unclear or distorted somehow, and so doesn't provide the protection intended;
    2) the written law is OK but is being interpreted in ways inconsistent with the perceived intent;
    3) the law isn't being applied, being applied inconsistently or in extreme, for different reasons;
    4) there's criminal intent associated with the problems in the application of the law;
    5) there isn't a law;
    6) the existing law shouldn't exist or should be restricted, for eg., since it's a violation of a higher principle or is nobody's business, etc.;
    7) the law needs to be expanded somehow;
    8) the law is being over-ridden by another law;
    9) the law has been changed, which led to perversion of the intent of the original law;
    10) when a law was created, there were "secret laws" incorporated in them;
    11) there needs to be limitations put on the individual authority granted within the law;
    12) ...

They may not be the best descriptions, but this is a starting point. Input is greatly appreciated.

These are the things that we have to look out for as we evaluate the information. It will be useful not just for looking at incidents, but also when there are discussions about creating new laws, etc. We don't want to have those problems, but will virtually always have to trust someone to write the laws.

i) list of current relevant written laws, a list with link to written law if more than one

This section is essential, since the only way the people can express public authority in any society is through the laws. I'm not talking about the kind of authority where the people have to riot, in the hopes they'll be "allowed" to express their opinion, only to have it totally disregarded, or a one time pay off. I'm talking about the kind of authority where the people don't have to riot.

Even if the current written laws are complicated, there has to be a link to an exact copy when possible. Nowadays, one of the despicable, traitorous tactics of deception used by gov't (in canada) is to create laws that are so needlessly long and wordy that it's difficult to tell exactly what they mean, and few can go through it thoroughly. (And, there are the "secret laws" that are being incorporated.)

For that kind of thing, we'll have to depend on individuals to point out things and summarise if necessary, but I don't think that will be such a problem. In a news article on the rabble site, I saw that Elizabeth May read one of the laws (400 pgs) being pushed through by the vermin bastard harper, and saw that it didn't contain what they said it contains. We need people like her, but she only looked at it with respect to gov't statements, I think, and the above list of potential perversions of law must be considered as well.

If the laws are needlessly complicated, we can address that as a specific incident, with it's own info sheet, in order to figure out how to protect ourselves, so our children won't have to deal with that.

For the quebec police incident, there are at least 2 laws that would be relevant. One dealing with the conduct of police while undercover, and the other is the general duty of the police toward the people. There may be others, which would be included in the list when they're pointed out. If there are any over-riding laws that affect the application of the other laws, they would be included or referenced as well.

ii) opinions of whether the law(s) is sufficient or not

This section is for comments related to the written law(s) itself, listed in the last section. It could be incorporated in to the last section, but for this explanation I'll keep it separate.

Here would be recorded a list of specific points for and against the written law. This part is not for debating whether to change the law or not, but just to record the opinions. If there is a problem with the written law, what is it. If it protects or allows something, what is it.

For the quebec police incident, assume for the sake of discussion that there are only the 2 laws mentioned previously.

One deals with the general duty of police, and I don't even know if there's an actual law. Here, clearly the police acted against the interests of the people, in fact attacking the people for political reasons, which is attacking our country. So, by their actions, the police attacked our country, whether they realise it or not.

When we can see the written law including interpretations, we can tell whether that law recognises the police action in this case as a crime. If it doesn't, that's obviously a significant problem that has to be addressed. Once a core problem is identified, we can (theoretically) do something about it.

The other law deals with the conduct of police while undercover. This was changed a number of years ago, I believe, in order to allow police to commit crimes while undercover, with the justification that they might have to do that in order to infiltrate higher in to criminal gangs. That might sound reasonable, but there are no limitations whatsoever.

Presumably then, undercover police can kill someone with impunity, even instigate it, in the hopes that at some future time they might be able to arrest someone for burglary, for eg. Clearly that is not acceptable.

For that law, it would be recorded that the law had been changed, and those changes empowered the police to do what they did. The history of that law must be carefully examined and ultimately the current law changed in some way. But, by looking at the history of the law, we can also see the conditions at the time of the change, to help see if there's a method to the madness.

While the only way for the people to express authority is through the laws, the vermin parasites aren't so restricted, because they don't have to express their authority through laws, they just have to make sure we can't express ours. That's a lot easier, they've got a lot of money, and many are in positions where they can traitorously pervert our laws with impunity. Especially in our country.

But, despite that, I think we can still win. We just have to be systematic, and that's what I'm trying to do here. If anyone sees conflicts or inconsistencies, etc., I beg you to point them out. We're literally talking about the survival of our nation here.

The system I'm trying to create here will allow a detailed, dynamic investigation of our society. With respect to the authority structure, all societies have 2 basic parts, the decision process, and the mechanism for application of the decision.

The application of the decision (the decision being a law of some sort) involves the written law and the application of the written law. The information so far is meant to evaluate the written law, and next post will be the sections needed to evaluate the application of the written law, which is invariably a matter of individuals, who may or may not impose their will through institutions.

Ibid.

had enough

The next 2 sets of information are meant to trace problems within the mechanism of the application of the written law. The application of the written law is, invariably, a matter of individuals, since the written law can't misinterpret itself. This includes defining the "order of authority", which should be included whenever possible for each issue.

This doesn't necessarily mean that an individual(s) means to pervert the law. It could be an honest mistake, or something else. Whatever it is, before we can determine why, we have to see exactly who.

    iii) hierarchy tree
        -authority tree for each aspect of the issue
            -theoretical order of authority for the orders for the 3 quebec police under non-political conditions
            -real order of authority tree for the 3 police
            -show how foreign political entities were involved
            -order of authority for the subsequent investigation of the police actions, or could have it's own sheet
        -format so influences can be identified on the figure, so may have 2 or more trees, one for the theoretical, the other for the real; this will allow us to see where and how our authority process is being perverted, in database format
        -etc.

    iv) list of individuals, agencies, etc. that are outside the standard authority tree, but interacted in the process
        -this could be incorporated in to the hierarchy tree section, as long as it will allow search/sort, but it may be easier to list separately to clarify how individuals may impose influence through agencies, etc.
            -somewhere in the transfer of orders to the 3 quebec police a criminal motive was introduced, where and by whom are the things we demand to know
        -this section is essential, especially when core gov't is involved
            -who were harper's agents and how were they involved
        -make sure foreign entities are identified
            -foreign secret services
        -etc.   

    v) points of interest regarding anything in this part
        -this section is to identify notable aspects related to the issue
            -the police lying about the details
            -part of a pattern of violation of civil rights
            -reckless disregard for public safety
            -
        -etc.
       

iii) hierarchy tree

The hierarchy tree is a description of the order of authority. Everything has a theoretical order, by necessity. The real order would show how the theoretical order was distorted, and is especially important when there are political entities involved.

So, there's the theoretical order. For the 3 quebec police, how do they receive and interpret their orders normally, when nothing political and/or criminal is involved. This should just be a matter of record, and there shouldn't be any problem getting this information. In fact, we should be able to define the technical order of authority for all individuals (through job titles) in public (and private) institutions, and have them in a linkable, static database.

Then there's the real order. That's what we need to see, understand and record. And it will be the most difficult to find out the truth. Virtually impossible sometimes right now, yes. But, now is not forever.

iv) list of individuals, agencies, etc. that are outside the standard authority tree, but interacted in the process

This could be integrated in the last section, as long as it retained the sort/search utility, and didn't make it too complicated.

Details for this section are going to be the most difficult to get, by far. Fortunately, we don't necessarily need exact details, more on that later. But, if there are standard operating procedures, we have a right to know them, don't we? If not, then why in the f**k not. Prove real national security concerns, OK, otherwise I say we do.

For the quebec police incident, as with all others, you have to start at the street effect, the actions of the 3 police during the protest. They apparently think they did nothing wrong.

But, if what they did was clearly a crime in the law, and they knew they'd be held accountable, would they take responsibility? If they say they each made the decision to recklessly endanger the public safety for political reasons, then that's the way it is. They're the only ones accountable. They committed a crime and should be appropriately punished for it.

Whatever the case, the real order of authority declaration provides the initial framework for investigation. If we can't find out the truth right away, then we have to trace back through the theoretical order to see where and how things were distorted.

Sections iii) and iv) are to identify the individuals involved, because if the written law is OK, then someone(s) along the line corrupted it, for some reason. And, those parts aren't for debate, they're to record the details we need to know, with the primary goal of just identifying the individuals involved and their physical place in the real authority structure.

And here's a point for discussion, how to present that information.

I think a standard hierarchy tree, like a genealogy tree but with more input at some points, will present a perfect graphic representation that will allow everyone to trace problems related to the issue in a highly intuitive manner. That kind of figure can also be augmented in a number of ways to include more info.

v) points of interest regarding anything in this part

This section is for information considered important, perhaps to point out broader aspects.

There are several things that would fit here for the quebec police incident, such as how the police blatantly lied. The first lie that I know of was to deny it was police that did it. One can understand that lie, since when police are undercover it wouldn't be smart to blab it. They eventually admitted it, of course.

But, they lied again when they said their agents where uncovered when they refused to throw rocks. It was quite a while ago that I watched the video, but I seem to recall that's not what happened.

So the first lie is understandable, notwithstanding whether the agents had a right to be there in the first place. But, the second lie is obviously intended to distort the truth about the circumstances, to cover their ass. They know what happened was a crime.

Another point of interest for the quebec police incident is that they tried to provoke violence in a "family friendly zone", or whatever it was called. The police obviously had no respect for the people.

Generally the desire is to make sure that the ramifications to society are identified. Those comments can be recorded in a couple of ways, which can be discussed as to how best to do it.

So, the information up to now is meant to identify the issue, provide static background information relevant for public control, such as the written laws, and to identify the individuals involved and how they interacted. Also included may be points of importance that aren't otherwise shown in the data.

The next set of info, 3), is for discussing what this issue means in our society. Virtually everything that happens on the street is a reflection of deeper authority elements. If "the people" will ever realistically be able to exert authority, we have to be able to look at things in many ways in order to ensure that our laws reflect the attitudes of the people, and not traitorous usurpers of the authority of the people.

The next section is going to be difficult at first, since I don't think there are many who are used to talking in those terms, including myself. But, it has to be done, because our country is a lot more than just today.

To help with that I think there needs to be other discussions about our country in general, how would it be different if the people really had control, how important our laws are to us as a nation, can a gov't commit treason and if so how, what is it that makes us a nation, etc.

Probably the most important discussion we need is recognising the significance of our laws, and how perverting our laws is an attack on our country. In my view, our laws are to protect the people, who are the country, and aren't weapons to force subservience. There will come a time where that's true.

I think another discussion we have to have is how we came to this condition in the first place. Saying our gov't system is a democracy is like saying a pumpkin is an orange because it's the same colour. But how did it come to this?

We came to this because the queen didn't grant the people independence, she granted the gov't independence. We have to discuss exactly what that means.

But, the "side" discussions don't have to be done right away. Everything is dependent on the core information system, so next post will continue with that.

Ibid.

had enough

The next section of information is meant to facilitate recognising cause and effect with respect to the fundamental values in our society. The problem with "values", of course, is that they mean different things to different people.

But values are choices, not information. The goal here is to provide enough information so we can make the value choices. Enough information for everyone, not just one point of view.

You likely see what my opinion is about the quebec police incident. Even though I'm obviously very biased, my opinion is an example, and this information system is to independently record the physical information, and provide pro/con, point/counterpoint statements at relevant points. My personal opinion on any issue won't affect how the information system itself is developed.

The opinion that the police acted as political goons would be opposed by saying the police need those broad powers in order to keep the peace, or something like that. Presumably someone holding that view would phrase it the way they want, in order that it's presented properly.

How to present those things depends on the technical requirements, which would be discussed.

Examining and correlating incidents and issues, like the quebec police incident, is going to allow us to track to critical core problems that have to be addressed.

In order to identify and fix the many serious (even mortal) problems we face as a nation today, for real and for good, we have to do it through our entire authority structure. To do that, we have to discuss what, exactly, we need our laws to protect, which requires discussions such as in section 3).

3) correlation to more fundamental aspects, like morality, constitutional rights, national integrity, etc.

    i) specific points related to over-riding principles
        -civil rights
        -part of pattern
        -etc.
        -discussion points

The quebec police incident is a stark example of the abuse of police power for political reasons, and was an attack on the civil rights of canadian citizens, which is an attack on our country. That incident, as with others, is a reflection of more core elements in our social system, and involves more than one thing.

The "investigation" of the police actions was also obviously corrupt, since I believe it decreed the 3 police did nothing wrong. If so, how can we possibly just let that go either. That's like laughing in our face after the police (and the gov't) shit on the people. Another sheet would be started for that.

Also, I believe where the incident took place was a "family friendly zone", which would make the police actions that much more contemptible.

Another important point is that the police were fulfilling foreign objectives in general.

Another is that it's a clear disregard for public safety that could have easily resulted in great tragedy, so it was a violation of the basic duty of the police. If the police don't see the problem there, how can they possibly be trusted in any situation.

Another is that this is part of a long term pattern (by someone, guess who) to manipulate how people protest, in order to deceive the people and manipulate the political opinions of citizens, and there are other examples of the same thing, such as what's believed to have happened in toronto (?) and the commission of violence by police undercover agents in order to vilify opponent political protestors. Since that's a despicable attack on our country, it's essential we find out the truth about that.

Another is that it was an abuse of public funds, since public offices are being used for partisan political purposes.

Another is that it's an abuse of political authority by one or more individuals.

This section would contain a number of discussion points, and is where debate software for large groups would come in very handy.

These discussions are meant to effectively develop and present the relevant viewpoints. Once that's done, and the people have had a chance to evaluate all the information together, a decision mechanism can be determined where the people translate the "consensus" view to action.

Translating the decided view in to action can be done in several different ways, which will be discussed later.

So this section is to point out deeper and related elements so we understand as much about the incident as possible. Some of these points may be a bit abstract, but we still want to be able to reference them to include them in the sort/search aspect, but that will be discussed a bit later.

The main thing I'm trying to do here is build the framework for a socially relevant information system that will be trusted and used by the people, and will facilitate public discussion and control in our society.

Public control requires an evaluation and discussion mechanism, which is what I'm creating here, but there also has to be a way to have the relevant issues brought to the attention of the people in the first place.

The quebec police incident was very easy to see and was identified by individuals involved, but it doesn't matter how, so long as the incident is pointed out and put up for discussion. Since street level incidents like this are virtually always reflections of deeper issues in our authority structure, the evaluation of the incident will help point to the more fundamental aspects.

Once we're aware of the deeper issues, we can look at them specifically. And, once the deeper issues are addressed, the number of street level incidents should decrease significantly.

For the quebec police incident, it's obviously a violation of civil rights, etc., but another specific point is that it's an abuse of public funds, which is actually a function of the abuse of political authority in this case. Most of the other points are also functions of the abuse of political authority.

But, each point has to be specifically pointed out, since otherwise it may hinder their evaluation and the sort/search utility. The abuse of public funds through the abuse of political authority can (and does) manifest in many different ways.

In this case it's an abuse of public funds because the police were working for a foreign entity, not our country. Anything other than the people is a foreign entity. They were obviously working for the despot harper, and the vile dictator harper is not our country, though it obviously thinks it is.

I don't want to go in to that now.

The entire set of information up till now is to identify what's wrong; point out the current laws that are associated with it, including common law interpretations and opinions about the written law(s) itself when relevant; and provide a framework to point out more subtle elements and how the details relate to more fundamental aspects of our society, with discussion. The goal is to understand the incident.

The next post will describe section 4), which is where the pros and cons of possible solutions would be discussed.

Ibid.
 
PS I set my limit at 3 pages per post, and have a little space left so I wanted to bring up what may be the most critical single issue that we're going to face when we finally establish a real democratic nation.

That is, the sanctity of our laws.

The only way the will of the people can be expressed is in our laws. Our laws are our voice and our shield. And our laws are our sword, which is why we have to make sure it's only wielded according to the will of the people.

When our laws are corrupt, we are corrupt. When our laws are distorted, we are distorted. When our laws are perverse, we are perverse.

Attacks on our laws are attacks on the people, and so are attacks on our country.

The current despicable dictatorship shows many examples of what I see as blatantly traitorous attempts to pervert our laws to promote foreign interests. Under this vile gov't our laws are being turned in to weapons to use against us. Needless length and complexity, "secret laws" incorporated in them, omnibus bills, selective interpretations, secrecy, laws not actually containing what the gov't says they do, etc., etc., etc.........

You know, I think we should go back and have a very detailed look at when the moron little viccy toews claimed anyone opposing their internet surveillance laws were standing with child pornographers.

Naturally the proposed laws included a way for the police (and masters and friends) to secretly and regularly violate the civil rights of canadian citizens for the benefit of foreign entities, and the ridiculous imbecile didn't even read it, regardless of whether that would have even mattered.

Just the fact that the bastard still has his position (ie. permanently attached to the public teat) shows the contempt the current gov't has for the sanctity of our laws. Obviously the vermin harper thinks our laws exist to get him things he (and his friends) wants. If he doesn't like them, he just interprets them in "special" ways. If he can't do that, he (ie. his friends) just changes them outright.

An essential part of the process for establishing democracy, or any change in any political system, is the creation of new laws to govern the new process.

The first of that, in my opinion, must be laws ensuring the sanctity of our laws.

Without that I don't think we have any chance of establishing a lasting democracy.

We might get something going, but it would only be a matter of time before it was perverted. I'm not saying we ever had a democracy, but look at how our laws are being perverted now. And that's just what we know about, think what else there might be when you have a gov't (and friends) with such an insanely selfish contempt for the people, no sense of morality, the belief they are infallible....and absolute power.

It's not just that we have no laws to defend us, our laws are weapons being used against us, and that has to stop.

had enough

This section of information, 4), relates to proposed solutions (functional changes in law), with discussions. The final information sheets wouldn't have these distinct sections necessarily, so for formatting, this information would be integrated with other parts so it's easier to follow the reasoning.

Up to now we've identified a single incident, pointed out the problems and related them to existing laws, and discussed how that incident may be a reflection of deeper issues. A number of related aspects to the incident were also pointed out, so we can evaluate them independently, such as abuse of political authority, etc.

Now we have to figure out what to do.

And here's where we have to be very realistic. I don't mean "realistic" in a limiting way, just a practical way. Being practical here means not setting any unrealistic expectations. (Wow, I got to lay down for a minute.) Play it by ear would be a better way to say it, probably.

4) proposed solutions, opinions and discussions, including changes in law

        -copy of draft changes to current law
            -proposal hierarchy
        -reference to how it solves the issue or problem
            -direct reference to initial incident
            -etc.
        -discussion points
        -etc.

The main goal is to ultimately determine how our laws need to be changed. It depends on the information we have as to whether we'll be able to go all the way at this point. Even if there may not be enough info yet to confidently change the written laws, this section is to define the course of action.

For the quebec police incident, the "original sin" was the actions of the 3 police at the protest, and that can be looked at first. The closest law would be the one governing the actions of police while undercover, and another very relevant law is the general duty of police toward the people, as far as I understand things so far.

I don't have a copy of the undercover law, but if this system was up and running, we'd put out the call for a copy of the exact laws, and someone would provide them. If we can't get them, obviously that's a ridiculous situation in a state calling itself a democracy. When democracy is established, we'll have links to any laws or information we need as part of a publicly controlled supporting information resource, no fuss whatsoever. Just imagine that.

The quebec police incident is a good "simple" example for several reasons. One is that here there are 2 (types of) laws that are immediately relevant. If we're going to control the writing of our laws, we have to appreciate how they're inter-related. And, how our laws control the ability of public servants to do their job and protect our society (in the most generous interpretation).

Changing the laws properly, so it actually solves the problem, requires a bit of discussion. I wish I had copies of both laws, but we don't actually need them right here in order to start the discussion. Of course, we need exact copies of the current relevant laws eventually.

And, just like the vast majority of others right now, I'm not used to doing this, so this is a learning process. If anyone thinks I'm not doing this effectively, please speak up. In the end this would be in database style, with field headings and entries, but this is only talking about the nature of the information itself.

Evaluating our laws means recognising that each law has a specific purpose in and of itself, has a history, and it also has a purpose with respect to the whole picture(s). This would be integrated with section 2).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++Primary law 1 of 2: The first law is the one for governing the actions of police while undercover, which allows them to freely commit crimes, I believe. An exact copy of the law would be here.
           
    ++Purpose of law 1-1 of 1: Apparently meant to allow police to infiltrate criminal gangs more effectively, in order to bring them down ultimately.

Etc.    There's more to this, but since I don't have the law for this one, the second law is better as an example.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++Primary law 2 of 2: The second law(s) is sections of the code of ethics for quebec police. I got these from the internet. (http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/laws/regu/rrq-c-p-13.1-r-1/latest/rrq-c-p-13...)

Code of ethics of Québec police officers
Police Act (chapter P-13.1, s. 127)

DIVISION II
DUTIES AND STANDARDS OF CONDUCT OF A POLICE OFFICER

5. A police officer must act in such a manner as to preserve the confidence and consideration that his duties require.
A police officer must not:
(4) commit acts or use injurious language based on race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, religion, political convictions, language, age, social condition, civil status, pregnancy, ethnic or national origin, a handicap or a means to compensate for a handicap;

6. A police officer must avoid any form of abuse of authority in his relations with the public.
A police officer must not:
(1) use greater force than is necessary to accomplish what is required or permitted;
(2) make threats, intimidate or harass;

9. A police officer must perform his duties disinterestedly and impartially and must avoid putting himself in a conflict-of-interest situation liable to compromise his impartiality or to adversely affect his judgment or fairness.
A police officer must not:
(1) directly or indirectly solicit, accept or demand from any person a gift, a reward, a commission, a kickback, a discount, a loan, repayment of a debt, a favour or any other advantage or consideration liable to compromise his impartiality, judgment or fairness; (Note: this appears to be mainly related to financial benefit, but some of the points could be interpreted more broadly)
   
    ++Purpose of law 2-1 of 1: 

Code of ethics of Québec police officers
Police Act (chapter P-13.1, s. 127)
DIVISION I
GENERAL
3. This Code is intended to ensure better protection of the public by developing high standards of public service and professional conscience within police departments and to ensure the respect of human rights and freedoms including those set out in the Charter of human rights and freedoms (chapter C-12).

