They were 8 and 11 years old

I had a good relationship with previous OIA managers there. They seemed to be doing their honest best in an institutionally crooked organisation. Now it looks like the OIA team has sunk to the level of the rest of the agency.

And a bs "internal" consultation, as usual.

NZ has had multiple people attempt the same with scraping over 15+ years and give up because parliament find too many new ways to break the format.

I wouldn't even attempt scraping today: the whole site is now behind an anti-bot WAF.

Yes I've read that and it in no way matches what I know from non-US Civil Liberties organisations. I'm sure you're very up to speed in the area of *US* Civil Liberties organisations. And as a result seem to have decided to attack people who are actually your allies.

I'm really not sure where you've got your strange ideas about "Civil Liberties" from. I wonder if perhaps you've mostly read US writing using the term (the US does use it a bit differently to the rest of the world). How do you feel about www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk for example?

I agree, I'm just lamenting that the reaction of risk averse agencies and under resourced OI teams may be to just publish a lot less - or stop publishing responses entirely.

It'd be sad if agencies' reaction to this was even more selective publication of OIA responses.

Including director's addresses?

The whole approach seems to be speed up SH1 (NZTA's responsibility) no matter the impact to the rest of the city (local authority's responsibility). For example, not allowing any turns to or from Cuba St.