Quick Regulation Notice: Privacy Laws Enshrined

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

After lengthy discussion in staff-chat, the depletion of my political capital, and repeated homoerotic tension between staff, I've gotten two additional regulations added to our wiki.

 

 

What exactly Privacy Laws mean has been established and written down as actual regulations. These reinforce unwritten rules of thumbs to hopefully lead to better understanding and cohesion on what is legal or not during security operations.

I also convinced an addition of a small, alternate form of punishment: written apologies. It is my hypothesis that giving a choice between a (sincere or not) written apology or a slap on the wrist will serve as a suitable ego-blow more effective than the more popular hard-liner stances on bad security conduct, and the demotion/suspension will catch any repeat offenders.

This is a general notice so we can get the word out and make sure the messy transition process of "That isn't a regulation! Oh, wait...." is as short as possible.

I also did a minor addition of adding the popular alternate names of the different teirs of infractions, being yellow, amber, red, or iX00.

[MrGabol100]

So why are Cargo techs charged with i118 if punishment goes to the source of the leak? Hem.

[Skull132]

So why are Cargo techs charged with i118 if punishment goes to the source of the leak? Hem.

 

The article in question requires proof that the tech read them. So basically, he needs to be stupid about it, and, for example, read them out in public. If he just sees them as medical records, and then has plausible deniability on reading them, he's fine.

[MrGabol100]

So why are Cargo techs charged with i118 if punishment goes to the source of the leak? Hem.

 

The article in question requires proof that the tech read them. So basically, he needs to be stupid about it, and, for example, read them out in public. If he just sees them as medical records, and then has plausible deniability on reading them, he's fine.

Reading them out loud, FTFY?

[veradox]

im under the impression that for the sake of clerical adjustment that these regulations be posted after the listing of slander instead of after the listing of excessive force in the corporate regulations book/site page

just because this all revolves around information and grouping it up sounds semi-smart

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

im under the impression that for the sake of clerical adjustment that these regulations be posted after the listing of slander instead of after the listing of excessive force in the corporate regulations book/site page

just because this all revolves around information and grouping it up sounds semi-smart

 

That's possible, but that would require changing all the numbers that come after it in sequence, which would annoy some sticklers who bizarrely have all the i100's memorized. That'll be done if Forgotten Traveller, the CCIA boss, says it's ok.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Hem.

 

snickers

 

If the cargo technician gossips, then he's the source of the leak. Until we get paper shredders then disposals remains the only way for the masses to dispose of unwanted paperwork, since not everyone wants to burn paper in the office.

[MrGabol100]

snickers

 

If the cargo technician gossips, then he's the source of the leak. Until we get paper shredders then disposals remains the only way for the masses to dispose of unwanted paperwork, since not everyone wants to burn paper in the office.

But it gives that nice feeling of 30s America wall street.

[Guest]

snickers

 

If the cargo technician gossips, then he's the source of the leak. Until we get paper shredders then disposals remains the only way for the masses to dispose of unwanted paperwork, since not everyone wants to burn paper in the office.

 

You're wrong. You can place old forms and paperwork into the request console which adds to their paper stock and destroys the paper.

[Faris]

 

If the cargo technician gossips, then he's the source of the leak. Until we get paper shredders then disposals remains the only way for the masses to dispose of unwanted paperwork, since not everyone wants to burn paper in the office.

 

You're wrong. You can place old forms and paperwork into the request console which adds to their paper stock and destroys the paper.

 

Are you sure? I recall trying it one and it ended up trying to fax it. Is there a certain way to do it? If I don't have a lighter, I usually just relabel the paper and put it in a cabinet if I'm Command, otherwise I keep it on me until I can dispose of it.

[Guest]

If the cargo technician gossips, then he's the source of the leak. Until we get paper shredders then disposals remains the only way for the masses to dispose of unwanted paperwork, since not everyone wants to burn paper in the office.

 

You're wrong. You can place old forms and paperwork into the request console which adds to their paper stock and destroys the paper.

 

Are you sure? I recall trying it one and it ended up trying to fax it. Is there a certain way to do it? If I don't have a lighter, I usually just relabel the paper and put it in a cabinet if I'm Command, otherwise I keep it on me until I can dispose of it.

 

You have to open the interface and change the paper holder to OPEN instead of CLOSED, it's the fail-safe to stop idiots from destroying a paper while trying to fax it.

[Faris]

Huh, the more you know.