    ++Discussion 2-1: This stage of discussion could be organised in a few different ways and is meant to provide the range of opinions regarding the written law itself.

        ++Discussion point 2-1-1: It appears the police were influenced by a political authority and violated the civil rights of canadian citizens, in an attempt to manipulate public opinion to benefit a political party. Whether that's even true or not doesn't really matter at this point. If it was true it looks like it wouldn't even be illegal. So, is it illegal? Are there any other relevant laws?

    ++History of changes in laws 2: If there have been any past changes to one or more of the laws noted, the history and justifications for those changes would be here. One of the despicable means used by gov'ts in "modern" societies is to quietly and incrementally change laws to ultimately allow them to do whatever they want to us.

The above sections designated by "++" are part of the info for section 2). The following are part of section 4).

Proposed new changes in law 2: If there are any proposed changes to the existing written laws, they'd be listed here, as well as any new laws. At the beginning, defining exact changes right away may be very difficult, so this might be blank for the first while.

    Discussion of proposed changes in law 2: Discussion of the proposed changes in laws is a process, just like the evaluation of the original incident.
    Since gov't agents likely won't be willing to freely provide information, especially at the beginning, determining the right thing to do will initially require stating the intent of the law, in order to understand how the current law(s) is inadequate.
    If there are proposed changes in any of the laws, there'd be specific points as to whether the changes are good or bad, etc. For brevity, I won't put those in.
   
    There are a few law sites on the internet which will most likely help greatly, but I'm going to have to check those out later. At the beginning, questions can be defined that we want answered. These would be answered by the relevant "authorities", ultimately.

    For the quebec police incident, some questions might be:
        Q1) If it were true that the 3 police did actively attempt to provoke violence at the protest, and they did it to promote a political party, what law(s) would they be breaking.
        Q2) Would the political party be legally responsible in any way, or just the police.
        Q3) If the 3 police were ordered by a superior to do what they did, what law(s) would the superior be breaking.
        Q4) Do quebec police have any duty towards the people, or is the duty of police to serve the gov't.

    There'll also be one or more points to note, such as what we expect the law(s) to do.
        P1) The quebec police were obviously acting as political goons, and if that isn't illegal then we have to change things somehow. One of the advantages of using the quebec police incident as an example is that it's such an obvious abuse of police power to benefit the ruling political party that if the system doesn't recognise that, obviously it's totally inadequate and has to be evaluated more deeply. Once a more fundamental issue (in this case obvious) such as this is described, addressing it through it's own information database entry will help to resolve other incidents as well.

Section 4) would have a bit more to it, but you see what it's meant to be. The entire information system, just like any system, is dependent on input. But even if the exact information isn't known right away, once we define the info that's needed, it'll be a lot easier to collect it, and there are many ways that can be done, such as posing specific questions.
 
There's potentially a great variety of information for each thing, but good organisation will allow it to be followed via an intuitively logical hierarchy. If it was all like the above mass of text, it wouldn't be practical, but there are several ways to simplify the presentation, which will be discussed.

The next post will describe the last "formal" section, 5), which is for organisation and sort/search utility primarily, and will include a description of how I believe it can be used, among other things. That will be the last of the main part of the information, then will be the discussion about general aspects of applying public authority.

Ibid.

had enough

This section of information, 4), relates to proposed solutions (functional changes in law), with discussions. The final information sheets wouldn't have these distinct sections necessarily, so for formatting, this information would be integrated with other parts so it's easier to follow the reasoning.

Up to now we've identified a single incident, pointed out the problems and related them to existing laws, and discussed how that incident may be a reflection of deeper issues. A number of related aspects to the incident were also pointed out, so we can evaluate them independently, such as abuse of political authority, etc.

Now we have to figure out what to do.

And here's where we have to be very realistic. I don't mean "realistic" in a limiting way, just a practical way. Being practical here means not setting any unrealistic expectations. (Wow, I got to lay down for a minute.) Play it by ear would be a better way to say it, probably.

4) proposed solutions, opinions and discussions, including changes in law

        -copy of draft changes to current law
            -proposal hierarchy
        -reference to how it solves the issue or problem
            -direct reference to initial incident
            -etc.
        -discussion points
        -etc.

The main goal is to ultimately determine how our laws need to be changed. It depends on the information we have as to whether we'll be able to go all the way at this point. Even if there may not be enough info yet to confidently change the written laws, this section is to define the course of action.

For the quebec police incident, the "original sin" was the actions of the 3 police at the protest, and that can be looked at first. The closest law would be the one governing the actions of police while undercover, and another very relevant law is the general duty of police toward the people, as far as I understand things so far.

I don't have a copy of the undercover law, but if this system was up and running, we'd put out the call for a copy of the exact laws, and someone would provide them. If we can't get them, obviously that's a ridiculous situation in a state calling itself a democracy. When democracy is established, we'll have links to any laws or information we need as part of a publicly controlled supporting information resource, no fuss whatsoever. Just imagine that.

The quebec police incident is a good "simple" example for several reasons. One is that here there are 2 (types of) laws that are immediately relevant. If we're going to control the writing of our laws, we have to appreciate how they're inter-related. And, how our laws control the ability of public servants to do their job and protect our society (in the most generous interpretation).

Changing the laws properly, so it actually solves the problem, requires a bit of discussion. I wish I had copies of both laws, but we don't actually need them right here in order to start the discussion. Of course, we need exact copies of the current relevant laws eventually.

And, just like the vast majority of others right now, I'm not used to doing this, so this is a learning process. If anyone thinks I'm not doing this effectively, please speak up. In the end this would be in database style, with field headings and entries, but this is only talking about the nature of the information itself.

Evaluating our laws means recognising that each law has a specific purpose in and of itself, has a history, and it also has a purpose with respect to the whole picture(s). This would be integrated with section 2).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++Primary law 1 of 2: The first law is the one for governing the actions of police while undercover, which allows them to freely commit crimes, I believe. An exact copy of the law would be here.
           
    ++Purpose of law 1-1 of 1: Apparently meant to allow police to infiltrate criminal gangs more effectively, in order to bring them down ultimately.

Etc.    There's more to this, but since I don't have the law for this one, the second law is better as an example.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++Primary law 2 of 2: The second law(s) is sections of the code of ethics for quebec police. I got these from the internet. (http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/laws/regu/rrq-c-p-13.1-r-1/latest/rrq-c-p-13...)

Code of ethics of Québec police officers
Police Act (chapter P-13.1, s. 127)

DIVISION II
DUTIES AND STANDARDS OF CONDUCT OF A POLICE OFFICER

5. A police officer must act in such a manner as to preserve the confidence and consideration that his duties require.
A police officer must not:
(4) commit acts or use injurious language based on race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, religion, political convictions, language, age, social condition, civil status, pregnancy, ethnic or national origin, a handicap or a means to compensate for a handicap;

6. A police officer must avoid any form of abuse of authority in his relations with the public.
A police officer must not:
(1) use greater force than is necessary to accomplish what is required or permitted;
(2) make threats, intimidate or harass;

9. A police officer must perform his duties disinterestedly and impartially and must avoid putting himself in a conflict-of-interest situation liable to compromise his impartiality or to adversely affect his judgment or fairness.
A police officer must not:
(1) directly or indirectly solicit, accept or demand from any person a gift, a reward, a commission, a kickback, a discount, a loan, repayment of a debt, a favour or any other advantage or consideration liable to compromise his impartiality, judgment or fairness; (Note: this appears to be mainly related to financial benefit, but some of the points could be interpreted more broadly)
   
    ++Purpose of law 2-1 of 1: 

Code of ethics of Québec police officers
Police Act (chapter P-13.1, s. 127)
DIVISION I
GENERAL
3. This Code is intended to ensure better protection of the public by developing high standards of public service and professional conscience within police departments and to ensure the respect of human rights and freedoms including those set out in the Charter of human rights and freedoms (chapter C-12).

    ++Discussion 2-1: This stage of discussion could be organised in a few different ways and is meant to provide the range of opinions regarding the written law itself.

        ++Discussion point 2-1-1: It appears the police were influenced by a political authority and violated the civil rights of canadian citizens, in an attempt to manipulate public opinion to benefit a political party. Whether that's even true or not doesn't really matter at this point. If it was true it looks like it wouldn't even be illegal. So, is it illegal? Are there any other relevant laws?

    ++History of changes in laws 2: If there have been any past changes to one or more of the laws noted, the history and justifications for those changes would be here. One of the despicable means used by gov'ts in "modern" societies is to quietly and incrementally change laws to ultimately allow them to do whatever they want to us.

The above sections designated by "++" are part of the info for section 2). The following are part of section 4).

Proposed new changes in law 2: If there are any proposed changes to the existing written laws, they'd be listed here, as well as any new laws. At the beginning, defining exact changes right away may be very difficult, so this might be blank for the first while.

    Discussion of proposed changes in law 2: Discussion of the proposed changes in laws is a process, just like the evaluation of the original incident.
    Since gov't agents likely won't be willing to freely provide information, especially at the beginning, determining the right thing to do will initially require stating the intent of the law, in order to understand how the current law(s) is inadequate.
    If there are proposed changes in any of the laws, there'd be specific points as to whether the changes are good or bad, etc. For brevity, I won't put those in.
   
    There are a few law sites on the internet which will most likely help greatly, but I'm going to have to check those out later. At the beginning, questions can be defined that we want answered. These would be answered by the relevant "authorities", ultimately.

    For the quebec police incident, some questions might be:
        Q1) If it were true that the 3 police did actively attempt to provoke violence at the protest, and they did it to promote a political party, what law(s) would they be breaking.
        Q2) Would the political party be legally responsible in any way, or just the police.
        Q3) If the 3 police were ordered by a superior to do what they did, what law(s) would the superior be breaking.
        Q4) Do quebec police have any duty towards the people, or is the duty of police to serve the gov't.

    There'll also be one or more points to note, such as what we expect the law(s) to do.
        P1) The quebec police were obviously acting as political goons, and if that isn't illegal then we have to change things somehow. One of the advantages of using the quebec police incident as an example is that it's such an obvious abuse of police power to benefit the ruling political party that if the system doesn't recognise that, obviously it's totally inadequate and has to be evaluated more deeply. Once a more fundamental issue (in this case obvious) such as this is described, addressing it through it's own information database entry will help to resolve other incidents as well.

Section 4) would have a bit more to it, but you see what it's meant to be. The entire information system, just like any system, is dependent on input. But even if the exact information isn't known right away, once we define the info that's needed, it'll be a lot easier to collect it, and there are many ways that can be done, such as posing specific questions.
 
There's potentially a great variety of information for each thing, but good organisation will allow it to be followed via an intuitively logical hierarchy. If it was all like the above mass of text, it wouldn't be practical, but there are several ways to simplify the presentation, which will be discussed.

The next post will describe the last "formal" section, 5), which is for organisation and sort/search utility primarily, and will include a description of how I believe it can be used, among other things. That will be the last of the main part of the information, then will be the discussion about general aspects of applying public authority.

Ibid.

had enough

This section of information, 4), relates to proposed solutions (functional changes in law), with discussions. The final information sheets wouldn't have these distinct sections necessarily, so for formatting, this information would be integrated with other parts so it's easier to follow the reasoning.

Up to now we've identified a single incident, pointed out the problems and related them to existing laws, and discussed how that incident may be a reflection of deeper issues. A number of related aspects to the incident were also pointed out, so we can evaluate them independently, such as abuse of political authority, etc.

Now we have to figure out what to do.

And here's where we have to be very realistic. I don't mean "realistic" in a limiting way, just a practical way. Being practical here means not setting any unrealistic expectations. (Wow, I got to lay down for a minute.) Play it by ear would be a better way to say it, probably.

4) proposed solutions, opinions and discussions, including changes in law

        -copy of draft changes to current law
            -proposal hierarchy
        -reference to how it solves the issue or problem
            -direct reference to initial incident
            -etc.
        -discussion points
        -etc.

The main goal is to ultimately determine how our laws need to be changed. It depends on the information we have as to whether we'll be able to go all the way at this point. Even if there may not be enough info yet to confidently change the written laws, this section is to define the course of action.

For the quebec police incident, the "original sin" was the actions of the 3 police at the protest, and that can be looked at first. The closest law would be the one governing the actions of police while undercover, and another very relevant law is the general duty of police toward the people, as far as I understand things so far.

I don't have a copy of the undercover law, but if this system was up and running, we'd put out the call for a copy of the exact laws, and someone would provide them. If we can't get them, obviously that's a ridiculous situation in a state calling itself a democracy. When democracy is established, we'll have links to any laws or information we need as part of a publicly controlled supporting information resource, no fuss whatsoever. Just imagine that.

The quebec police incident is a good "simple" example for several reasons. One is that here there are 2 (types of) laws that are immediately relevant. If we're going to control the writing of our laws, we have to appreciate how they're inter-related. And, how our laws control the ability of public servants to do their job and protect our society (in the most generous interpretation).

Changing the laws properly, so it actually solves the problem, requires a bit of discussion. I wish I had copies of both laws, but we don't actually need them right here in order to start the discussion. Of course, we need exact copies of the current relevant laws eventually.

And, just like the vast majority of others right now, I'm not used to doing this, so this is a learning process. If anyone thinks I'm not doing this effectively, please speak up. In the end this would be in database style, with field headings and entries, but this is only talking about the nature of the information itself.

Evaluating our laws means recognising that each law has a specific purpose in and of itself, has a history, and it also has a purpose with respect to the whole picture(s). This would be integrated with section 2).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++Primary law 1 of 2: The first law is the one for governing the actions of police while undercover, which allows them to freely commit crimes, I believe. An exact copy of the law would be here.
           
    ++Purpose of law 1-1 of 1: Apparently meant to allow police to infiltrate criminal gangs more effectively, in order to bring them down ultimately.

Etc.    There's more to this, but since I don't have the law for this one, the second law is better as an example.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++Primary law 2 of 2: The second law(s) is sections of the code of ethics for quebec police. I got these from the internet. (http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/laws/regu/rrq-c-p-13.1-r-1/latest/rrq-c-p-13...)

Code of ethics of Québec police officers
Police Act (chapter P-13.1, s. 127)

DIVISION II
DUTIES AND STANDARDS OF CONDUCT OF A POLICE OFFICER

5. A police officer must act in such a manner as to preserve the confidence and consideration that his duties require.
A police officer must not:
(4) commit acts or use injurious language based on race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, religion, political convictions, language, age, social condition, civil status, pregnancy, ethnic or national origin, a handicap or a means to compensate for a handicap;

6. A police officer must avoid any form of abuse of authority in his relations with the public.
A police officer must not:
(1) use greater force than is necessary to accomplish what is required or permitted;
(2) make threats, intimidate or harass;

9. A police officer must perform his duties disinterestedly and impartially and must avoid putting himself in a conflict-of-interest situation liable to compromise his impartiality or to adversely affect his judgment or fairness.
A police officer must not:
(1) directly or indirectly solicit, accept or demand from any person a gift, a reward, a commission, a kickback, a discount, a loan, repayment of a debt, a favour or any other advantage or consideration liable to compromise his impartiality, judgment or fairness; (Note: this appears to be mainly related to financial benefit, but some of the points could be interpreted more broadly)
   
    ++Purpose of law 2-1 of 1: 

Code of ethics of Québec police officers
Police Act (chapter P-13.1, s. 127)
DIVISION I
GENERAL
3. This Code is intended to ensure better protection of the public by developing high standards of public service and professional conscience within police departments and to ensure the respect of human rights and freedoms including those set out in the Charter of human rights and freedoms (chapter C-12).

 

cont'd next post..

had enough

cont'd from last post...

    ++Discussion 2-1: This stage of discussion could be organised in a few different ways and is meant to provide the range of opinions regarding the written law itself.

        ++Discussion point 2-1-1: It appears the police were influenced by a political authority and violated the civil rights of canadian citizens, in an attempt to manipulate public opinion to benefit a political party. Whether that's even true or not doesn't really matter at this point. If it was true it looks like it wouldn't even be illegal. So, is it illegal? Are there any other relevant laws?

    ++History of changes in laws 2: If there have been any past changes to one or more of the laws noted, the history and justifications for those changes would be here. One of the despicable means used by gov'ts in "modern" societies is to quietly and incrementally change laws to ultimately allow them to do whatever they want to us.

The above sections designated by "++" are part of the info for section 2). The following are part of section 4).

Proposed new changes in law 2: If there are any proposed changes to the existing written laws, they'd be listed here, as well as any new laws. At the beginning, defining exact changes right away may be very difficult, so this might be blank for the first while.

    Discussion of proposed changes in law 2: Discussion of the proposed changes in laws is a process, just like the evaluation of the original incident.
    Since gov't agents likely won't be willing to freely provide information, especially at the beginning, determining the right thing to do will initially require stating the intent of the law, in order to understand how the current law(s) is inadequate.
    If there are proposed changes in any of the laws, there'd be specific points as to whether the changes are good or bad, etc. For brevity, I won't put those in.
   
    There are a few law sites on the internet which will most likely help greatly, but I'm going to have to check those out later. At the beginning, questions can be defined that we want answered. These would be answered by the relevant "authorities", ultimately.

    For the quebec police incident, some questions might be:
        Q1) If it were true that the 3 police did actively attempt to provoke violence at the protest, and they did it to promote a political party, what law(s) would they be breaking.
        Q2) Would the political party be legally responsible in any way, or just the police.
        Q3) If the 3 police were ordered by a superior to do what they did, what law(s) would the superior be breaking.
        Q4) Do quebec police have any duty towards the people, or is the duty of police to serve the gov't.

    There'll also be one or more points to note, such as what we expect the law(s) to do.
        P1) The quebec police were obviously acting as political goons, and if that isn't illegal then we have to change things somehow. One of the advantages of using the quebec police incident as an example is that it's such an obvious abuse of police power to benefit the ruling political party that if the system doesn't recognise that, obviously it's totally inadequate and has to be evaluated more deeply. Once a more fundamental issue (in this case obvious) such as this is described, addressing it through it's own information database entry will help to resolve other incidents as well.

Section 4) would have a bit more to it, but you see what it's meant to be. The entire information system, just like any system, is dependent on input. But even if the exact information isn't known right away, once we define the info that's needed, it'll be a lot easier to collect it, and there are many ways that can be done, such as posing specific questions.
 
There's potentially a great variety of information for each thing, but good organisation will allow it to be followed via an intuitively logical hierarchy. If it was all like the above mass of text, it wouldn't be practical, but there are several ways to simplify the presentation, which will be discussed.

The next post will describe the last "formal" section, 5), which is for organisation and sort/search utility primarily, and will include a description of how I believe it can be used, among other things. That will be the last of the main part of the information, then will be the discussion about general aspects of applying public authority.

Ibid.

had enough

This last section of information, 5), is concerned with the sort/search utility, and is basically a list of tags.

Let's say everything goes as hoped, and the information sheets make it easy to follow and understand the main aspects of the issue or incident, provide a way to ensure that all the relevant opinions and information are properly represented, and allow the determination of real changes in law.

For something like the quebec police incident, for eg., the police appeared to act like political goons on behalf of the ruling party, and it looks like that's not even illegal. I know there was an "investigation", and they decreed that nothing wrong happened, although I can't find the article. Obviously that's not acceptable either.

The starting incident sheet for that would deal specifically with the actions of the police at the protest, and the laws, etc. that are supposed to protect us from that kind of thing, such as code of ethics, etc.

But, looking at that incident uncovered a number of other more fundamental problems. The "investigation", for eg., was apparently corrupted somehow, and that would have it's own information sheet where it would be determined why it happened, linked to the relevant section of the original sheet.

That incident also shows abuse of political authority, misuse of public funds, abuse of police authority, and a few more things. But, we can't look at those on the same info sheet, since it would make it far too complicated. So there'd be a bunch of sheets of linked information in a database, literally thousands upon thousands, although each incident would be only one to three pages each.

Having a list of descriptive tags, though, will add to the previous information to help ensure that the incident sheets can be organised in a way that's going to facilitate dynamic evaluation of our society in a wide variety of socially relevant ways.

How many separate tags would be a purely technical issue, but something like 10 potential entries each for pro and con might suffice, since there's also the entries in the previous sections. Section 5) is meant to point to specific things that aren't already represented. "Abuse of political authority", for eg., was mentioned in a previous section, and wouldn't be listed here as long as the sort/search list includes this page when that's one of the search terms.

So, some tags would be for pinpointing relevant deeper issues, like those above, that can be specifically defined. Other tags, however, take advantage of the relative simplicity of the real authority structure, and would be for the names of individuals, political positions and institutions not already mentioned.

The application of authority (ie. the written law) in this context is invariably a matter of individuals. That isn't going to change even if real democracy is established. We can't, as a "people", be involved in every decision needed in our society. We have to hire people to do the grunt work, and they'll occupy the various offices of gov't.

But when democracy is established, we'll be able to apply public authority when necessary. Politicians won't be able to do anything they want to us, and when they do do something, we'll be able to find out and take appropriate action. It will be impossible for harperism, or any other perversion, to operate when we do finally establish democracy.

There are already many tags in the previous sections of info. When people use the database for social research, they're going to allow sorting of the incidents so we can trace the threads of continuity.

So in choosing extra tags, we need to do it with an eye to how we're going to want to investigate. That will be discussed further in a later post.

For the quebec police incident, extra tags would include (not necessarily in these exact words):

-police complaint process corruption
-political meeting
-[political party in power]
-[prime minister]
-other gov't departments involved that haven't been listed previously
-police corruption (similar to abuse of police power)
-violation of civil rights
-attempt to manipulate public opinion
-police lying in matters not related to security
-police agent provocateurs
-etc.

In order to facilitate choosing appropriate tags for each incident, there'd be a list of choices, which would be expanded over time. The names of individuals and groups wouldn't be part of this list, unless they're not already listed earlier, since the names themselves would be used for the sort/search.

The previous list of extra tags is an example, and the range of input for this section will be determined by how we decide to separate the various aspects. I have my ideas, but the most important thing is that the scope is broad enough, yet still manageable.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

OK, that's the basic idea for the info record of individual incidents.

In order to be able to realistically exert public authority, the first and foremost thing we need is a trusted and complete information source. Obviously the current traitorous gov't (and it's friends) can't have any control over it, since they (and their friends) would be tireless in the pursuit of destroying it.

So what is there up to now?

Someone wanting more information about the quebec police incident would follow a link to the summary information page. This page contains:

    a) dates, locations and the names of individuals and groups, gov't and non-gov't, foreign and domestic, involved in that specific incident.
    b) description of the primary social issue for that incident - ie. it's legal for the quebec police to be used as a political goon squad in order to violate the civil rights of canadian citizens
    c) description of relevant "secondary" social aspects - ie. abuse of political authority, part of larger plot to manipulate public opinion, abuse of police power, betrayal of public trust, etc.
    d) information and discussion as to how that incident is related to more fundamental elements of our society, such as civil rights, police serving foreign interests instead of the people, etc.
    e) proposed changes to written laws that will solve the problem(s), including related discussions, and if there's not yet enough info to confidently change the laws, description of the necessary new info needed, and who would be required to supply it; this part defines the course of action, which ultimately must be geared to determining proper changes in law
    f) list of "secondary" tags in order to facilitate the sort/search mechanism, in order to facilitate the determination and application of public authority at deeper levels

This set of information is a starting point, and tweaking the details will provide a range of info acceptable to the vast majority. With the info above, this specific incident can be fully addressed.

But, the format of the above info is also very, very important, since the ease of use is easily as important as the information itself.

I actually don't think the format will be that difficult to create, but there's no need to go in to that right now. And, the data input mechanism has to be better defined, with a keen eye to potential sabotage and other issues, but that's another technical issue(s) which can be looked at once it's determined this whole thing is worth it. I can describe what I want, in good detail, and hopefully someone(s) will help with translating that to web format. (The internet isn't the only vehicle, but would be the main one.)

After a short time, we'll have many incident sheets. Sorting provides the mechanism to see the threads of continuity, good and bad.

Say a person uses the database for the first time looking at the quebec police incident. They see that one of the relevant laws is the quebec police code of ethics. Sorting using "police code of ethics" would bring up a list of incidents where that was a factor.

In our country, sadly, it would be a long, long list, so adding "quebec" to the search terms would cut down the volume. If the person wanted to look for incidents and issues related to the quebec police code of ethics, but where the bastard harper was also involved, or some other individual or political position, as well as being a violation of civil rights, adding those will show the incidents with all those tags.

Standard database sorting, etc. Nothing new with that part.

Once the person has the list of incidents, they can be compared as to the conditions surrounding each. So the person has a short list that maybe they download to their own computer, in order to evaluate them more at leisure.

The short list is a mini-database, and having it separated from the main list will make it much easier to evaluate and compare those incidents. From the short list, if the person looked at the quebec police incident and saw that it occurred at a political meeting, for eg., another sort would provide the relevant incidents.

Once the person has the shorter list, they can either continue the sort to narrow it down further, or start comparing the details of the individual incidents. In this case they'd see that the gov't uses agent provocateurs regularly at political meetings, in order to violate the civil rights of citizens, and that's one of the core issues that has to be addressed.

Getting to the end of my 3 page limit, and there's a bit more for this section, so I'll have to put it in the next post.

One last point to make for this one. This incident database isn't meant to define solutions, it's meant to provide the means for us to define solutions. The info is meant to provide the necessary background facts, show the range of opinions, and point things out. It's not action, but it will allow us to recognise the action that we need to take.

Fortunately, it doesn't matter right now whether we'll even ever be able to take the action, which would normally be changes in laws, depending on the depth of info. But, when the time comes, we want to be ready for it. If we ever do finally stand to oppose the vile tyrants and traitors, and actually do take our country back, we don't want to be like egypt. This database will make that possible.

Ibid.

had enough

The last section of info, 5), described in the last post, is to round out the description of the individual incidents. This is to ensure that as many of the underlying problems, and good aspects, are identified as possible. If we're going to do it, let's do it right.

Once there are a number of incident sheets, they can be sorted to show lists of the incidents that are related in a number of different, socially very relevant ways. Once that's done, we can correlate the inadequacies in our laws to the consequences of those inadequacies, which are the incidents.

If we're OK with the incidents, and are fine that they'll keep happening, then nothing needs to change. If it's not fine, we have to do something. And, it has to be independent of the politicians, when necessary.

The incident sheets deal directly with the laws (which is required if we're going to have real control), and for the quebec police incident, one of the main laws appears to be the police code of ethics, which was apparently disregarded by them. Interestingly, it seems that the code of ethics doesn't actually forbid the police from promoting foreign political interests, although it does appear to forbid the actions of the 3 police at the protest.

In the discussion up to now, I purposely left out a few details regarding the input data and investigation. Not for brevity, but to stimulate critical evaluation by others. A couple of those follow now.

Recording the facts around an individual incident is relatively easy, especially if it's done soon after it happened. With just the basic facts, we can do a bit. But not enough.

 Adding opinions and proposals for changes in the laws provides more, and comments about how the incident and potential changes may affect our society will give us more confidence. But, that's still not enough.

The 3 quebec police should have been punished. Even the most basic sense of morality and duty should have made them realise that what they were doing was wrong, and in fact was an attack on our country. If they can't see something as obvious as that, how can they possibly be trusted under any conditions.

But they aren't the only ones responsible, unless they made the decision to do it themselves. If they received orders from superiors to do what they did, those superiors must be held accountable as well. And, if there was external influence, those individuals must also be held accountable.

In order to hold them accountable, we have to be able to identify them. So part of the incident sheet would have to address that, but how. The police virtually certainly won't co-operate, and they could not say anything, or simply lie, since they know that when they lie to us, even if they're caught at it, nothing whatsoever will happen to them.

[Recall that the quebec police officer that gave a press conference said that the 3 police were unmasked when they refused to throw projectiles. That was a bald-faced lie obviously designed to imply that the protesters were trying to incite violence, not the 3 police. I'd be willing to bet dollars for donuts that nothing happened to that creature, or whoever ordered him to do it.]

We know 2 things, regardless what the police say. We know the 3 police did it, and we know that they're the end-point in an authority hierarchy. That's enough to start with.

First we need the relevant normal authority hierarchy within the police department, from the top all the way down to the 3 police, just by job title. The police force is a public institution, and we have a right to know who tells who what to do. That's the same for every public institution. When democracy is established, we'll have a permanent, linkable reference resource, the authority hierarchy, for the normal operations of all public institutions. If there's a demonstrable need for secrecy as to that, it can be accounted for, but it has to be necessary, not just because they want to in order to hide something(s) they've done.

The summary sheet for the quebec police (SQ) incident would show the normal SQ hierarchy, as a flowchart, with job titles linked to the name of the current holder of the office, description of duties, etc.

Since that incident was at a federal political meeting, other police and intelligence forces were involved, and it would be shown on the SQ hierarchy flowchart exactly where external authority was imposed, and by whom. Even if we have to dig for the truth, we can start with the theoretical. That can all be done through job titles, in order to provide a consistent reference framework.

That's assuming that all public "servants" have job titles associated with them, although I wouldn't put anything past the current regime, or any other. Who knows how many socks are filled with "money".

It can be highlighted on the flowchart at which job title there appears to be a distortion of the written law.

Easier said than done, I know. Again, it's not like gov't agents are going to co-operate. But in order to get what we want, we have to define what we want.

If it's not a problem with how the law is written, it has to be in how it's being applied, which is invariably a matter of individuals. Individuals control the application of the written law, and it may come down to just being the actions of a criminal(s).

For the quebec police incident, the 3 police would have to justify their actions. If they made the decision to attempt to incite violence on their own, then they're the criminals. If they were given orders to do it, then they still have to be held accountable for their part, but the superiors up the line must be investigated, to find out exactly who made the decision, in order to hold them accountable.

I doubt the quebec police themselves made the decision to attack the people, although it could have been.

RCMP, CSIS and other gov't agencies, both domestic and foreign, were involved in the meeting. And, naturally the emperor (and his friends) were involved. Our goal would be to find out exactly who gave the original orders, as well as the individuals involved in transferring that to the 3 police. All of that can be indicated on the authority hierarchy flowchart to provide a permanent record, which I think is also highly intuitive.

We can start with the 3 police and the normal SQ hierarchy. Information can be easily added as it becomes available. Investigation is a process, and we have to identify the information we want in order to seek it, regardless of whether we can even obtain it or not. If secrecy's necessary, it can be accounted for. But, we also have to have a way to ensure that claims of "national security", etc. are legitimate.

I believe that secrecy in gov't operations, including advisory, should be illegal, unless legitimate national security concerns, which wouldn't include harper's current poll rating or whether he wanted to pass some law easier, could be identified and corroborated in a suitable manner.

Reality check...

Believe me, I'm not (very) delusional. This incident database is an information resource. It's meant to provide the single most important part of any discussion, a trusted and complete information source that will facilitate decision making.

The information included for each incident is going to determine how we can use it. We define what information we want, not them. And, I don't define it either. I define what I want to see and why, but if there's information that others think needs to be included, it can be.

But, a sad reality in this perversion that was once our country is that there will be many who would very much like to sabotage this whole thing, both domestic and foreign. Potential sabotage will be discussed a bit later, and for the end of this post I wanted to mention a few points about the benefits of the incident database itself.

Real, dynamic public control, ie. an extreme form of democracy some would say, is a high and mighty ideal. Hallelujah!!!

But the point comes when you just have to say, OK, it looks impossible, but we have to do something. Our country isn't just ourselves, it's our children. If we fail, it's going to be them who pay. If we do a good job now, they could have a much better life. Wishing isn't going to do it.

Sure there's a lot to society when you look at it as a whole. But complexity is a matter of perspective.

Just like a tree, once you look past the leaves, you see the linked hierarchy of the branches culminating in attachment to the trunk. The trunk itself represents the decision structure, not necessarily a single individual, although in our case now it is, at least through the technical structure

[And just like a tree, the trunk has hidden roots feeding in to it from underneath. Where and how they attach, we can't know until we dig them up and expose them.]

The decision structure produces laws, regardless their trivial name, and the branches are the consequences of those laws. A law is made, and at a branch it's passed to an individual (or group, but normally an individual now I think). That person interprets that law, and passes it on, at the next branch, to another individual.

The incident is the leaf, and the point of attachment of the branch to the leaf is the actions of the 3 police in the current example.

And, the incident doesn't have to be something the police did, or whatever, it's simply a point brought up for public discussion. Yes, it's another prime point for potential sabotage.

It could be a trade agreement, a general discussion on exploitation of natural resources, a specific problem like for the chinese workers at a mine in BC I think it was. Anything that can be specifically defined, which is virtually everything, and everything with respect to gov't control.

The nature of the points of information for each incident will allow virtually everyone to trace the problems and issues that face us to find out where and how within the authority structure that there seems to be a perversion of the intent of the law, which is of course an opinion.

The most important orienting concept for this is that when things are found out, they aren't lost because we didn't happen to be in the room at the time. And, we all have the same information available. Information which won't define the discussion, but ensure that all opinions are represented for the discussion, along with the physical facts.

Any public discussion of real democracy has to start, I think, with the most important question, how can we deal with all the complexities of society, all the subtleties, in a way which is going to ensure the strength and continuity of our country.

...cont'd next post...

had enough

Since the last post, I've had a chance to discuss this information system with friends a bit more.

I thought I'd clarify a number of points, since I jumped right in to the description of an incident, the quebec police incident, without adequately describing the overall concept perhaps.

A) The incident database itself is not a political system, it's a (dynamic) citizen briefing report to aid in public discussions.

And just like any brief for any subject, it's value is totally defined by the information it contains.

My assertion is that a citizen briefing report (part of an information system) which is going to make possible real public control (for better or worse) has to be presented in a suitable way, and provide the kinds of details which are going to facilitate both the determination of the (public) will and how to apply it, the 2 fundamental requirements of all governing systems.

Determination of the public will is the discussion and decision process, which here we're saying is democratic, which means individuals have a right to have a say, but the final decision is majority rules, while respecting the hierarchy of law. (A dictatorship means decisions are made behind closed doors, and laws are weapons to be arbitrarily manipulated and used against the people. That's obviously what exists in our country today.)

Regardless of the mechanism of the decision, ie. who (what) makes the decision, the result of the decision is a law of some sort, just or unjust not being relevant. Whether it's called a law or procedure or directive, etc.; and whether verbal or written; any controlling influence has the effect of a law, and semantics can be quibbled about later.

Once laws are created, they're applied through a separate technical hierarchy to street level. The technical hierarchy is just a flowchart of a series of job titles (ie. individuals), and each individual could change the interpretation of the written law for any number of reasons.

Public control means we have to be able to dynamically evaluate both those aspects, which is one of my main goals.

So while the incident database, or briefing report, isn't a political system, I believe it will be an essential part of a truly democratic political system.

B) How would this be applied?

The answer is two-fold.

Applying the incident database concept itself is nothing more or less than collecting information, and it can be done now. It doesn't matter whether anything ever comes out of it. We can list and discuss the various points of the various incidents and issues in order to have a permanent record of the discussion; names, dates, what happened, opinions, etc.

Right now, we can do that by looking at the points of info in news articles. But that's not sufficient to provide the kind of consistency and breadth required for a realistic public information system.

The second aspect of the application relates to what can come out of the discussions, and that depends not just on what kind of information is included for each incident/issue, but also how it's presented.

It's easy enough to see how a stable and trusted information source would be essential if we were ever to have consistently meaningful public discussions, but it's a lot harder to realise what kind of information we'd need.

And that's what I'm dealing with in these discussions, what information should be included and why.

I think it can be done by recognising certain threads common to all political (authority) systems.

1) the only way for real change to occur is by changes in the laws.

2) every political system can be separated in to:

a) the decision mechanism (resulting in a law of some sort) and

b) the mechanism for the application of the decision.

The mechanism for the application of the decision can be separated in to:

i) the written law and

ii) the application of the written law (which is a matter of individuals and their interpretation of the written law).

These few aspects provide a framework for the general organisation of the basic incident database information, and are essential to managing the technical side of public authority. But figuring out what we want to do will require flexibility in how things are discussed, which is another part of what I'm trying to do.

Discussions have to ultimately relate to the relevant laws (since the laws are the only lasting mechanism for us to exert our authority), and we have to be able to evaluate the written law, as well as how it's being applied.

If we find a problem with the written law, we have to be able to discuss and make decisions about changes to the laws, the potential ramifications of those changes, including the hierarchical relationship to other laws like constitutional rights, and ideally a way to monitor the change to ensure it's having the expected effect.

If we find problems with how the law is being applied, we have to be able to pinpoint where and how, within the authority hierarchy, the interpretation of the law deviated from that accepted by the people (however that's determined).

It may be simple criminal activity by an individual(s). On the authority hierarchy flowchart, the office title of that individual would be highlighted and link to the current holder's name and info, details of the issue as related to current incident or issue, etc. If there are external influences, they would be indicated as well.

And, this is where the question of how to apply this becomes most relevant.

There'll be stages of discussion, but the most significant result would be proposed changes to laws which would theoretically rectify the problem reflected in the given incident, or some other actionable objective if there isn't enough information yet to fully evaluate potential changes in laws (or perhaps a declaration that nothing should change, or whatever).

That's the point where there's something to apply. We can express outrage and stamp our feet all we want, but until there's an actionable objective, we can't do anything real.

What can we do with a list of changes in laws? That's the most critical question.

There are 3 things that can happen.

1) we forget about it, don't try to apply them, and slink off with our tails between our legs

2) we put them in to the current authority structure, which means giving them to someone in the gov't who makes the physical changes in the laws

3) we disregard the current gov't mechanism, and develop a method to impose the changes regardless of the opinions of the politicians

These are the choices, and they would be the same no matter what kinds of changes are proposed. So if you're not satisfied with the current status (ie. don't want the incidents to keep happening), then 2) and 3) are the only things to do. If politicians won't co-operate, and refuse to apply the changes, then 3) becomes the only choice.

No matter what the change, those are the only options for application. But it's pointless to go too far in to that until we see there's something worth applying.

1) will be the only choice if there isn't a trusted mechanism for the public discussions needed to make the decisions, and that will require a trusted information system.

C) Developing this information system is going to take time, on the order of a few years perhaps, but information can be gathered now regardless. We can use whatever info we have in order to make discussions easier.

D) This format is for determining courses of action.

Fundamentally, I assert that if there's going to be real and lasting change, it has to be through changes in the laws. However, it may be that the laws are OK, and we just want to follow the process, to keep an eye on it.

For the quebec police incident, for eg., the incident happened, a complaint was filed, a judgement was given that the police did nothing wrong, then this decision was overturned and the judgement was they committed a number of crimes. I don't know where it stands now.

With the first judgement, we'd be curious how the various laws could be interpreted in order to come to that conclusion. If reasonable interpretations of the laws permit that behaviour, the laws need to be re-written to ensure it doesn't happen again. Maybe secondary discussions would be added to clarify.

But the second judgement seems to suggest that the laws may be OK, although we'd still look at them in the new context, and that would shift the question to how the first judgement came to be, which may or may not warrant it's own info sheet.

And, we still haven't determined who else in both the political and police elements were involved. That would be another point of investigation which would be independent of the pursuit of the charges against the 3 police themselves.

That's part of getting at the core issues. So there may be several required courses of action to take for a single incident. And some may converge or diverge through their own info sheets.

There are a couple of more points for the next post, then I'd like to switch to a current issue for a minute, the Wright/Duffy incident of the $90K+ payoff.

Ibid.

had enough

E) Not everything that happens would have to have a sheet, although it could. And we don't have to take everything down to the finest detail.

One of the most important requirements of an information system like I'm describing is that it's practical. Every detail can't be highlighted on the summary page, etc., and we can only practically investigate to a certain point.

We can decide for each incident/issue how far to go before handing it off to the appropriate individual within the gov't (if necessary), and then how to monitor the process. Handing it off doesn't mean abdicating authority.

We still want to be able to follow the reasoning and evaluate the current stage, as well as access more detailed info when desired.

Information volume is a critical concern, although with modern computer memory the physical requirements may not really be much of an issue. The important thing is that whatever the volume of information, it's still coherent, which can be provided by an effective information hierarchy, which is part of the current discussion.

G) What physically would there be. Structure of the info sheets. Database structure.

Ultimately, the internet is going to provide the means to make the achievement of real democracy practical, in my opinion. It could still be done without it, but it would be much harder, of course. The core concept is that there's a database of information about things that are happening, etc., which is in a consistent format relevant for what we need.

The summary info sheet for an incident/issue would be a simple web-page, with consistent data headings and associated cells for input. Also on that page would be links to more details, relevant formal discussions, authority hierarchy flowcharts with problem areas highlighted, etc.

The information for each incident would be stand-alone, so each could be fully evaluated individually. It would provide the standard factual info, discussion, etc, and although the types of information for each would differ in different ways, it can still be defined within a greater, intuitive social information hierarchy, in my opinion.

When the information is recorded in a searchable database, it's possible to correlate the many incidents and issues we face in order to recognise the more fundamental problems and issues, of which the incidents are reflections. Multiple search terms would bring up incidents sharing those aspects.

I used the quebec police incident as an example because it's a very clear case of abuse of police power for political reasons. And, the process to protect us from that, ie. the complaint process and first "inquiry" decree, failed to recognise any wrongdoing, which for such an obvious case as this is ludicrous and fairly obviously corrupt.

But there was another "inquiry" that over-ruled the first one and said the police committed crimes. Of course that judgement would also have to be examined in detail as well, along with looking at the first. But, not on the summary info sheet for the original incident.

The original incident was the actions of the 3 police at the protest. On it's summary sheet, there'd be a list of the parties and individuals involved, location, etc., why it's an issue and other standard info, etc. And, also flowcharts showing the normal hierarchy of orders down to the 3 police within the quebec police department, and one showing the progression of the attempted "resolution" of the issue.

That hierarchy would deal with the quebec police complaint and inquiry process, and would show if there are other reflections, ie. incidents, of that more core aspect. Those incidents could be compared as to details to see if there are other common aspects which should be addressed, such as consistently promoting political aims, or something like that.

I think most people now are acquainted with following links, so the total volume and complexity of info for all issues and incidents can be very greatly simplified and made coherent for the vast majority. That is, once a suitable, consistent information hierarchy core is developed.

Timelines could be represented like that or in other ways. I have several other ideas for info and format on the summary page, but that would be better done while looking at the next incident.

Points of info within each incident sheet and links will be matters of opinion and/or points requiring discussion. There would be a number of those on the summary sheet, and the link to them would be associated with the relevant info.

Fortunately, the technical aspects of the discussion mechanism for large groups over the internet is already being addressed by others, and I hope some of them would be willing to work together in order to produce a suitable process, which would only require a few tweaks to what I've seen so far, in my opinion.

H) The individual points of information will determine how we can correlate the incidents/issues.

Being able to evaluate individual incidents, and determine actionable objectives such as changes in laws, would add a great deal to our society. Equal to or more than that would be the ability to correlate the individual incidents, to show underlying causes, and that's done by using a database format and suitable categories of information.

For the quebec 3 police incident, part of the info would be that this incident is part of a more core issue of the political attempts to use the police to control how the protests at that meeting (and others) are perceived by the public.

A link to that info page would give a list of incidents which are reflections of the more core issue, which is directed political interference in the police process with the goal of discrediting and perverting the nature of the demonstrations to the general public.

Another way of describing the issue is that the police are being used as a political goon squad, paid for by taxpayers, and a point I would make is that the blatant attempt to pervert our social institutions to violate our civil rights is an attack on our country.

Whether or not something like this is an attack on our country is only one of the myriad discussions we'll have to have in order to realistically be able to exert public control, and still have a country in 50 years.

The opposing view to this, of course, would be that the police are doing their job and there's no wrong doing. That side would make their points and record them associated with the relevant opposing opinions and information.

How we decide the actionable objective is the main desired endpoint, even if it's changes in laws. I have my opinions and that's part of the discussion.

F) This idea is always evolving.

I think the central idea here, which is that public discussions leading to decisions, including changes in law, will have to have a common, consistent information system in order to be realistically possible, is absolutely rock solid.

I'm going on the belief that a suitable system can be created, and the first priority is to understand what info there needs to be in order to make the required analyses/decisions. This requires recognising what kinds of decisions, etc. need to be made.

Next in line, though, is how can it be tweaked to provide the maximum benefit, which is a big part as well.

I) There must be a "vetting" of info, but it's about presenting all the info, not about deciding what info is right or wrong, or good or bad.

So it's about organisation, but also recognising obvious attempts at repetition, sabotage, etc., so they can be brought forward and evaluated. It doesn't have to be an individual decision to decide those things, but there has to be a well-defined process for public input. That's where the technical discussion mechanisms will be essential.

J) "Incidents" don't just have to be something wrong that happened. An incident is any point brought up for discussion, good or bad.

For eg., probably the greatest threat we face as a nation today is how the gov't is virtually totally without accountability. But we also have to be able to recognise when things are going well, such as when a funding program is doing what was intended or more.

But, our country is in a horrific state right now. This situation has come about because when the queen granted "us" independence, she didn't give it to us, she gave it to the gov't. She put the crown on to the gov't and not the people. And the result of that has been catastrophic for us.

Putting the crown on the gov't removed an essential level of control over the gov't. The queen could override any gov't order, and impose any directives deemed necessary, such as saying there must be public consultations and consensus before signing wide reaching trade agreements. Whether she would or wouldn't notwithstanding, now no one can.

Therefore, one of the critical issues for discussion would be what laws do we need to control the actions of the gov't. Not a simple thing, but maybe not as complex as it first seems.

(There are a few other points, but they'll come out over time.)

This post went longer than I thought, so next one I'd like to look at the Duffy/Wright payoff incident.

 

Ibid.

had enough

The Wright/Duffy payoff incident is a good example because it's current, and, like probably virtually all of the incidents/issues we'll want to discuss, has numerous threads connecting it to more fundamental (and critical) aspects of our society. Making sense of all that is one of the primary goals.

It's also in the process of a "secondary" investigation, which is the police investigation. Our discussion is the primary investigation, and it's to the point now where we want to monitor and discuss the police investigation, as well as the details and laws associated with the incident.

Also very important is that we identify the secondary aspects, like Tkachuk tipping off Duffy about the expense fraud findings so he could appear to "come clean" resulting in a less critical auditor finding, conspiracy by several to change the senate "investigation" findings, the secret political fund of harper, whether this was hush money so Duffy wouldn't spill the beans on other things, etc., etc., etc., etc.

Note that the summary page on the internet would be a different format, with a better flow of details than as shown on the following pages. If the information was presented in a dry manner, as below, there's no way this would work. Right now all I'm dealing with is the information itself.

That's one of the advantages of the internet, though, to be able to integrate more graphic representations, like flowcharts, with links to details, so the logical flow can be more easily followed and the initial apparent complexity of the info greatly reduced.

Report #:   test1A

What happened (incident description):

-Nigel Wright, chief of staff for PM Stephen Harper, secretly gave Mike Duffy, a currently sitting canadian senator, $90 124.27, with benefits and conditions attached, in order for Duffy to pay back fraudulently claimed expenses for which he was currently under investigation.

What's the problem:

-several laws were broken by a number of individuals, both criminal and ethical, including potential bribery of a public official, see laws list. In the final format, this section would show a statement and the law associated with the statement, for eg., that the payment was secret, and not reported by Duffy within 30 days, as required by "law" such and such, with a link to the written law. So, a brief description of the law or whatever, and a link to the written text and discussion listed later

(-shows the criminal manipulation of the senate investigation and decree process.)

(-appears to be a bribe, and why they would do it, legal or illegal, is a critical question.)

Who are involved:

Gov't individuals:

-each with links to personal profiles and relationship with gov't

-what role did they play, other info and links when necessary

-Nigel Wright (pp-cons)

   -chief of staff for stephen harper

   -controlled secret PMO fund, part of party role was to manage things that could cause embarrassment

   -made the secret payment of $90 124.27 to Mike Duffy, with benefits and conditions attached

-Mike Duffy (pp-cons)

   -currently sitting canadian senator

   -accepted $90 124.27 secret payment from Nigel Wright, with benefits and conditions attached

   -link to duffy residency investigation

   -link to duffy expense fraud investigation

   -link to duffy campaigning on senate time investigation

   -claimed, after payment to senate, that PMO told him to stop talking to the media

Mary Dawson (pp-cons)

   -currently sitting MP?

   -Parliament Ethics Commissioner

   -brief of role, including covering for Wright and other "conservatives" before

Lyse Ricard (pp-cons)

   -currently sitting canadian senator

   -Senate Ethics Officer

   -brief of role

Senator David Tkachuk (cons)

   -currently sitting canadian senator

   -chair of the Senate’s internal economy committee and a member of that committee’s steering committee—the two committees involved in the investigation of Senator Mike Duffy’s expenses. -brief of details+++

   -apparently interacted with wright by e-mail, etc. and was involved in whitewashing senate audit report for Duffy

-Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen (cons)

   -currently sitting canadian senator

   -member of what committees?

   -apparently interacted with wright by e-mail, etc. and was involved in whitewashing senate audit report for Duffy

-David van Hemmen (PMO) (cons)

   -job title??

   -told by wright of payment, as declared by wright

-Benjamin Perrin (PMO) (cons)

   -job title??

   -told by wright of payment, as declared by wright (worked on letter of understanding for cash exchange between duffy and wright?)

-Chris Woodcock (PMO) (cons)

   -job title??

   -told by wright of payment, as declared by wright

-Senator Irving Gerstein (cons)

   -currently sitting canadian senator

   -told by wright of payment, as declared by wright, controls "conservative fund of canada", which was going to pay duffy's bill, but declined when learned it was so much

-Angelo Persichilli (cons)

   -Harper's former director of communications

   -current job title??

   -interacted with Duffy while awaiting appointment as citizenship judge, pressured Duffy to accept money, but says was as a friend, not under orders

Gov't agencies involved:

-senate -full senate

-investigation committees, etc

   -internal economy committee-list of members, etc.

   -internal economy committee’s steering committee-list of members, etc

-PMO -exact details to be determined

-rcmp           -current investigation, name of officer and department, other details and links to current status

-Supt. Carrese

   -RCMP Sensitive and International Investigations, officer-in-charge

-S/Sgt. Arbour

-others unknown

Non-gov't individuals involved:

-Patrick McCann -lawyer for wright

   -brief of role

-Peter Mantas -lawyer for wright

   -brief of role

-Nelligan O'brien Payne -Duffy's lawyer

   -received bank draft for $90K+ payment, how passed on?

Non-gov't agencies or groups involved:

   -Deloitte -auditors looking in to senate expense reports

Foreign entities involved:

   -conservative party of canada -stephen harper-fuhrer

These are the first relevant info sets. I'm trying to follow the natural logic most would likely have when confronted with an incident for discussion.

"What happened" is the first relevant point, since that's what brings it to our attention.

Then, "what's the problem". Even if it's obvious, like for the quebec 3 police incident mentioned in previous posts, it's essential to write down each aspect, since there'll virtually always be more than one, and some may not be obvious.

For the Duffy/Wright incident (report #: test1), there's the main issues of the secrecy of the payment and bribing public officials, etc., etc., but it's also a reflection of several other mortal problems within our gov't system.

Some of the entries in the above would be shown through a link, rather than having the info shown directly on the summary page.

Right now, the points of info for each of those involved are: name; political party, if relevant; job title; link to personal profile, incl. for groups; brief of current role; brief of history, if relevant; identification of specific active issues for the individual.

Not all those are shown in the entries above. Right now brevity is a virtue.

The question for this part is the same as will be for the others, is the information format and breadth sufficient to facilitate the discussion. What is this info meant to convey. If there's a point(s) of info, relevant for this level you think should be included, please point it out.

So far we want to identify the specific incident, have an idea of why some are saying it's a problem, and see who's involved, with a brief description of who they are and how they're involved. Identification of specific active issues, independent but linked to the current incident, for each of those involved will also help to understand the whole picture.

Next thing I want to know is what laws are involved, with a brief description of for who and why.

Ibid.

had enough

Report #: test1A (cont'd)

Relevant laws that have apparently been violated: [in square brackets is who allegedly broke the law and briefly why] (also include the consequences for breaking the "law")

The relevant law list has 2 parts, and each law would ideally have a link to it's history. The first part is the primary incident list, associated with the specific incident, and the second is a list of laws associated with the "secondary" incidents. Only the subsections, etc. for each law deemed relevant would be shown, of course, with a link to full criminal code.

The second part is essential for analysis and correlation, since it's going to allow us to dig deeper, to identify the more fundamental problems requiring attention. One of the most important requirements of realistic public control, in my opinion, is to be able to consistently see how the many things that happen in our country are interrelated. That seems a dizzying task, and it is, but far from impossible. It's purely a matter of organization.

Primary incident law list:

1) Criminal code:
Part IV Offences against the administration of law and justice.
Section 121.
    (1) Every one commits an offence who
    (b) [Wright for giving the $90 124.27 to Duffy]
having dealings of any kind with the government, directly or indirectly pays a commission or reward to or confers an advantage or benefit of any kind on an employee or official of the government with which the dealings take place, or to any member of the employee’s or official’s family, or to anyone for the benefit of the employee or official, with respect to those dealings, unless the person has the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government with which the dealings take place;
    (c) [Duffy for taking the $90 124.27 from Wright]
being an official or employee of the government, directly or indirectly demands, accepts     or offers or agrees to accept from a person who has dealings with the government a commission, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person, unless they have the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government that employs them or of which they are an official;
Punishment
    (3) Every one who commits an offence under this section is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

2) Conflict of Interest Act:  
Section 4: [Wright-for making the payment to Duffy]
For the purposes of this Act, a public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests or those of his or her relatives or friends or to improperly further another person’s private interests.
Section 5: [Wright-for making the payment to Duffy, if the claim is that the payment was not related to the exercise of an official function]
Every public office holder shall arrange his or her private affairs in a manner that will prevent the public office holder from being in a conflict of interest.
Section 6: [Wright-for making the payment to Duffy]
    (1) No public office holder shall make a decision or participate in making a decision related to the exercise of an official power, duty or function if the public office holder knows or reasonably should know that, in the making of the decision, he or she would be in a conflict of interest.
Section 8: [Wright-for making the payment to Duffy]
No public office holder shall use information that is obtained in his or her position as a public office holder and that is not available to the public to further or seek to further the public office holder’s private interests or those of the public office holder’s relatives or friends or to improperly further or to seek to improperly further another person’s private interests
Section 9: [Wright-for seeking to influence the senate investigation committee]
No public office holder shall use his or her position as a public office holder to seek to influence a decision of another person so as to further the public office holder’s private interests or those of the public office holder’s relatives or friends or to improperly further another person’s private interests.
Section 49: [requires Dawson to suspend investigation into Duffy/Wright payment when the RCMP charges were presumed]
    (1) The Commissioner shall immediately suspend an examination under section 43, 44 or 45 if
    (a) the Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds that the public office holder or former public office holder has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament in respect of the same subject-matter, in which case the shall notify the relevant authorities; or
    (b) it is discovered that the subject-matter of the examination is also the subject-matter of an investigation to determine whether an offence referred to in paragraph (a) has been committed or that a charge has been laid in respect of that subject-matter.
    (2) The Commissioner may not continue an examination until any investigation or charge in respect of the same subject-matter has been finally disposed of.

3) Conflict of Interest Code for Senators:
Section 17:
(1) [Duffy for accepting the money from Wright]
Neither a Senator, nor a family member, shall accept, directly or indirectly, any gift or other benefit, except compensation authorized by law, that could reasonably be considered to relate to the Senator's position.
Exception
 (2) A Senator, and a family member, may, however, accept gifts or other benefits received as a normal expression of courtesy or protocol, or within the customary standards of hospitality that normally accompany the Senator's position.
Statement: gift or other benefit
 (3) [Duffy for not reporting the money received from Wright within 30 days]
If a gift or other benefit that is accepted under subsection (2) by a Senator or his or her family members exceeds $500 in value, or if the total value of all such gifts or benefits received from one source in a 12-month period exceeds $500, the Senator shall, within 30 days after the gift or benefit is received or after that total value is exceeded, as the case may be, file with the Senate Ethics Officer a statement disclosing the nature and value of the gifts or other benefits, their source and the circumstances under which they were given.
Section 47: [allows the Senate Ethics Officer to suspend their own investigation]
    (1) The Committee or the Senate Ethics Officer may suspend the investigation or inquiry if
    (a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Senator has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament in relation to the same subject matter, in which case the Committee or Senate Ethics Officer, subject to subsection(4), shall notify the proper authorities;
    (b) it is discovered that
        (i) the subject matter under investigation or inquiry is also the subject matter of an investigation to determine if an offence under an Act of Parliament has been committed, or
        (ii) a charge has been laid with respect to that subject matter.
Investigation or inquiry continued
     (2) If the Committee or the Senate Ethics Officer has suspended the investigation or inquiry, it may resume once the other investigation or charge regarding the same subject matter has been finally disposed of.
+++++++++++

None of the "ethics rules" have defined punishment consequences, which is a problem with the law itself, and if anyone knows of another relevant law for the primary incident, the payoff itself, please identify it so it can be listed and considered. I'll leave the list of laws relevant for the secondary incidents (the first approximation) for the next post. That list is a very, very important part for realistic public control.

Since there's a little space left on this post, I'd like to restate that the purpose of this information system is to facilitate realistic public control in a democracy. Realistic public control isn't a trivial matter. It might even be a dream (nightmare?).

Despite the many interpretations of what it even means, from a technical standpoint there aren't many choices, but we need certain things we don't have now. Public control means public decision making. Public decision making requires public discussion.

Public discussion is the key to it all. The nature of the discussion will of course influence the decision making. Which is why the discussion is the critical central element, the cornerstone of realistic public control. Attempts to control the information are attempts to control the decision, and when applied to a legitimate democracy, are attacks on the authority of the people, and so are attacks on our country.

But discussion can't be just a compendium of opinions and arguments, even with a suitable mechanism to determine yes/no on specific things.

There has to be an investigative information system related to that, with a structure that facilitates both the technical and esoteric aspects of governance, and, most important, can produce appropriate actionable objectives. We have to be able to run our country, and there are a lot of details, to put it lightly.

And I'm sure there are many, many in our country who'll try to trick us in to believing there are too many for us to handle. I say that's f**kin' bullshit.

Public control doesn't mean attending to every detail, of course. It's about being able to insert public authority where required. The information system has to facilitate determination of why, where and how that authority should be applied, and that's my overall goal.

The structure for the information system has 2 main parts, the display and the info itself. The display deals with, for eg. for the laws list, even though I've shown the full wording here, on the summary sheet there would be the abbreviated reference label, with a link to the full wording. Or there might be a short summary of the law on the summary sheet, depending on the room available.

People could access more info when desired and in full detail through an abbreviated hierarchy framework, which will allow for much more efficient and intuitive access.

Right now I'm concerned primarily with the nature and fundamental organization of the info itself, and the Duffy/Wright payoff incident is an excellent example for that. Incidents like that are both reflections and windows into the many facilitating underlying perversions (the core rot) of our gov't and society, and it's essential they're also identified and ultimately dealt with. It may only be through other incidents they're even seen. If we want the incidents to stop, we have to deal with the underlying perversions as well.

And keep in mind that I'm illustrating a process of analysis here, and although I'm using "bad" incidents as examples, since in my view they're more pressing, the same analysis is of course valid for "good" incidents too, or anything in between.

Ibid.

had enough

Report #: test1A (cont'd2)

There are a few more primary laws I neglected to include in the last post.

Primary incident law list (cont'd):

1) Criminal code (cont'd):
Person counselling offence [harper, wright, others?]
22. (1) Where a person counsels another person to be a party to an offence and that other person is afterwards a party to that offence, the person who counselled is a party to that offence, notwithstanding that the offence was committed in a way different from that which was counselled.
Idem
(2) Every one who counsels another person to be a party to an offence is a party to every offence that the other commits in consequence of the counselling that the person who counselled knew or ought to have known was likely to be committed in consequence of the counselling.
Definition of “counsel”
(3) For the purposes of this Act, “counsel” includes procure, solicit or incite.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 22;

Other offences — organizations [PC party of canada]
22.2 In respect of an offence that requires the prosecution to prove fault — other than negligence — an organization is a party to the offence if, with the intent at least in part to benefit the organization, one of its senior officers
(a) acting within the scope of their authority, is a party to the offence;
(b) having the mental state required to be a party to the offence and acting within the scope of their authority, directs the work of other representatives of the organization so that they do the act or make the omission specified in the offence; or
(c) knowing that a representative of the organization is or is about to be a party to the offence, does not take all reasonable measures to stop them from being a party to the offence.

Bribery of judicial officers, etc. [wright, tkachuck, stewart-olsen, others?]
119. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who
(a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by them in their official capacity, or
(b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity

Influencing or negotiating appointments or dealing in offices [wright, harper, others?]
125. Every one who
(a) receives, agrees to receive, gives or procures to be given, directly or indirectly, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance or exercise of influence to secure the appointment of any person to an office,
(b) solicits, recommends or negotiates in any manner with respect to an appointment to or resignation from an office, in expectation of a direct or indirect reward, advantage or benefit, or

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 114.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The above laws are a first approximation for the primary incident, which is the payoff itself. For each of these laws there would be the discussion linked to it, which would include comments of whether the law is actually relevant, and whether the written law itself is sufficient to protect us as it's meant to, etc. Those aspects will be discussed in a later post.

Also, which laws to include as primary vs secondary is obvious for some, but others are a matter of opinion.

Secondary incident law list:

Some of the secondary incidents facilitate the primary incident, while others may be consequential, and others may be unrelated, but we just happened to hear about them during this incident, like Duffy trying to influence the CRTC.

And, it's not enough to just list the incidents, the laws have to be included, since they'll be used for the main correlation. Since this is an example, for brevity here I'll just expand the first secondary incident.

Important secondary aspects of primary incident:
    1) changing the result of the senate residency "investigation", to finally say Duffy met the residency requirements, where initially they concluded he didn't
    2) whitewash of senate report on expense fraud for Duffy for political gain
    3) external interference in the senate investigation process for political gain
    4) criminal conspiracy within the senate and house of commons
    5) inadequacy of senate qualifications "rules"
    6) gov't twisting everything to trick people in to believing they're doing the right thing, when in fact they're trying to promote their own interests, such as fast tracking the sacrificing of Wallin, Brazeau, Duffy, etc., which is an attempt to shut down further investigation
    7) parliament ethics officer Dawson covering up for Wright, and other "friends", previously
    8) Duffy being tipped off by Tkachuk (on Apr.16, the same day he was briefed by the auditors on the findings) about fraudulent expense claims, so Duffy could appear to come forward himself
    9) senate and who knows how many other appointments being given as rewards to faithful "friends", regardless of the cost to our country, how many other appointments made by harper are people of the same type
    10) political campaigning secretly being charged to the senate
    11) need to have secret and other rulings of all committees reviewed
    12) decrees by "ethics" officers can't be questioned-this is totally unacceptable
    13) did Duffy use his position on TV to secretly campaign for harper in the relevant election, which was just before he was appointed to the senate by harper (was the senate position a pay-off, and is that why they want him to shut up now)
    14) "conservative fund of canada", a taxpayer subsidised entity (I believe), was originally going to pay the amount;
    15) duffy's attempt to influence the CRTC in favour of Sun Media request for mandatory carriage
    16) when duffy repaid the money, he offered to meet with the auditors, but the senate committee claimed his co-operation was no longer needed, and that it would "delay the process", which is simply an excuse to keep duffy quiet-evidence of extended perversion of the senate process-an is an eg. of disgusting tactic of deception, where the senate committee didn't want Duffy to speak to the auditors with the justification it would "just delay the process", and they didn't want any "more" delays; the first delay being because they themselves added more work for the auditors, I believe. They obviously were manipulating the investigation process to benefit their political party, but tried to claim it was to benefit the people
    17) for housing issue, how "the party" embraced a technical definition of “shall be resident”, which is a reflection of a common, vile tactic which is used often, such as for muzzling scientists
    18) fraudulent gov't positions, like the "ethics" offices, but many others
    19) shows that a committee with harperites in majority was corrupt, and all of their actions must be reviewed, as with all committees
    20) inadequacy of senate appointment, housing and expense "rules"
    21) general inadequacy of senate investigation process oversight
    22) constant lies from the gov't, with no consequences whatsoever
    23) The court documents reveal for the first time that Mr. Duffy appeared to be worried about losing his seat in the Senate if he stopped claiming that his primary residence was in PEI. The lawyers for Nigel Wright, the prime minister’s former chief of staff, told RCMP that Mr. Wright had assured Mr. Duffy that would not occur.-how could Wright say that, when that's supposed to be a decision of a committee, - another reflection of the external control on the senate committee
    24) secret political "funds",details of these for all parties needed, why aren't they illegal and what is required to make them illegal, if necessary
    25) ...

Details of secondary incident 1):
1) Tkachuk et al. conspiring to change the result of the senate residency "investigation", to finally say Duffy met the residency requirements, where initially they concluded he didn't (which was suggested in e-mails, apparently)
Apparently relevant laws:
    a) Conflict of interest code for senators: [tkachuck, stewart-olsen, others?]
RULES OF CONDUCT
8. Furthering private interests
10. (1) Use of information
10. (2) Conveying information
12. (1) Declaration of a private interest: Senate or committee
12. (4) Debate where Senator has not yet declared
14. Prohibition on voting
    b) Conflict of Interest Act, S.C. 2006, c. 9, s. 2 [wright, harper, others?]
8. Insider information
9. Influence
    c) Criminal code, RSC 1985, c C-46 [wright, harper, tkachuck, stewart-olsen, others?]
Parties to Offences
22. (1), (2) Person counselling offence
22.2 (a), (b), (c) Other offences-organizations
Corruption and Disobedience
119. (1) (a), (b) Bribery of judicial officers, etc.
121. (1) (b), (c) Frauds on the government
125 (a), (b) Influencing or negotiating appointments or dealing in offices
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The purpose of the secondary incident and law list is to ensure we identify the many, many underlying perversions in our society, so we can deal with the core rot. Most of the perversions that facilitate the disgusting primary incidents will likely never be seen except as secondary incidents (will usually be much more serious than the primary, probably).

The ability to correlate both the primary and secondary incidents is an essential part of realistic public control, in my opinion. Another essential part is that we can be made aware of what needs to be taken care of, and the secondary list helps provide that.

Ibid.

wage zombie

I just heard of a software project that is pretty similar to what you're talking about.  The project is Liquid Feedback:

http://liquidfeedback.org

There's also a link to a live demo, there's not much content but gives you a picture of what it does:

http://dev.liquidfeedback.org/lf2/

 

had enough

wage zombie,

Thanks very much for the links.

Though related to my work, the "liquidfeedback" process appears to be a technical mechanism for decision-making by groups of people. I would use that process (or other similar ones) at defined points within my information system, but it's not the same as what I'm doing.

I haven't downloaded the program yet, since I'm on a borrowed computer, but the proposition development process looks interesting from the summary and I'm looking forward to seeing what they have.

There are several key requirements that I believe are essential for realistic public control, and one of those is that there's a mechanism like liquidfeedback to manage the technical discussion when it comes to a point for discussion. But, fortunately, that aspect can be developed independently (if necessary) by others.

My focus is to create a complete, trusted and consistent public information resource (searchable and investigative database, not the physical decision mechanisms) designed so it will facilitate public discussion and decision-making, over the widest possible range, by providing enough info in a suitable standard format.

"Enough info" and "suitable standard format" are of course the key aspects, and those are the subjects of the current discussion.

Again, thanks very much for the links.

Ibid

had enough

I knew that the Duffy/Wright payoff incident would be a good one to use as an example. Most have likely heard that there are more details coming out about who was involved and just what happened, so the story is constantly evolving. The info for these details would be added to the appropriate section (within the appropriate hierarchy), which would be easy if the database was up and running. Since it isn't, I won't update the previous info, but will use any new info where appropriate.

The primary and secondary law lists are essential elements of public control, since they'll form the main basis for the "technical" discussion of the incident, and so in the determination and correlation of what should be done. This would be as a link to the appropriate law in the above list.

Now we need to judge whether our laws are adequate. This is dealing with the primary incident, since the secondary law list is mainly for identification and correlation, and they'd be discussed in their own database entry.

In order to identify and judge all the relevant laws, it's necessary to define specific focus points related to the basic nature of the primary incident.

For the duffy/wright payoff incident, it appears that:

    a)Wright (gov't agent then) secretly gave Duffy (sitting senator then) a large sum of money, neither having the proper written permission, claiming it was a gift
    b)Duffy didn't declare the receipt of the money within the required time
    c)the money was part of a larger deal, which would provide numerous significant benefits to Duffy, in exchange for action and inaction on the part of Duffy
    d)part of the deal to accept the money involved a promise by Wright that a senate judicial process related to his expenses would be manipulated in Duffy's favour, on several points
    e)another part of the deal was that a senate judicial process related to Duffy's residency would be manipulated to be in Duffy's favour
    f)many individuals in the "conservative" party were involved over an extended period
    g)Duffy may have been threatened with loss of his senate office if he didn't co-operate
    h) the "conservative party" stood to benefit by removing embarrassing public relations before an election
    i)there have been attempts by gov't agents to gain insider info from auditors, and there may have been attempts to influence the audit
    j) ???...

There are other points related to the "secondary" incidents, like the criminal manipulation of the senate investigation process, and they've been listed previously. Most of the above points have been presented previously, and I'm just bringing them here so they're nearer the discussion. In the database, the discussion of the laws would be accessed as a link in the law hierarchy.

**PLEASE NOTE: Up to now, the information has been "factual" in the sense that, even though some of the details are matters of opinion, such as which laws are relevant, the goal at this point isn't to decide which laws are relevant, but only to record that it's been suggested these laws are relevant for these reasons.

The ultimate goal for my discussion here is to identify consistencies in the evaluation of all laws, in order to use that as a basis for correlation (standard category labels), as well as ensuring that any potential variations in the discussion can be also be accommodated within the same framework.

Report #: test1A (cont'd3)

The following point was recorded earlier:

a)Wright (gov't agent then) secretly gave Duffy (sitting senator then) a large sum of money, neither having the required written permission, claiming it was a gift

    Apparently relevant laws (only one shown, for brevity):

1) Criminal code:
Part IV Offences against the administration of law and justice.
Section 121.
(1) Every one commits an offence who
    (b) [Wright for giving the $90 124.27 to Duffy]
having dealings of any kind with the government, directly or indirectly pays a commission or reward to or confers an advantage or benefit of any kind on an employee or official of the government with which the dealings take place, or to any member of the employee’s or official’s family, or to anyone for the benefit of the employee or official, with respect to those dealings, unless the person has the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government with which the dealings take place;
(3) Every one who commits an offence under this section is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Law discussion 1 (CC, section 121(1)(b) and (3)): (not all categories may be filled)
    (a) intent of law
-apparently to deal with gov't agents using their position for gain, specifically declaring the giver of the benefit as a criminal, putting the duty of oversight on to the head of the relevant branch of gov't
    (b) functional result of law
-to transfer "authority" over the giving of gifts by any entity to a public agent, to the head of the relevant branch of gov't, this paragraph apparently absolving the giver of the gift of culpability if written permission is granted, but whether culpability is transferred to the head of the gov't branch is not specifically stated (it's implied, though); so a question is, if the head of the gov't branch OK'd criminal actions, does that mean they aren't criminal actions any more?
-is the functional result of the law sufficient for what we need
    (c) law history flowchart-???
    (d) is letter of the law consistent with intent
-interpretations of terms could be a problem: "dealings" meant to refer to financial only?; or is something like "standing within the "party"; "fulfilling party commitments"; or simply "approval of the leader" included; "commission, reward, etc.", "with respect to those dealings", "with which the dealings take place",
    (e) how does the law relate to this incident
-appears to be directly relevant, depending on the interpretation of terms, so the interpretations have to be clarified first
    (f) current specific interpretations of the existing law-???
    (g) subtle aspects of the law-???
    (h) the law's place within the overall law framework
-this section is to ensure that we can relate this law to others, such as ultimately the "constitution"
-this law is part of the criminal code (show other relevant details, possibly a hierarchy flowchart)
    (i) is defined punishment range adequate
-the above stated maximum for the offence is better than having no info, but we also have to include the real life ranges, where relevant; if the max. is 5 yrs, but the usual sentence given out is 1 month probation, that puts it into an entirely different light; so we need to have more info on sentencing
    (j) apparent problems with the current text of the law
-appears to be financially oriented, but "benefits" can mean other things
    (k) summary of points of specific contention
-several terms need specific definitions
-need more info on real consequences, such as real sentences
    (l) summary of proposed changes (if relevant) incl. desired intent
-changes to the written law would at least deal with clarifying the meanings of terms
    (m) problems with current law using "what if" scenarios, etc., what is still allowed, etc.
-what if: the emperor itself, harper, had given written permission for Wright to give the money to Duffy, and LeBreton (I assume) gave written permission for Duffy to receive the money; what is the culpability of the givers of permission
    (n) correlation to other incidents where this law is relevant, related to the current surrounding circumstances, background, etc. -???
    (o) relationship to fundamental governance
-this law deals with the most basic requirement for democracy, that gov't agents can't use their public office for personal gain
    (p) ???

This part is one of the essential aspects of realistic public control, in my opinion. We've seen something happen that we don't think should have happened, the incident. In order to deal with it, we've recorded the identifying details, including the laws supposedly meant to address the problems, and now are discussing whether the laws are adequate, one by one.

The discussion of specific laws can be put in to a standard format, even though not all the categories may be filled for each, just like the overall incident discussion. Each of these points need an associated discussion mechanism, of course, which I think would be of 2 general types.

One would be a simple agree/disagree process, where the precise wording isn't necessarily critical. The other would be where exact wording makes a big difference, such as for proposed changes in the written law.

Since this section is essential, it demands a bit of discussion regarding how exactly to do it, and here's where I'd very much appreciate some comments. Part of the discussion requires taking the law out of the current context, and evaluating the various potential interpretations of specific terms and overall meaning.

Another part is about whether we see the current written law as acceptable, so does the law protect us how we interpret that it should in this case. Here's where we have to have more info on the real penalties, not just maximums.

We also have to be able to investigate as needed, such as to see where in the process for the application of the written law there's a problem. That's started by looking at the appropriate authority hierarchy flowchart, identifying at which point the perceived problem is first seen and taking it from there.

The above categories for the law discussion are a first approximation, and the goal is to use terms that will be consistent when considering most, if not all, laws (etc.).

(cont'd next post)

Ibid

had enough

The previous post started the discussion process for individual laws.

In my opinion, this is by far the most important facet in realistic public control. We have to have the ability (if we choose) to absolutely fully discuss our laws. The question is how, since laws are an expression of (public) will (which is why they're so important) as well as a specific technical mechanism.

Some laws appear to be very complex, and some have been made needlessly long and complex in what I see as a traitorous attempt to deceive and limit the ability of the people to interpret the laws. But even the most complex subject can be made manageable with good organization.

The law discussion is like the incident sheet in that there'll be standard info consistent for virtually all entries, and there'll be variable elements unique to one or more entries.

For the law discussion, standard info would be what you might think of if asked to open a random law book to a random page, and pick a law to evaluate, without any other context initially, purely in the public interest. You can read and investigate however you want from there, but focussed on the evaluation of that specific law. What points of info would you use to investigate and evaluate.

Law discussion-standard categories which should be relevant for the vast majority of laws:

(1) law history flowchart
(2) position in law hierarchy
(3) authority hierarchy to street for application of the law, who has oversight at what points
(4) intent of law (reasoning for law)
(5) relevant background info
(6) letter of law
(7) is letter of law consistent with intent
(8) is defined punishment range adequate
(9) apparent problems with the current text of the law, incl. problems with current law using "what if" scenarios, etc., what's still allowed, etc.
(10) current specific interpretations of the existing law, real application of the law
(11) subtle aspects of the law
(12) is the law suitable
(13) does the law apply to the current incident
(14) correlation to other incidents where this law is relevant
(15) comparison to foreign laws, etc.
(16) proposed changes to written law, incl. desired intent (summary linked to full discussion)
(17) technical procedure for change
(18) relationship to fundamental governance
(19) summary of points of specific contention
(20) keywords
(21) etc.

Some of the above list are factual and some are points for discussion, and they're just the current approximation. It's with this particular section, which I believe is absolutely essential to realistic public control, where I'd very much appreciate some input.

I was trying to think of points of info which are relevant for the vast majority of, if not all, laws, regardless of context. All laws have a history and intent, for eg.

So I ask the following of those interested.

You likely already read the above list, but don't review it any more. If told that next week you were going to have to review a random law, and that you were expected to have a procedure ready, what would you do. Any procedure would have to be a list of points of info relevant for all laws, so what would they be.

It's not only the points of info that are important, but also the order you consider them, and the absolute and relative relationships you see in each. Some of the above points may be as sub-headings under others, but this isn't about the organization, just the info.

Are any of your points different or not included in the above list?

Since I'm already asking for input, I'll be more brazen and include a request for opinions regarding the information display format for the main incident summary sheet. There's a bit more to the other part, but soon the question will be how to display the info so most people will be willing to use it regularly.

The main incident summary sheet is the page you'd go to when the report #, for eg., is queried.

Continuing to use the Wright/Duffy bribery incident example, I recall that during the senate expense incident, I heard that Duffy had repaid the money he apparently owed in full, but that someone else had actually paid the bill, for unknown reasons.

The first thing I thought, probably like most others who were interested, was that I wanted to find out more about it. No judgements yet, what are the facts. By a link in a news story or through the database search engine, etc., I'm looking at the incident summary page.

I'd expect to see certain info there, as everyone would. What exactly happened, why it's a problem, and who are involved are 3 points I want to see together right away. That's just to get oriented.

Since I assert it's essential discussions relate directly to the laws, the summary page would also show the list of laws deemed relevant.

The purpose of the summary page is to provide enough info so when a person wants to find out about and discuss something, they don't have to wade through vast pages of text looking for a relevant paragraph or link.

When I visualize looking at the summary page for the Wright/Duffy bribery, another thing I would also usually want to know is the current status of any investigations. Here there'd be 5 listed, as far as I know right now.

Status of Investigations (wright/duffy bribe1; incident report # test1A):
1) Deloitte audit of senate residency for Duffy/Wallin/Harb?/Brazeau: (unrelated) concluded?-law discussion;
2) Senate Board of Internal Economy Committee investigation in to housing and expense claims by Duffy, etc.: (unrelated); concluded?; investigation discussion
3) senate ethics investigation: suspended-law discussion; investigation discussion
4) commons ethics investigation: suspended-law discussion; investigation discussion
5) RCMP investigation: active (phase?); investigation discussion.

Each of those points would link to the details, of course. The initial labels will provide enough to decide whether you want or need to look more in to it. "Unrelated" refers to the fact that these weren't investigating the payment (current incident), but were going on at the same time in the same context.

A click on " senate ethics investigation" would link to the technical details of that, and on "suspended" would bring up the statement as to why it is, including relevant laws.

"Law discussion" refers to "suspended" and the law(s) allowing that. That discussion would be a common page for other incidents which include an ethics "investigation", and the current incident sheet wouldn't have more on that aspect, probably.

Status of investigations includes committees, etc.; and it would be one of the fixed highlights on the incident summary page. Investigations, etc. are part of the mechanism of control, so if "the people" are going to have real control, we have to be able to manage investigations such as this, and more.

Managing investigations doesn't mean being constantly involved in the minute details of the investigation itself. Just like for managing our country. The essential aspect is that we can exert our authority when we see the need to, which means we have to determine where, when and how we need to.

Exerting public authority is a duty I hope we'll all take very very seriously.

And doing it may not be as difficult as it may seem at first. The main incident summary page isn't meant to show all the information, it's to ensure that critical aspects of public control are highlighted in order to simplify navigation of the information.
 
"Authority hierarchy tree" is another fixed highlight, and the minimum we'd expect is Duffy's place in the senate and conservative party structures, and Wright's place in the conservative party and the gov't. So there'd be 4. More would be added when relevant.

For the que. police incident mentioned much earlier, one authority tree would be the line of orders down to the 3 police within the quebec police department itself. The 3 police were acting under orders of some kind, so either those orders were originally corrupt, or they were corrupted somewhere along the technical law application hierarchy. Having the actual flowchart for orders will allow us to identify and understand where and how within the defined authority structure the orders were perverted resulting in the disgusting, criminal tactics used by the 3 police. That will enable us to correlate, in order to get deeper in to the core corruption. The 3 police must be punished, but so must their masters.

"Secondary incidents" and "Actionable objectives" would be other fixed highlights.

It's a truism that every single person in the world has a unique way of looking at things. But that doesn't mean an info system can't be devised which virtually everyone can use to easily navigate the potentially vast amount of inter-related data that would arguably be relevant for issues being discussed. There are simplifying factors such as relevant fundamental dichotomies in society, and a number of others.

Please keep in mind that I'm trying to facilitate a process of public analysis that's equally valid for "good" incidents and other applications. I'm using "bad" incidents as examples for 3 reasons. The first is that the example issues are relatively current and very important to our country; the second is that we have to start somewhere, and all types of issues/incidents will ultimately be accommodated; and the third and perhaps most important, that they may help generate the kind of emotion we're going to need.

Post end drawing near, so to reiterate the current thing, I'd appreciate input on the law discussion reference points, asking how you would generally evaluate a law; and also what you'd like to see right away on an incident summary sheet for something like the Wright/Duffy bribe, to use as a starting point; what would you highlight on a main page.

Ibid.

had enough

The ability to appropriately discuss all laws is one of several essential aspects of realistic public control. When we want to, of course. Fortunately, the individual law discussion format can be developed independently of the main info system, even though it might be extensive.

It might be extensive because it's not just the technical part, which is the exact wording of the law, potential interpretations, etc.; but also the conceptual aspect, which is whether we find the law suitable, are the penalties just (real and theoretical), etc.

The technical part is straightforward, but the conceptual part is more complicated, since it involves deciding not just what we want, but why we want it. Some of the points in the previous list are related to that part of the discussion, and they cover a number of aspects of that, but there'll be a few more.

I'm not going in to that further right now, since it's much better to tweak that through different real examples and at least a few others to provide other viewpoints. At this point it's just a matter of process for that, and it can be done at relative leisure.

As a bit of an aside, please consider the following comments.

I'd have to see real proof that there's ever been a more traitorous government in canada than the harperite regime. We've always had liars, thieves and cheats...parasites; and we're still full of those. And we've had what many consider traitors, like those responsible for the Avro cancellation and the sale of PotashCorp to foreign interests, critical national industries; and many, many others.

But never has there been such a perversion as exists now. Never has there been such a traitorous abomination.

The vile harper regime is by far the greatest threat our country has ever faced; utter contempt for the people; insane intolerance for anyone else's opinions and rights; book-burning; constant perversion of the gov't process to promote his and his (domestic and foreign) friend's interests; secret laws, constant lies and secrecy; blatant and continuous theft of public funds; constantly openly and secretly usurping public authority for his and his domestic and foreign friends interests; fraudulent gov't offices created to deceive and use the people; constant attacks on democracy (including the soon to be imposed "term limits", etc., etc., etc..........); and, despicably and unbelievably, more that's even worse.

Soon I'm going to start an info sheet on that, and so won't expand any of those observations now. I list them here to show that I see many horrific perversions of our country under the insanity of the traitorous harper (puppet) dictatorship. (Economic diplomacy?!!??!!!-I demand to know the exact details of that. I thought I'd heard everything. Absolute insanity. Are we going to become intimately involved with blood diamonds, etc.? Is our national morality going on an exchange of some kind?)

Something has to be done, and yelling and stamping our feet aren't doing any good. Through democracy is the only way we can do anything. But, it's no where near good enough to just hope to elect a "good person" next time. Democracy is a hell of a lot more than a vote once in a blue moon.
 
Up to now I've outlined an information process, initially focussed on the "incident", that I think will allow us to ultimately identify and correlate the vast majority, if not all, issues and incidents we'll have to face related to public control.

Identification and correlation are 2 of the things we need from the info system, and how to achieve that has already been addressed.

Analysis of incidents is a reaction. Something happened that's bad or good, and we want to understand it, including what we can do about it. Of course, realistic public control can't be just reaction. To be proactive we have to discuss "issues". Issues are pretty much everything that isn't an incident, like free trade agreements, changes in law that aren't associated with a current incident, etc., etc.

The only real distinction I make between incidents and issues is in how the discussion is brought to the attention of the people. After that they're functionally the same, having factual standard info and variable unique and other info.

The discussion aspect is the most difficult. Different styles of discussion require different specific background info, and that will be expanded as we deal with more things.

But, there's also another set of background info that we need as a constant reference. This would take the form, most likely, of short essays and shorter responses to specific points. For eg., an important one might have the title "Tactics of deception."

"Tactics of deception." would be a very important general information sheet. It would point out not only the classical tactics, but also others that are relevant, noting current examples, and could be referenced when relevant.

Another important info sheet might be "Democracy isn't justice." And as part of that or as another might be "Democracy isn't a weapon." "Typical methods used to divert public money in to private pockets." would be a useful one, as would, "How many ways can our laws be perverted." (I've identified 11 ways so far.).

One of the more important ones might be, "When do we have the right to impose our will on others.", and perhaps, "When we impose our will on others, we have to expect others to try to impose thier will on us."

And another one or two might deal with how just because something is supported by the majority, it doesn't mean the minority is just going to accept it. There are issues, like free speech, which individuals must claim as an absolute right. Or at least which I do. "Tyranny of the majority" is what I'm talking about, of course.

Background info sheets like that are going to be very important, especially at the beginning. Who would write those sheets? I'd start it out, I've got a fair sized list of subjects in different areas (not yet written), then we can look at the process and tweak it and add more. Ultimately these sheets will be based on input, but there needs to be a relatively standard format.

As far as the information itself, and some of the presentation of the info, I think I've outlined the main things.

When confronted with an incident/issue we'll have: physical details; list of associated laws; discussions and comments about the incident and the related laws and be able to record other points that haven't been defined; related background info in case we want it; proposed changes in law and associated discussions, when relevant; a list of secondary incidents, including a law list but no discussion, within the primary incident; and a format to simplify the navigation of the info.

With that, of course, we need an actual technical mechanism for public voting. All  the discussion in the world isn't going to matter if we can't translate that in to decision. As mentioned before, I don't have to create that part. There are several individuals and groups already working on that, and what I've seen on the internet looks fairly decent so far. I don't think that part is going to be a problem.

I believe an information system like what I'm proposing is an essential element of realistic public control, notwithstanding the clumsily verbose way I've presented it so far.

The internet is really what's making this possible. There are other means to receive and distribute info, but the internet is what's going to make national public control actually realistic. Unfortunately, that makes the info system susceptible to the kinds of technical problems and specific attacks that regularly occur on the internet. "How the internet input process is a prime target for sabotage." would be a relevant general info sheet there.

That problem is going to be the same no matter what. Thankfully there are many others who would probably help there if they thought it was a worthwhile project.

Even without sabotage, the potentially large volume of reports, including parts within each, is a formidable hurdle. But not insurmountable. Naturally at the beginning there'll be many many incidents to evaluate. But we don't have to look at every one right away. Judicious choice of the first few will point to the many underlying facilitating incidents.

For eg., for the Wright/Duffy bribe, one of the important secondary incidents was the criminal manipulation of the senate expense investigation and report. Changing the senate report to be less critical of Duffy was one of the conditions of the bribe.

If that couldn't be one of the conditions, because we had a sufficient set of laws to make sure it can be both detected and dealt with appropriately (which I say has to be very very large fines as well as significant jail time), the bribe might not have happened. It may be that the other conditions were enough to still make it go ahead, but if that one was important enough to whoever, it might have stopped the whole thing.

That harper (or anyone) can manipulate the senate committee (judicial) process in that way is a main facilitating factor in this criminal perversion of our gov't, and how he can do that is the relevant question. He can do that because he can arbitrarily appoint individuals to the senate (because it's what our laws define), and when he has a majority of followers in the senate, he can install his most loyal servants as a majority for all senate committees (which is why?).

Criminal perversion of the senate processes is obviously a far greater issue than the bribe itself, not meaning in any way to minimize the great seriousness of the bribe. Those people involved in the bribe must be held accountable, but solving the problems with the senate will go much farther to ensuring that kind of thing doesn't happen again.

As it happens, we would look at the senate committee perversions themselves in order to hold accountable any who were part of that, but discussions of changes in laws might be irrelevant, for eg. if the senate were abolished. So that part might be deferred, with a link to the abolishing the senate info sheet.

There are a few more things, but I think they can be dealt with as they become relevant.

A couple of incidents have provided the main part of the physical public analysis framework. This framework is a list of points of info which are specifically relevant for the required social discussions. To expand the framework (possibly), different kinds of issues have to be examined.

"Should we abolish the senate" is an important current issue that should illustrate the utility of this info system, and "How can we evaluate the national economy." is an essential info sheet. I want to look at both of those, but it's going to take a bit of time, since I haven't done anything on them yet. If anyone would like to contribute on those from the start, please post as such, otherwise I'm going to do it offline until I get decent initial structures, which will take who knows how long.

Ibid.

mark_alfred

had enough wrote:
The "incident database", or something like it, is essential if "the people" are ever going to be able to realistically exert control in our country. If "we're" ever going to truly save our country, this is one of the things we need, independent of anything else.

This particular discussion wouldn't be about debating any specific social issues, just how to present information about complex, inter-related incidents and issues in a way that's going to facilitate public discussion, decision-making and dynamic control. For real. And for everyone.

Do you think that's too much for this web-site?

I don't think you could achieve this using a "simple Excel spreadsheet".  Perhaps a wiki, like mediawiki (which powers wikipedia and uses MySQL) or moinmoin, with preset heading fields to structure entries (as you laid out in post #30) might work.  Or drupal (which rabble uses) might also work, or some other content management system.

had enough

Thank you very much for your comments, Mark.

I have virtually no knowledge in the specific technical requirements to take this work to the internet, right now at least. In the long past I have done a bit of programming in Fortran, and recently have done a few complex and highly inter-related spreadsheet programs, but have never looked at MySQL or the other programs since there was no reason to.

Over the last few months I've started to look at the wikipedia style of presentation, etc., and although the idea is the same, ie. an info sheet based on dynamic public input, the format would differ in a couple of ways. I can explain in fairly good detail what I want, and I was hoping that perhaps you and others like yourself would advise and help with the actual physical contruction.

If there were only a few people, an Excel style spreadsheet/database would work fine.

On a Sat. afternoon everyone could gather at the house, and each look at the same background info and details as everyone else. We could discuss the issue/incident over coffee or beer or whatever, and each person would ensure that details they think are important are included at the right place so they can be properly considered by all. There's no need to memorize anything.

Some points within the standard info sheet are highlighted in some way, which indicates there's a further discussion and/or info associated with that point; and/or there's a decision point within it somewhere.

So for the Wright/Duffy bribe, the main info sheet would show the various details, and also list, as previously stated, the "investigations" which are supposed to be going on, as well as thier current status. Since our group had already discussed the bribe itself last weekend, today we click on the link for the House of Commons "ethics" investigation, since it's shown as being suspended, but it's highlighted and there's a note stating it's believed that suspending that investigation is an example of the fraudulent nature of that office. And we start to look at those details, including a list of other "investigations", etc. which appear to be further examples of the corrupt nature of that office.

By the end of the evening, we've defined and recorded a number of other points of info we want to find out (initial actionable objectives), and the general consensus would likely be that it certainly appears that that "ethics" office is fraudulent, being nothing more than a branch of the (criminal) organization in power, and it's purpose is to deceive the people by providing a cloak to conceal criminal activities of thier agents.

Whether that's definitely true or not requires further investigation and discussion in the public sphere, and we start to think about the criteria we want to ensure that that office, and all other gov't offices, can't be perverted in that way (or any way) any more, and how to be able to find out and ensure that those responsible are held fully accountable right now.

Etc., etc.

That's the kind of scenario I'm using as a guide. The essence that has to be maintained. Taking that to the internet is the current question.

Wikipedia is a good starting example, since a query brings up a standard info page that contains links, and has a means for public input. This info system will bring up a standard page in response to the initial query, and it would contain several different types of links in exactly the same way as wikipedia.

The input mechanism can't be the same, though, since I believe wikipedia allows individuals to change the data on the summary page, and then it has to be changed back if there's some problem with it. That wouldn't work well for the incident database since the potential for sabotage is so high. And wikipedia is rightly criticized that many of the entries related to certain topics are manipulated to only present one side of the issue. My highest priority is that that doesn't happen to this info system.

The data input process is a critical part, and the integrity of that is going to determine whether this is going to work. There'd be at least 4 distinct types of input: 1) starting a new incident sheet, 2) entering and changing factual details on existing incident sheet, 3) entering opinion/comment on existing incident sheet, 4) adding general background reference sheets to the resource library. All input would be through input pages with a standard format.

Once input is entered, it has to be vetted somehow. Each style of input requires a bit of a different treatment. Fortunately, since my goal is simply to provide sufficient info for discussion, even questionable data inputs can be displayed so as not to corrupt the nature of the discussion and decision process itself. I've got a number of ideas there and will deal with that a bit later.

So the data input process would differ from wikipedia, and there's another difference, since this info system will also incorporate decision points of several types. Fortunately, the technical part of the decision mechanism is being well developed by others, and from the fairly little I've seen so far, it will be easy to fully integrate those in to the overall framework with a simple link and relatively few minor graphic changes.

So I think the only real sticking point is the data input/vetting process, including the choices of how to graphically display the various input. That's more of an organization issue, rather than technical. So I don't think I'm suggesting anything that isn't already done. Do you see anything that might cause a problem in the programming for this?

Also, one of the important aspects used for correlation would of course be a search engine using the data entry page format. This will allow for real dynamic control by allowing us to investigate according to the standard info network, which will allow us to make the essential correlations between our written laws, those who are supposed to be honestly creating and applying those laws, and the real effect of those laws at street level. I don't know what kind of memory or programming requirements there might be for 1 search term vs 10, so that's another part where I'd definitely appreciate help.

There's time for that, though, since there's more to do yet with respect to the basic information. I downloaded a free web-page builder, Webdwarf, and have started to look at the graphic format for the input page, etc., but I don't think that's needed for the other aspects.

So, given the above scenario, I think the next step as far as the database programming is to list the pros and cons of the different programs you mentioned, and also try to understand whatever nuances might be relevant. Right now I have no idea which would be better. Any further advice would be greatly appreciated.

I don't know if it would be better to have a different thread for the purely technical aspect or use this one, but next post I wanted to put out a list of points of info relevant for the senate. The senate "discussion" right now is a perfect example of how we need a much better way to evaluate and discuss things like that. There's a hell of a lot that's fundamentally wrong with our country right now, and if we're going to really fix things, we have to take a much more reasoned approach.

We have a duty to our children to not leave the utterly preposterous situation we have now for them to have to deal with too.

If this was up and running, we'd already have a technical fact sheet for the senate which would be a common reference for any number of discussions. I'm going to list the points of info I think might be important, and I hope others will point out any others they feel are needed. Whatever you think about the senate, what points of data would you use in your argument.

Thanks again for the comments, Mark. It's time to start thinking about the actual programming, and any help is greatly appreciated.

Ibid.

wage zombie

had enough wrote:

Over the last few months I've started to look at the wikipedia style of presentation, etc., and although the idea is the same, ie. an info sheet based on dynamic public input, the format would differ in a couple of ways. I can explain in fairly good detail what I want, and I was hoping that perhaps you and others like yourself would advise and help with the actual physical contruction.

IMO this is wishful thinking.  I'm not trying to flame or troll you here--this is just constructive criticism.  If you want technical people to help with this you will either need a budget or you will need to inspire them.  Most good web developers have a backlog of their own personal projects that they would like to start, and so you if you are doing this withouta budget, you need to be able to inspire people enough to put their own projects on the backburner.

You have a good idea that you'd like to develop but you don't have the technical skills to build it.  Most people with the technical skills have loads of their own ideas.  So that's the conundrum for you.

I have worked a lot with drupal and some with mediawiki.  From what I can tell, the closest platform to what you're talking about is Liquid Democracy, and so I recommended it to you as something to check out.  I've never used it, but it looks fairly polished, and it claims to do exactly what you're talking about wanting.  So I would strongly recommend trying that out.

If you don't want to go to that length, I'd recommend that you set up some kind of blog and so that you can put these ideas in a more visible place.  Babble doesn't really work so well for in-depth conversations where people are posting a page worth of thoughts at a time.  You're pretty much monologuing here.  And there's nothing wrong with that, I'm not complaining.  It's just not serving your project very well.

I think the ideas that what you've been defining here is a system that people intuitively understand that is needed, and that's why you're not getting much response.  Everyone knows it's needed, but nobody really know how to make it happen, or how they can help without donating HUGE HUGE HUGE amounts of their time.

The thing is, other people have built what you are talking about.  I think you will have better success by seeking them out and seeing what they are doing and by continuing to write about the very specific ways that you see your idea being implemented.

An Excel spreadsheet is not really something that people can use to collaborate, IMO.  These days, if people can't have a good experience interacting with a system while using their phone, that system is dead in the water.  If it is supposed to have mass appeal.

Apologies for any negativity in this post, it really is meant to be contructive.

sherpa-finn

WZ: I thought that was a very incisive, constructive and sensitive post. Nicely done.

had enough

Thanks very much for your comments, wage zombie.

 

[[IMO this is wishful thinking. I'm not trying to flame or troll you here--this is just constructive criticism. If you want technical people to help with this you will either need a budget or you will need to inspire them. Most good web developers have a backlog of their own personal projects that they would like to start, and so you if you are doing this withouta budget, you need to be able to inspire people enough to put their own projects on the backburner.

You have a good idea that you'd like to develop but you don't have the technical skills to build it. Most people with the technical skills have loads of their own ideas. So that's the conundrum for you.]]

Believe me I don't have any illusions about this. And as someone who's also working on other projects, I know that for anyone to help with the technical part it has to look worth it. Fortunately there's still time for that, and the other aspects aren't dependent on it. Actually I'm not really worried about it. If absolutely necessary I will do it myself, but that means that much longer. I wanted to put it out there so when the time comes everyone knows that any input would be greatly appreciated.

 

[[I have worked a lot with drupal and some with mediawiki. From what I can tell, the closest platform to what you're talking about is Liquid Democracy, and so I recommended it to you as something to check out. I've never used it, but it looks fairly polished, and it claims to do exactly what you're talking about wanting. So I would strongly recommend trying that out.]]

I looked at the Liquid Democracy website, but unfortunately much of the info is in German. I've looked at Liquidfeedback and a couple of others like that also, and they all appear to be only technical decision mechanisms.

My work is not a technical decision mechanism, it's an integrated public information system that will incorporate technical decision points. I'm just going on what's available free on the internet, but put another way it seems that Liquid Democracy defines a system based on the proposal (or whatever you want to call it), so the info supports individual proposals, whereas I say we have to have a common info system where the proposals can be reasoned from the data. My system also does a lot more than any of those.

"Reasoned from the data" is the elephant in the room, of course. And it's that aspect I'm particularly interested in now. What kind of data is needed. I say it's not nearly as complicated as it might seem.

[[If you don't want to go to that length, I'd recommend that you set up some kind of blog and so that you can put these ideas in a more visible place. Babble doesn't really work so well for in-depth conversations where people are posting a page worth of thoughts at a time. You're pretty much monologuing here. And there's nothing wrong with that, I'm not complaining. It's just not serving your project very well.]]

This site is serving my project well. I've considered a blog, and will do that later, but for this initial work having too much response isn't a good thing. I appreciate the opportunity to monologue since it helps organise my own thoughts.

Don't take that to mean I don't seek and value input. The truth is totally the opposite. But, until there's a more coherent full structure, I know it's unreasonable to expect others to see the whole picture like I do. I'm coming up on specific applications that I think it will clarify things for many who are interested, and make it easier for others to comment.

Hopefully by the fall I'll have a web-site to display test pages, in order to help develop the graphic format.

 

[[I think the ideas that what you've been defining here is a system that people intuitively understand that is needed, and that's why you're not getting much response. Everyone knows it's needed, but nobody really know how to make it happen, or how they can help without donating HUGE HUGE HUGE amounts of their time.]]

I really didn't expect much response up till now. I think you hit it right on the head recognizing that most people likely have an intuitive understanding that something like this is needed, but don't see how to get it done. I'm saying that I believe I can get it done. But getting it done is a lot more than a computer program. The computer programming itself will probably be the easiest part. The real challenge is to provide suitable organisation.

Anyone can contribute with as little as a short comment. There's no need to dedicate huge amounts of time, unless you want to, of course. I'm working to facilitate a process of public analysis. That process has several distinct aspects which can be considered and developed independently.

For eg., I defined earlier a general list of ways that our laws can be perverted from what we intend. I created that list by looking at our country (and "all" others) and recognising where and how "authority" is expressed. That list is meant to make it easier for people to evaluate whatever incident is under discussion, and to correlate it with others. If during you're experience you've identified another way, or a variation of another or whatever, it would be a great contribution to point it out to add it to the list, so others can consider it along with the others. My list is only a first approximation.

As "luck" would have it, there's a current example which exemplifies the importance of that kind of reference list. Most have likely heard about the gov't spying on communications and tracking canadian citizens starting at airports through wi-fi. One aspect of that is what I believe is a blatantly traitorous tactic consciously designed to circumvent the "public authority", in order to regularly violate the civil rights of canadian citizens without consequence, and without our ability to even know when it's happening. Many thanks to Snowden for making this known.

That aspect is the claim they were "testing the system". You may recall they attempted this vile tactic when pushing for enhanced internet surveillance powers in thier fraudulent child pornography laws, wanting the power to "test the system" without warrant, and without anyone knowing how often or who they're "testing" it on. This wouldn't be the first time harper's used our police to serve his political interests, and those of his "friends".

Fortunately, the opposition party saw it then and somehow shamed the traitor harper in to taking the law(s) back to it's den of evil, even if only to see how they can pervert it so as to more effectively hide it. I haven't heard more about it, but you can bet they've already found other ways to attack canadian citizens in a similar way.

Obviously they've incorporated that traitorous perversion in the "laws" governing CSEC. I see this as examples of, from post #13:
4) there's criminal intent associated with the problems in the application of the law;
10) when a law was created, there were "secret laws" incorporated in them.

For 10), the "secret law" is of course the "testing the system" provision, which is nothing more than a hidden law purposely designed to secretly circumvent public authority and scrutiny. The filthy vermin want to use our secret service outside the authority of the people, to attack whoever they want, including canadian citizens, and this allows them to secretly do that.
Another aspect which I haven't seen defined yet is how many foreign police and other "services" have been given access to this "test" data. We have to be able to find out the truth independent of them. Obviously they would fervently lie to cover any criminal, and even traitorous, activities they're involved in.

For 4), the point of this statement is to recognise that no matter what the law is, there may be relevant individuals/groups that just disregard it, because they're criminals. That includes "selective interpretations" as well as the outright disregard for the law. This is an example of selective interpretation, where they wouldn't have any problem with "testing the system" on those the vile dictator harper and his special friends "don't like", without warrant or oversight of any kind.

Having the law perversion list as a permanent reference will make it much easier to see, understand and correlate exactly what's going on. Once we identify the real problem, which is most of the battle, we can defend ourselves from it much more effectively. We obviously have to look at all gov't agencies where that kind of law is part of it, and see how they've been using it; and we have to change it, of course.

 

[[The thing is, other people have built what you are talking about. I think you will have better success by seeking them out and seeing what they are doing and by continuing to write about the very specific ways that you see your idea being implemented.]]

No one else is doing this kind of thing. All I have is the internet for reference, so I can't be sure, but nothing I've seen yet comes close to what I'm proposing. Nowhere near, even though it may appear at first glance that there is.

My work is much much more than a technical decision mechanism, which is all I've seen on the internet. In fact I don't include any of those in the core work, I just identify where one would be relevant. The actual decision mechanism is an end-point, an expression, and I'm defining a process to determine where and how those end-points are going to be most relevant, among other things. In this context, "most relevant" means at points where decisions are going to mean something concrete and meaningful.

It's important to note that my info system doesn't depend on the ability to make actual technical decisions. Determining why, where and how to exert public authority is the main process, and "realistic public control" is the goal. Achieving that may not always require an actual formal decision, although we always have to be able to go that far if we want to.

[[An Excel spreadsheet is not really something that people can use to collaborate, IMO. These days, if people can't have a good experience interacting with a system while using their phone, that system is dead in the water. If it is supposed to have mass appeal.]]

The spreadsheet comments are really only meant to serve as an example of the style of format, since the info itself could be stored in a standard database, which is just a spreadsheet with extra macros. It is meant to have mass appeal, and in the end it will be accessable through app's for the phone just like other programs. The experience is what I'm concerned with now, which is mainly a function of the type and organisation of information, as well as the graphic format.

[[Apologies for any negativity in this post, it really is meant to be contructive.]]

I've got a much thicker skin than that. If there's anything I consider unjustified, etc., I'll state that in response, believe you me. Although I don't agree factually with some of your statements, as I see it all of your comments have been constructive, but I value your input regardless anyway. No good comes from avoiding potential problems, etc.

 

I don't know about you, but I can't believe about the workers that were just replaced by foreign workers at half the wage. It's one of those things that just stuns you for a minute. Oh wow, they were hired back, for how long who knows. And now those foreign workers are also in our country and will just work somewhere else for half wage. Win win for the vermin bastard harper.

I was going to monologue a bit more, but given the dire situation in our country, I want to start work on the next post to get the process moving quicker. The next post will be to start a general info sheet for the senate. I don't know how many details can be easily found on the internet, but we don't have to have the actual data to define what we want. When this is up and running we'd already have this in the library and could go right to the senate reform discussion, which would use it as reference.

Ibid. 

wage zombie

had enough wrote:

My work is not a technical decision mechanism, it's an integrated public information system that will incorporate technical decision points. I'm just going on what's available free on the internet, but put another way it seems that Liquid Democracy defines a system based on the proposal (or whatever you want to call it), so the info supports individual proposals, whereas I say we have to have a common info system where the proposals can be reasoned from the data. My system also does a lot more than any of those.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but I think you're drawing a bigger distinction than is neccessary.  What's the difference between a technical decision mechanism and an an integrated public information system that will incorporate technical decision points?  I'm not really seeing it.

I think even if current platforms provide only 60% of what you want to do that, that's a lot more illustrative of the full vision than all your text-based specifications.  It also allows you to test some of your hypotheses.  Right now everything is in your head.  So a) it's hard for people to visualize what you're talking about based only on your reams of text.  And b) you might be lockedinto a particular idea of how somethingmight need to work, and once you start building something those ideas get questioned and planned implementations get re-jigged as you understand the project more.

Part of what you're doing is getting really inspired and turned on by a grand vision.  But in this situation it's common to attach to that grand vision and miss out on better ways of doing things that you may not have originally considered.  The thing about web projects is that they often turn into something different from what they were intended to do...the successes are almostby accident.  Someone looks to solve Problem A, and build a system around solving problem A.  In the process, it might be discovered that solving problem A might require solving two harder problems B and C.  Maybe it turns out that problem B is not something that can be solved now by the proposed system, but perhaps solving problem C within the context of solving problem A leads to a breakthrough, and it's discovered that the system doesn'tsolve problem A very well, but it actually does solve problem C incredibly well.  And then the use case shifts from solving problem A to solving problem C.  And who knows, solving problem C might bea lot more useful.

This is how it looks with start ups at least.  Set out with a vision in mind, and two years later the project could be something completely different.  In many ways it is just how it goes with technology.

Quote:

But, until there's a more coherent full structure, I know it's unreasonable to expect others to see the whole picture like I do. I'm coming up on specific applications that I think it will clarify things for many who are interested, and make it easier for others to comment.

Conventional wisdom is to get something up that people can try out as soon as you can, even if it is the tiniest subset of the full structure. An iterative building process allows you to test your assumptions a lot more.  Going from 0 to the full strucure means that you might end up with something with flaws that aren't apparent now.

Quote:
But getting it done is a lot more than a computer program. The computer programming itself will probably be the easiest part. The real challenge is to provide suitable organisation.

Very true.

Quote:

For eg., I defined earlier a general list of ways that our laws can be perverted from what we intend. I created that list by looking at our country (and "all" others) and recognising where and how "authority" is expressed. That list is meant to make it easier for people to evaluate whatever incident is under discussion, and to correlate it with others. If during you're experience you've identified another way, or a variation of another or whatever, it would be a great contribution to point it out to add it to the list, so others can consider it along with the others. My list is only a first approximation.

And here's where there is some variability froma technical stand point.  You have loooked at Liquid Feedback and decided that your site isn't going to be about voting on proposals.  But, there's no reason that you can't use the system, and make it so that the "voting on proposals" is actuall used as "voting on the most eggregious ways that our laws can be perverted from what we intend".  Or, "voting on the incidents that most need attention and analysis.

Quote:

As "luck" would have it, there's a current example which exemplifies the importance of that kind of reference list. Most have likely heard about the gov't spying on communications and tracking canadian citizens starting at airports through wi-fi. One aspect of that is what I believe is a blatantly traitorous tactic consciously designed to circumvent the "public authority", in order to regularly violate the civil rights of canadian citizens without consequence, and without our ability to even know when it's happening. Many thanks to Snowden for making this known.

Great example.  Your next 6 paragraphs are dense and hard to parse though.  And anyone else wishing to participate at that high level will also have 6 dense paragraphs to offer.  But there's no workable medium for the conversation.  IMO, have a very simple issue database where some can record "spying" as an issue and then others can leave comments fleshing this out would at leastbe something.

Don't get me wrong, I hear that what you are proposing is going to have to be way more complicated than that to be as effective as you're going for.  But in projects like this, going from 0 to 1 is the hard part.  If you had the whole system built, working and functional, you could then focus on promoting it to getpeople to join.  Or if the organization of people was already there, you could fundraise and then just pay someone to build it exactly how you like.  But in the situation you're in, you need to keep moving forward, and it's a winding road.

We know that Harper is terrible, and we hate the spying.  I understand that you are using these examples of current incidents that people are concerned about as a way of describing how the system would work.  That is a good tactic, but you've done it thoroughly already.

As someone trying to launch a similar, more partisan service, I understand that anything that gets you to write it out and get it out of your head is useful, and maybe babble gives you the push to do that.  But beyond serving as an impetus for you to engage in the product, I think writing about spying on babble ends up being, more than anything, a distraction from your goal.

Quote:

No one else is doing this kind of thing. All I have is the internet for reference, so I can't be sure, but nothing I've seen yet comes close to what I'm proposing. Nowhere near, even though it may appear at first glance that there is.

I guess I'm a bit skeptical about that, but I'll take your word for it.  I think if someone else had the same idea as you and was looking around for others pushing this idea, it's unlikely they would find this babble thread.

If your goal is a non-partisan site then I would think about contacting Lead Now, Council of Canadians, Open Media, and other non-partisan politically engaged organizations and talk to them about it.  Of course, the tough part here is that the main thing you're bringing to the table is just an idea, and while the idea isvery well defined in your mind and on babble, I don't get the sense that you've got the elevator pitch down.  If you could give a 3 minute pitch to someone face-to-face, what would that pitch be.  Speaking from experience, I bet it would be easy for you to talk about your project for two hours with someone.  But if you only have three minutes, what are the fundamental things you need to say for people to not be confused?  If you tell people you want to makean incident database you will get blank stares.  It's almost too sophisticated.  While calling it "a political message board" might be dumbing it down too much, that's the kind of thing you need to think about.

Quote:

My work is much much more than a technical decision mechanism, which is all I've seen on the internet. In fact I don't include any of those in the core work, I just identify where one would be relevant. The actual decision mechanism is an end-point, an expression, and I'm defining a process to determine where and how those end-points are going to be most relevant, among other things. In this context, "most relevant" means at points where decisions are going to mean something concrete and meaningful.

Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I'm failing to see the essential novelty here that separates your idea from similar things.

Quote:

It's important to note that my info system doesn't depend on the ability to make actual technical decisions. Determining why, where and how to exert public authority is the main process, and "realistic public control" is the goal. Achieving that may not always require an actual formal decision, although we always have to be able to go that far if we want to.

Determining why, where, and how to exert public authority are the decisions being made.

I'm personally curious about Liquid Feedback myself.  If I end up setting up an instance and checking it out I will let you know how it feels.

had enough

Thank you very, very much for your comments, wage zombie.

Before responding to your other points, I just want to say that I know this work might appear complicated because I'm repeating quite a bit and also outlining the background reasoning. Anything can look overly complicated when described in pure prose. The final product won't be pages of text, I assure you, so don't take this work as a reflection of the final user interface.

[Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but I think you're drawing a bigger distinction than is neccessary. What's the difference between a technical decision mechanism and an an integrated public information system that will incorporate technical decision points? I'm not really seeing it.]

They're totally different, in both concept and structure. The technical decision mechanism is the most vital aspect of realistic public control (that people would trust), but my style of info system is the most important. 2 examples may help clarify the distinction.

The "Information Party" was a proposal submitted (not by me) to the "Knight News Challenge" a while ago, which proposed the creation of an actual political party, in the US, which used a technical decision mechanism based on proposals, similar to Liquidfeedback (LF), etc., as the primary method of "public control", and as far as I could tell, they didn't define any supporting info system, and I commented to them as such. The German Pirate party uses it too, in one way or another, but the info is mainly in german so I can't comment on what they're doing.

When it's not the governing party it's no problem. Specific proposals would be advisory only, since there are no consequences for expressing an opinion, regardless what it is. They could comment on only 1 of 2000 issues and what would it matter. But, you can't judge the system only on that scenario.

If it's the governing party, that kind of system alone is totally inadequate. You can't run a country on a simple yes/no mechanism, no matter how well you refine individual questions or proposals for vote. There has to be organising structure independent of the individual proposals.

When issues are presented and a discussion ensues, that discussion is dependent on the background info. Any distortion or manipulation of that background data will naturally have some effect on the discussion, and hence on the decision. And that's the problem right there.

If you were going to vote on proposals, but you knew, or even suspected, that the background info you used had been manipulated, how long would you keep interacting. Manipulation of background info is one critical problem, but simple incompleteness and errors are others. The legitimacy of the vote is totally dependent on the nature of the background info, not just the mechanism for voting yes/no on individual proposals, and it's the background info system I'm primarily concerned with at this point.

A perfect illustration of the difference in the above 2 concepts is in the process and details of the Wright/Duffy bribe.

I heard about this incident in the news, from a report that Duffy had paid back his fraudulent expense claims with money someone else had secretly given him. How would each system handle that.

I'm pretty sure LF needs a proposal to initiate the process, so a proposal would have to be advanced that we should investigate the details of that potential bribe. Without going further, you can see how that system (apparently) really can't deal with that kind of situation. If it can, I'd be very interested to see how.

With my system, a summary page is started, with the incident description that a senator secretly accepted money for something, and it's believed this broke several laws. There are no proposals or anything, we just want to gather info to understand what's going on. When a person looks at my summary sheet, it has a standard format so they know where to look for the different points of info. Initially they see that Duffy is involved, and he's a sitting senator and other of his personal details. At the beginning it was only Duffy, but as time went on, more were shown to be involved, and these are added when found out, including when and why they're included.

At the start a few laws were relevant, then more became so. More facts and opinions are added, until from this single incident summary page the info allows us to identify problems with several laws, apparent problems with the "ethics" investigation(s), obvious criminal manipulation of the senate committee judicial process, etc., etc., etc. This is all by looking critically at a single incident.

(We also see in that incident that the PC party is obviously a party to the bribe, etc., and I'm going to see whether the police "investigation" recognises that, since if they don't then it's obviously a corrupt process as well.)

As far as I've seen, no other info system can even hope to dream about doing that. There are other details, but I think this is enough to see that the LF system and mine are fundamentally different aspects of the same issue.

[Conventional wisdom is to get something up that people can try out as soon as you can, even if it is the tiniest subset of the full structure. An iterative building process allows you to test your assumptions a lot more. Going from 0 to the full strucure means that you might end up with something with flaws that aren't apparent now.]

I think the only assumption I might be working under is that when democracy is established, it will be much better if there's a trusted info system so when people are presented issues that will require a vote, that there's an information resource available so virtually everyone can follow the discussion, access proper background info when desired, be satisfied that they aren't being tricked by distorted info in to making decisions they wouldn't have made, and are satisfied that their point of view has been sufficiently represented for others to consider, when relevant. For the last one, the onus is on the person, so if they're opinion isn't represented, all they have to do is put it in and then it will be.

I'm not going from 0 to full structure physically, I'm referring to the conceptual framework, not the final physical expression of that. By "coherent full structure" I mean the guiding principles.

Every part of my work is there for very specific reasons that I can strictly define. Naturally, projects evolve in development. I don't have a "mental set", but I do have a list of fundamental requirements I've defined as essential for any project like this to work, and any changes must respect those, or, if they don't, then it has to be explained exactly why that aspect isn't as important as I claim, keeping in mind that I can back up my position very well, I think.

[And here's where there is some variability froma technical stand point. You have loooked at Liquid Feedback and decided that your site isn't going to be about voting on proposals. But, there's no reason that you can't use the system, and make it so that the "voting on proposals" is actuall used as "voting on the most eggregious ways that our laws can be perverted from what we intend". Or, "voting on the incidents that most need attention and analysis.]

The Liquid Feedback system is wholly inadequate for what my info system needs to do. It's a totally different aspect. The law perversion list are points of fact which don't require voting. Describing aspects of my system in a different context like that would distort the process. The fact there are "secret laws" incorporated in to our other laws is an observation, for eg., and there are very clear current examples. "Omnibus bills" are obviously the same thing on a larger scale. It's not relevant to vote on whether to have that point on the list, it's purely for reference and to greatly aid correlation.

If you don't agree it should be on the list; you, etc. would have to show how that is in fact not a way to secretly change the intent of laws, and I, etc. would counter with a list of points and examples showing that it definitely is. That wouldn't have to go to a vote either.

For that point specifically, I guarantee I could totally obliterate any suggestion that this in not a tactic that could be used, and show that it's being routinely used by the current vile regime. But that's only my opinion, no matter how strong I believe my argument is, I simply demand it's represented properly.

The purpose of my system is not to decide what's right or wrong, the point itself would remain in the list, and there'd be a highlight saying there's dispute as to relevance, and a link going to details. Having non-relevant points on the list is much better than not having relevant ones, but for points in the law perversion list, for eg., they're really not matters of opinion, just observations.

[Determining why, where, and how to exert public authority are the decisions being made.]

When I first read this, my thought was that if those are the decisions being made, then a lot of time is being wasted. However, I think this might be more of a difference in the interpretation of the terms "why, where and how", rather than a material disagreement.

In my system, using the Duffy bribe example, one highlighted point on the summary sheet would be the "ethics investigation", and it's been suggested it's corrupt and isn't doing it's job. We can't stop people from committing crimes; we demand, though, that when crimes are committed they can be found out and dealt with to our satisfaction, regardless whether they're politicians or not.

So the "why" is that the current investigation appears corrupted, and so should be examined in more detail. The "where" is the body of laws specifically governing the investigation process, and the "how" is recognizing which laws are most relevant for the problem, and what's wrong with them.

Nothing up to that point requires a decision, it's simply a matter of record. Once we pinpoint the problem, that's where the Liquid Feedback(LF) process becomes relevant. The proposition development style is exactly what's needed there, and that program would be run independently. The discussion and decision related specifically to what the law should be changed to could be carried on totally within the LF, with it's independent background info process, or it would be better to integrate the info references to the primary reference sheets, etc.

[Great example. Your next 6 paragraphs are dense and hard to parse though. And anyone else wishing to participate at that high level will also have 6 dense paragraphs to offer. But there's no workable medium for the conversation. IMO, have a very simple issue database where some can record "spying" as an issue and then others can leave comments fleshing this out would at leastbe something.]

There's certainly a workable medium for the discussion. The process of analysis may differ, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. In fact I believe the process of public analysis I describe is far superior to anything out there right now, especially since there's nothing comparable to what I'm doing. Nowhere near.

Please keep in mind that my text descriptions, like the 6 paragraphs, are outside the context of the info system. I mean that when the system is up and running, those things would be said in a far more concise way, and displayed in the most relevant place within the information framework; or they wouldn't have to be said at all, since the reference to that point would be sufficient.

The discussion of the CSEC spying, for eg., can't be left only to the input of individual opinions without there being some form to give those opinions relevance. If everyone said it's bad then so what. What are we going to do about it. That's a recipe for failure.

We could trust politicians to take care of it, but we've seen how well that works. We don't need to trust anyone in order to look at the law ourselves, see how traitorously they're using the relevant provision of the law, and define the specific changes in the law(s) so they can't do that any more with impunity. We neen a consistent, relevant framework to do that as a matter of course, and that's what I'm providing.

[I'm personally curious about Liquid Feedback myself. If I end up setting up an instance and checking it out I will let you know how it feels.]

I'm very curious about a couple of aspects of it, too. I'm not on my own computer so I can't get it myself yet, but if you get it, please consider allowing me to put forth a few scenarios to test how it would handle them. I'd also like to see how they handle background info, which is my main concern, as well as if they can correlate across proposals.

(This is a bit of an aside, but this discussion is affected by the different ways we individually view things, of course, and a recent pamphlet received in the mail makes me wonder if I'm crazy or the rest of the world is. Am I seeing things in such a different way as others?

This is a "conservative" campaign pamphlet, published with public money I'm pretty sure, which shows the picture of a young girl, maybe 4 or 5 or so; and the claim was they wanted to "crack down" on child predators, and that the rights of our children have to be put ahead of the rights of the criminals. Everyone would agree with that.

Then 3 points were listed showing proposed changes which everyone would agree with too. They don't say, however, how they could have brought the good parts in a long time ago, but there were other details which secretly allowed the gov't to "test the system" (internet surveillance) on individuals they can arbitrarily choose, with no warrant; and who knows what other secret perversions of interpretation were included.

So they withdrew the good and bad together, because the opposition wouldn't just give in to the other perversions they wanted to use to secretly violate the civil rights of canadian citizens. So if the good points could have helped stop child predators, too bad.

I'm having a hard time seeing how that's not the "conservatives" dangling this child in front of the opposition saying, "we're willing to see more children like this raped, unless you give in to our political demands and give us the power to secretly bypass the constitution with impunity."

How is this anything other than child predation. How can even the staunchest harperite not see this as hideous. Absolutely insane. What do I see that they don't, or what do they see that I don't. If any facts are incorrect, please point them out.)

Unless there are more comments, I was going to start the senate discussion process next post.

Ibid

had enough

Public discussions, whether they lead to decisions or not, are the same as one-on-one in that they're fundamentally expressions of opinion more or less supported by references to background "factual" points of detail.

My work is meant to provide the most relevant framework for the background info, including showing where within the info network actual physical decisions need to be made. It's totally insufficient to just flesh out independent comments, like for the senate or spying, without providing background context for those comments.

The senate "discussion" is a perfect example of one of the myriad situations we're going to have to deal with as we run our country. There've been a number of individual incidents in the senate, like the expense fraud, residency fraud etc., and these could be examined individually, but the one I want to address now is the discussion about the senate structure itself, to change, abolish, etc. I cruised the internet a bit to see what others are saying about that, and it's horrific how much distorted info is out there being presented as if it was true. Not everything, but alot.

The next 2 posts are going to be an example of the application of my work which can be judged more directly, and I ask you to keep in mind a couple of points. The system I define is an information resource. It, in and of itself, can't do anything. No information system, whether it incorporates formal decisions (like Liquid Feedback) or not (like news articles), can do anything itself. It's how we use it that's going to make it valuable, ultimately essential, and that's totally dependent on how it's constructed.

The senate is a public institution, and even though it betrays the people at virtually every turn, it does have a theoretical purpose which is important for our country, or at least some claim that (including myself), so it warrants a very detailed discussion and evaluation. But, starting a discussion like that without an independent source of factual background info for the senate as a public institution is inhibiting the discussion before it begins.

If the system was up and running we'd already have this, but since it's not, it has to be created now. The point of this sheet is not to discuss anything, but rather to provide points of "factual" detail which can be verified for truth independent of any discussions.

Note that the final format for the page(s) won't be a bland mass of text like below. Graphic display of the info is a central issue for all this, and that can all be done a bit later. The most important thing right now is to look at the details of the senate info, and if there are other details not included, please point them out. If you were making an argument involving the senate, what factual details would you reference that would logically be included on this page.

Most of the info for this page will be factual details, but there may be some opinion, when relevant, and they would be recorded as the pro and con statements related to the proper point.

The category headings would be the same for most, if not all, public institutions, and this list can be consistently created for each one, independent of anything else.

Senate: General Information Sheet (reference library entry #):

-timelines/history and operation

       -creation of senate structure from start, etc.

       -current operation, etc., highlight days worked, etc.

-authority hierarchies

     -overall senate structure -individual office structures

     -all others that are relevant, especially if external influence

     -supporting offices in other departments

-laws related to senate

     -designator linked to text

      -mechanism for change in laws

-costs

     -senator salary

     -senator overhead

     -senator, etc. expense claims

     -office worker's salaries

     -office overhead

     -buildings maintenance, taxes?, etc.

     -pensions (detailed list, with history)

     -related to supporting offices in other departments

     -tourism support

     -all relevant costs, claims, etc. would be published here

     -all inclusive cost summary

-income

     -sources of funding (full detail)

     -current budget; when new budgets are created they would be published here immediately

     -(potential?) tourist income, etc.

-public capital

       -property, etc. related to senate

-membership in the senate

     -list of members, current and past, incl. political party, biography link, etc.

     -individual office structure (how many employees, etc.)

     -appointment procedure

     -retirement procedure

-powers and duties (theoretical and real)

     -theoretical functions

     -what is it supposed to be doing

     -what does it actually do

     -list of past real actions

          -formal

          -opinion pts. showing abuse, like not opposing omnibus bills, etc.

          -opinion pts. showing "success"

-committees

     -currently active senate committees, etc.(including indicating if there's any controversy, like for recent expense "investigation" of Duffy, etc., which was blatantly fraudulent)

     -past senate committees (indicate any problems)

-internal controls

     -"ethics" office

     -party "discipline"

 -external controls

     -real and theoretical

     -any committees, etc. outside the senate that have anything to do with the senate

-currrent controversies

     -expense fraud

     -residency fraud

     -use of senate resources for partisan political advertising

     -appointments used as reward for political party loyalty and service

     -illiegal external control on senate activities, committees, etc.

     -criminal manipulation of senate judicial processes and investigations

     -etc., etc.,...

-past controversies

     -list as links

-outstanding questions and details requiring clarification

     -how can public oversight be improved -etc.

I think each point shown is reasonable to include on a list like this. Each would be a link to more detail, or some can be shown on the summary page, depending on technical limitations. If anyone has any comments or knows any other details that should be included on this page, please speak up.

The above info sheet serves a very specific purpose(s), as does each element in my system. When "facts" are referenced during public discussions, these info sheets will greatly help by showing them within the context of the institution itself, and it's place within the global public authority structure.

So, on the senate "abolition" discussion page (next post), a person saying that the senate is expensive and should be abolished might reference one or more cost summaries from the above list to illustrate that point. Then, a person considering that argument can go outside that discussion to this info page, see the numbers for themselves, but also see the others details which that other person may not have pointed out, since they didn't support thier argument.

A viable public info system (I believe Liquid Feedback is more of a proposition development and formal voting process, rather than public info system) can't depend only on data input from pro and con individuals.

Having truthful background info is essential, but seeing that info in the most relevant context is also very, very important. Judging whether the cost of public institutions is worth it requires us to understand, each to our own opinion, what those institutions mean to us. The above style of basic info sheet should help greatly with that.

Next post will start the "should the senate be changed or abolished" discussion sheet.

Ibid.

had enough

The following discussion sheet is meant to show a record of the different relevant points for the "senate changes" discussion, so when a person first looks at it they can get up to speed fairly quickly.

 

As "luck" would have it, one of the most pressing topics is one we probably won't have to face very often, the potential wholesale change of a central aspect of our gov't, and so this discussion will be broader than usual with respect to the conceptual, probably.

 

We "the people" are going to need true independent oversight for the gov't, and regardless why the senate was first created, it's part of our gov't now, and before we throw it out, I say we have a duty to our children to look at it in detail to make sure that we aren't shooting off thier legs in our blind rage.

 

Senate Discussion Sheet: (Incident Database Report #test2B)

Issue description:
The senate is corrupt and dysfunctional and needs to be changed, possibly abolished.

 

++++++List of identifying details not included for brevity. The following details would be accessed by a single link from "Actionable Objectives" on the main issue summary page, which is the section determining what can be done, pointing out alternatives, etc. This part is central for the senate discussion, since seeing the alternatives all together will make it much easier to decide what to do. Then, laws can be changed and made to enshrine the public will. That's democracy, as I see it anyway.++++++

 

Actionable Objectives:

A) Possibilities for Public Action: 1) change the senate, 2) abolish the senate, 3) status quo.

      1) Change the senate: i) Keep, ii) Change/remove, iii) Create new

           i) Keep: (link to general info sheet for senate)
                1)review and recommend specific changes to proposed and existing laws, to ensure consistent with the "public good", etc.
                2)provide regional "representation"
                3)independently investigate issues relevant to our country**
                4)general ombudsman for following and providing info to the people for relevant issues, such as election fraud, etc.
                5)advocacy for civil rights, minority rights, etc.

           ii) Change/remove:
                1)Change
                      a)appointment procedure
                            -governor general no longer formally appoints senators
                            -provincial elections; each premier and opposing provincial political parties, as well as independent submissions, provides list of recommended candidates to the people of thier province/territory, who decide by vote during normal provincial election period.
                                     P)positive consequences
                                     N)negative consequences
                                               -the two elected bodies could become rivals that both claim democratic legitimacy, rather than working "together"
                            -provincial elections to select nominees, which the PM could appoint or not
                                     P)positive consequences
                                     N)negative consequences
                                           -having elections without the electee's being appointed would be a pathetic insult, if there are elections the winners must hold the position
                                           -having some elected, then appointed, and some directly appointed would give undue appearance of democratic legitimacy to senate
                       b)pension details
                             -total overhaul
                             -forfeit pension for criminal wrongdoing (requires conviction)
                       c)fraudulent nature of "ethics" office
                             -total overhaul
                       d)number of "representatives" for each province/territory
                             -more in number isn't an advantage, how many are needed
                       e)funding procedure
                             -status quo
                                  P)positive consequences
                                  N)negative consequences
                             -provide specific amount to each province based on common agreement, provinces can augment or remove from that as they wish, but they have to pay thier own senate expenses. Once "majority rules" is removed, the number of senators "representing" the different provinces aren't as important, so each province can decide how they are best represented in that gov't body, subject to public vote in each province.
                                    P)positive consequences
                                    N)negative consequences
                        f)senator expense claim details and process
                                -total transparency with independent verification
                        g)impose term limits
                                -this is a critical aspect of democracy and would be a link to it's own discussion sheet
                                P)positive consequences
                                       -partisan appointments wouldn't be there as long
                                N)negative consequences
                                       -many, many more pensions, so long term cost a lot more
                                        -one PM could change all senators to thier friends, who would be beholden to the PM
                                        -someone good can't continue
                                        -term limits are an attack on democracy and future generations
                                        -the only one(s) that benefits from political term limits are foreign entities trying to overthrow the authority of the people. The mantra of "new ideas" is nothing more than another chance for foreign entities (including traitors) to install thier ideas and thier agents in to critical gov't positions.
                        h)fully clarify eligibility, residency requirements, etc.

                 2)Remove
                        a)party affiliation
                               -no more recognition of political parties, possibly making it illegal or at least forbid secrecy
                        b)constant secrecy
                                -secrecy only in demonstrable cases of national security, but also independently verifiable
                        c)several conditions of eligibility for senate position
                               -requirement to own property in the province
                               -requirement of living in province (only if provincial elections)
                               -age requirement (only if provincial elections)

           iii) Create new:
                  1)regularly report to the people
                  2)respond to major issues initiated by the people
                  3)recall of senators by public petition
                  4)senate can't directly conflict with the "will of the people"

     2) Abolish the senate:
             P)positive consequences
                    -save money, since don't need the senate anyway
                    -senates have been eliminated in provinces apparently without problems
                    -how is that judged, since there's no oversight, simply that laws are passed?
                    -speed up passing legislation
                          P)positive consequences
                          N)negative consequences
             N)negative consequences
                  -no public advocacy close enough to gov't to make a difference (referring to theoretical role)
                  -eliminate potentially essential oversight to gov't ops (notwithstanding the disgrace it is now)

     3) Status quo
            P)positive consequences
                  -nothing needs to be done, no discussions, problems, etc.
                  -senate can continue without interruption
                  -ensure calls for reform don't lead to real or functional abolition
           N)negative consequences
                   -functional loss of what could be made in to a vital aspect of "realistic public control".
                   -keeping it the way it is would be a disgrace to us, who are the country

B) General barriers to actionable objectives:
       -possible inability to reach relevant consensus for changes in laws
       -corrupt and traitorous politicians, since a functional senate wouldn't benefit them
       -relevant foreign entities, since a functional senate wouldn't benefit them

C) Problems seen in current senate. (this section is part of the general info sheet for senate as well, and could either be only referenced or shown with this page, depending on technical limitations.)
      -blatant criminal manipulation of at least one senate committee
      -blatantly fraudulent nature of senate "ethics" office
      -appointment of party hacks and cronies for the specific purpose of political control
      -expense fraud
      -residency fraud
      -partisan political campaigning being billed to the people as senate business
      -"authorization" of fraudulent expenses as a perk for partisan political service

 

Every discussion is of different substance, but virtually all are the same form, opinion linked to points of detail. I've gleaned these opinions and points of detail from the internet, and added some of my own. The info hierarchy is the main thing under consideration here. The discussion is about what to do about the senate. We can decide point by point what we want, as with everything else. Although the senate has many more points of detail in this part than most other situations we'll likely face, the organisation is the same as if there were only a few.

 

The senate discussion, as with all others, is about each detail.

 

Each point could currently be governed by different laws, so this is the central page for this issue because the first step is to see what we want, then relate that to the relevant laws. Once each detail is directly related to the relevant laws, they can be correlated in a summary.

 

For the 3 quebec police incident mentioned previously, something happened that our laws weren't adequate to deal with, and the focus is to evaluate the law(s) within that context, so the most relevant points of info differ, and the main summary page would be the central one for that.

 

Public input mechanism:
The public input system is similar to other systems, presumably like Liquid Feedback, etc., in that there'll be a page(s) formatted to accept individual input. That page would show the set of standard category headings, as well as sections for unique input.

 

The previous post showed the general info sheet for the senate, and each public office would have one like it. Input for that is mainly factual details with a consistent structure, and any that are missing can be added by anyone at any time. Those details can be easily checked, although there may be some brief statements of opinion linked to thier own separate discussions, such as for the controversies list.

 

This post shows a page meant to organise the central discussion itself, and point out the entire array of possibilities presented so far. Politicians can give thier opinion like everyone else, and if they have specific knowledge it's thier duty to present it, but "we the people" will decide what to do, and for this senate discussion, the above points are the core for figuring out what we want the senate to be. If there are other points not shown, they simply have to be added.

 

So, the question is, if a person came to this page for the first time, how much easier does having the info in one place like this make the subsequent discussions. If there were 2 discussions, one having this info and another without it, which would you rather be involved in.

 

Keep in mind what this page is meant to show, and note that nothing on this page yet requires a decision. A great deal of background info can be presented without any real need for discussion and no need for decision. Each point in the list, of course, has one or more discussion/decision points within it, but each can be addressed independently, then easily correlated to the global context.

 

Next post I wanted to expand one or two of the above points to the end-point decision(s).

 

Ibid. 

Jub Jub

I got your back and believe in this project fully.  The word is getting out I'd say another 2-3 months top and it's mainstream!!

had enough

Thanks for the comment, Jub Jub.

 

Actionable Objectives:

A) Possibilities for Public Action: 1) change the senate, 2) abolish the senate, 3) status quo.

     1) Change the senate: i) Keep, ii) Change/remove, iii) Create new

         ii) Change/remove:              

             1)change

                  f)senator expense claim details and process ((satisfied/not satisfied))((full section results summary))

                       i)total transparency for expense claims with independent verification ((satisfied/not satisfied))((law change summary))

                               1)post all expenses online ((disc-((yes/no))))

                                     a)logistics and costs

                                     b)oversight

                                     c)how is it justified

                                     d)laws, incl. proposed changes with disc.

                             2)require receipt to claim expense ((disc-((yes/no))))

                                   a)logistics and costs

                                   b)oversight

                                   c)how is it justified

                                   d)laws, incl. proposed changes with disc.

                            3)etc....

                      ii)no partisan campaigning on trips where any portion billed to senate business ((satisfied/not satisfied))((law change summary))

                            1)to ensure senate business isn't manipulated to correspond to partisan political timetables((disc-((yes/no))))

                                 a) etc....

                     iii)no travel, etc. for anyone other than public employees doing legitimate work ((satisfied/not satisfied))((law change summary))

                            1) etc....

I believe that the information network relevant for discussions on the vast majority of incidents and issues can be consistently described via highly intuitive hierarchies. Navigation of the info is of primary concern, though, but there are many ways to make it easier.

Naturally I had to pick an extensive issue as an example, the senate reform discussion, but the principle is exactly the same whether there's 1 versus 1000 levels and points of detail.

The ((yes/no)) decision points are at the end of a conceptual hierarchy, and right there would also be the points of background info deemed to be relevant. So for the "post all expenses online" decision point, under that is the costs, etc., the discussion related specifically to that question, and the laws that are relevant for it.

For the next "require receipt to claim expense" decision point, the background info would be of a similar format, though of course with different numbers. It could be shown on this page, or the decision points could be listed without the data, and a click on the decision point would bring up one or two pages of data devoted specifically to that question.

The senate discussion, assuming "change" is the focus, would have a fair number of points because we want to evaluate all the laws related to the senate. That can make any discussion appear complicated even though it isn't.

But, I doubt there's anyone in the country who can't interact and provide thier vote for the actual decisions, such as the "post all expenses online" decision point here. Defining the info hierarchy to the actual decision points is the bulk of the work, and that's a primary focus for the fine detail of the database itself.

I wanted to show in the last 2 posts that a public info system capable of facilitating realistic public control is more than just proposition development. Systems like LF, at least from what I've seen from screenshots and summaries, can't come close to providing the kind of support info system necessary.

There may be points of detail associated with a place higher in the hierarchy, where there's no formal decision, such as at "1)change", and they would be listed there, as are the potential positive (P) and negative (N) consequences for various elements, etc., as shown in the previous post.

The hierarchy of info and how to display it is a critical aspect of "realistic public control". ((satisfied/not satisfied)) and ((law change summary)) represent links to an informal opinion and a summary, resp. These 2 elements are meant to simplify the interaction by making it so we don't have to go right to the end to remember what we did, or what the current state of the discussion/decision is.

"Liquid Feedback (LF)", and I assume other proposition development programs like that, recognise the importance of that aspect and provide a summary page(s) which shows the current status of any discussion lines they're involved in. Fortunately, I believe LF is open source software, so there's a good starting point already.

The point for this post is to show the linear hierarchy of info going down to a specific formal decision point (which would normally require added security). All discussions are the same this way. The decision is the end point, and there's an info hierarchy leading to it.

Right now my primary concern is to understand the nature of public discussions with an eye to facilitating them. Keep in mind that the above hierarchies are at the end of the line, and getting to the end-point decisions wouldn't necessarily show exactly as above.

While the graphic display is extremely important, I'm not that worried about it since I have a knack for that kind of thing. And, it makes no sense to spend much time on that until the info structure itself is defined.

Any part of the senate discussion can be listed to decision points as above. There's no need to remember the details, since each line is self-explanatory at the decision. One of the most difficult aspects of (apparently) complex subjects isn't that the reasoning is difficult, it's that there's a large volume of data.

And, definition of a conceptual linearity like the info hierarchy above doesn't limit the concepts to those linearities. While I could probably take every public discussion or argument and reduce it to a similar list of opinions and supporting data, the most precise technical linearity isn't necessarily the most practical and/or intuitive one.

The senate issue is relatively straightforward, even though there's a large number of details. The above form allows each aspect to be discussed individually, then correlated to the entire thing. Sadly, many immediate discussions, given the current horrendous state of affairs in our country, will be of a similar format, where we have to look at each individual point, including the relevant laws, within the context of the overall institution.

That's enough for the senate discussion right now. The format was the thing, and you can see that even with the large volume, each point is easily followed to the decision. That illustrates one of the essential aspects of "realistic public control".

Another aspect which isn't as prominent for the senate discussion than perhaps for others is the "call for information" display, which isn't shown. On the incident summary page it would be shown as a shortcut going to a list of unanswered questions, etc. that are used as supporting info for discussions.

The call for information is dynamic, of course. The current conflict in Ukraine is a perfect example of how a relatively few points of initial factual detail can define subsequent individual perception. And that's exactly why attempts to manipulate and/or limit the background info available to citizens is a traitorous attack on our country.

Next post I want to provide a point form list of benefits of the "incident database" concept. Then the next post start with describing the summary short-cut details.

Ibid.

had enough

Benefits of incident database style public information system:

1)inform people of incidents and issues that affect our country

2)ability to follow "public" authority structure to real point(s) at issue

3)define actions for real effect

4)help ensure public is well informed during discussions

5)ensure all opinions are fairly represented during discussion and decision

6)provide as broad, relevant, trusted and true background info as possible to support formal and informal decisions

7)easily allow incorporation of independently developed formal proposition development and decision mechanisms (like Liquid Feedback) at relevant points in the social info hierarchy where technical formal ((yes/no)) decisions have to be made

8)allow identification and correlation of fundamental perversions of gov't system (facilitating factors)

9)allows real public investigations and oversight for political accountability

10)ensure public oversight of laws

11)provide a main (essential) component of "realistic public control"

12)doesn't require change in current gov't logistics

13)mechanism for change is inherent in the discussions

14)main aspects can be applied immediately, since is only full presentation of info

15)provides a consistent framework to build public info dissemination systems both dependent on and independent of the internet

16)exactly the same process is valid for "good" incidents, etc., so can identify (in order to amplify) positive aspects as well

17)great flexibility while maintaining consistent formatting for ease of use

18)provide socially relevant shortcuts, summaries, etc. to greatly streamline personal interaction

19)...

The above points are some of the advantages that will promote realistic public control. These aren't all the benefits, and I'm going to keep this as a permanent reference and modify it as things come up. If anyone has questions or comments regarding any of the points, or have suggestions for others, please let me know.

Next post I wanted to outline a few points about the graphic display of the info. Pages of bland text aren't sufficient, and technical limitations are the reason here, but a viable public info system has to serve the people. "Serving the people" translates to several things, one being that the info presentation conforms to need.

Ibid.

had enough

I'm working to create an improved process for public discussion and decision making, and the Ukraine conflict, sad as it is, is also an opportunity to evaluate the ((inter-)national) public discussion process itself.

Factual details shape our opinions. Naturally everyone has thier own personal opinions and prejudices regardless of facts, notwithstanding admitting them or not, and a legitimate public information system has to respect that, as long as it isn't controlled by it.

I don't know about others, but it really pisses me off when people lie to me. When I do care about the facts, I want them to be just that, facts.

One problem, of course, is that when a "fact" is presented it may be difficult, or even impossible, to confirm. That's a simple reality that has to be accommodated. And it can be.

A fact is a fact, whether it's raining or not, and no matter what it is it has very specific physical descriptors, both standard (like dates, locations, those involved) and unique.

When a fact (point of detail) is used to support an opinion, how valuable to the discussion would it be to be able to type a few descriptors in to the info database search engine, and bring up the current details of that specific point of detail, "independent" of the primary discussion.

Whether it's true or not, how was it reported, are there controversies, is it a factor in other things, etc. If the "fact" is shown to be untrue, would that change the opinion?

I think the Ukraine conflict is a perfect example of how just a few easily checked facts can make the difference for much of what follows. One fact is particularly important to many, the constitutionality of the change in national gov't, although the violence is the defining element in my opinion.

The constitutionality of the original overthrow of the elected gov't, the level of corruption of that gov't notwithstanding, is a central factual detail. A look at the constitution, which is available for all countries on the internet, shows clearly that the overthrow ("impeachment") did not follow the legal requirements, and so was not constitutional.

And there were other acts done during the coup that were unconstitutional, since I believe they arrested a number of supreme court judges, etc.

That's as far as the info I've seen, and if there's other info, it should be added to the list of details refuting or supporting that observation/interpretation.

Does that mean the constitution is not in effect? This and other questions become concrete and can be individually discussed once the more basic question of the nature of the gov't overthrow itself is consistently defined. That will progress the discussion.

If there ever is going to be a real public discussion process that can actually lead to sufficiently reasoned decisions, I think one of the primary tenets should be a declaration on the sanctity of factual information.

I'm not saying to criminalize people who lie, but when they do lie, we have to be able to find that out, and correlate that to other times they may have lied. In that respect I refer to politicians mainly, but also other individuals and entities, including corporations and "think tanks", as relevant.

Given that every individual has thier own opinion, the possibility there may be a consistent approach may seem remote. We'll see.

I think the key to seeing how potentially voluminous and complex details can be integrated into a coherent (and easily surfed) info hierarchy is to construct the hierarchy based on the natural process of inquiry.

A discussion isn't random. It may be started in different ways, but there's a natural set of info associated with it. Different things are important to different people, but only so many points of detail are relevant in any discussion. And I think most of the factual info would be agreed to by all parties.

The discussion process can begin anytime, but there are 2 aspects, the record of the (opinion and factual) data, and the means to progress the discussion.

The record of the data is the database structure, which I say can be standardised to a data entry summary page with total less than 100 initial specific "socially relevant" data categories, of which up to probably 30 or 40 would be filled for each incident/issue discussion, with each having links when relevant.

All discussions are fundamentally expressions of opinion more or less supported by factual details. Successful organisation of public discussions requires framing the opinions within the factual data structure, I believe.

Facts themselves can't reason or make decisions. The factual data structure is the centralised element, but discussions are driven by opinion. Discussions are mainly opinion, but intimately linked to definable, recordable, checkable facts.

Facts support the opinions, and may be the basis for them. Unfortunately, facts can also be a justification for bias. Or, rather, how the facts are presented. Ensuring no bias in how facts are presented is an essential requirement for a realistic public information system.

There'll never be universal agreement on anything, including level of bias. Saboteurs would naturally latch on to that to simply make unjust accusations of bias in order to trick people into not trusting the info.

When you consider how info can be biased there aren't that many options. Info can be  omitted or distorted. How info can be distorted would be the subject of a standard reference page on deception and manipulation of info, and is a matter of pedantics.

The omission of facts is a crippling element in discussion, unlike the distortion of facts, which can be found out through straightforward analysis. How do you know when you don't know something.

The internet helps with that a great deal by bringing forward the details, but the display and verification of facts isn't about the internet. For the Ukraine conflict, a major part of it is the propaganda war. It's stunning to me how important facts are functionally omitted, while for others it's obvious fabrication and/or distortion of the truth.

A fact record and verification scheme is essential for any public info system, and defining that is one of the next things I want to do. There are a few processes like that which need a standardised format, and a timeline format is another that should be done right away.

 

Ibid

had enough

Hi guys,

Back at the grindstone, and I was wondering if anyone would be interested in giving opinions on a few points.

The previous material dealt mainly with the static info system, and, not surprisingly, few wanted to interact. It's all part of the process, though.

I see now that the creation of the static info database, including the fact check mechanism, is relatively simple both technically and conceptually. I think that, even if mine isn't sufficient, a public info database can be created, and it can be of such breadth and character so the vast majority of socially relevant issues and incidents can use it as a common dynamic permanent reference for all relevant discussions and decisions.

Once there's information, there has to be discussion, and it's the process of public internet (and other) discussion that I want to work on now. There are no suitable methods available currently.

I've been observing public discussion processes, and have noticed a few things that I want to keep in mind while developing the formalized internet process.

For eg., below is a list of phrases most people have likely used at one time or another in order to progress a face-face discussion.

Each of these statements is a prod for a specific style and type of info, and each has a set of categories in the static database that hold the info (if filled) needed to respond to the queries.

1) I need more proof
2) what do you mean
3) how is that related
4) how do you know that
5) how do you know that's true
6) why do you say that
7) why do you feel that way
8) outline my opinion to me, then I'll do you
9) what laws are involved
10) why should I believe you
11) why should I trust you
12) what's your point

What's your opinion about these?
Can you think of any more that are general enough to be broadly relevant?
And, specific ones too?

In face-face discussion, we can get immediate response and continue till satisfied. The discussion could then continue, because a point of contention has been overcome immediately.

But, when looking at a computer screen, you have to put together one or more individual pieces of static info to answer the question. There's no other way to do it, there has to be specific, consistent static categories.

Each question is related to specific categories of info in the main argument. If a person could see a list like the above, it will be much easier to be part of the formal discussion, since they'll be able to uncover the details of personal interest.

I want to make sure the natural way people discuss can be accommodated in the static info system.

If the person is still not satisfied with the available info, they can input a specific query for what they want to see.

This is one of the techniques I'm working on to make my info system easily useable by the vast majority of individuals.

If anyone chooses to respond, next I wanted to post my current list to compare face-face vs internet discussion, noting as many points of interest as possible.

Ibid.