[Foundation-l] Note regarding status of privacy policy

Sat Aug 9 18:09:29 UTC 2008

Hoi,
An e-mail address is not universal nor is it compulsory to have one and as a
consequence it is not the solution that you think it is.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > So you are checked. You have to appreciate that by your own words, there
> > must be a reasonable suspicion. You even insist that it is published that
> > you have been checked. This means that it is now generally known that you
> > are under a reasonable suspicion... How nice, that you are now known to
> have
> > a tarnished reputation...
> >
> > Actually when you are checked, and it is not published that you were
> > checked, you are much better off. When everyone can demand checking
> because
> > THEY are suspicious, publication of check results will only increase the
> > amount of vigilantism. Really, you are much better off when trusted
> people
> > do their checking and keep their confidences.
> > Thanks,
> >      GerardM
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Jon <scream at datascreamer.com> wrote:
> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> > Hash: SHA1
> >> >
> >> > SlimVirgin wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 10:46 AM, elisabeth bauer
> >> >> <eflebeth at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> >>> 2008/8/8 Michael Snow <wikipedia at verizon.net>:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> The board intends to vote on this version, but before we do, I
> wanted
> >> to
> >> >>>> provide one last opportunity for your feedback.
> >> >>> While the policy deals at length with who has access it is very
> silent
> >> >>> about when all these persons are allowed to access my data and
> >> >>> actually access my data. The only thing somehow related to this was
> >> >>> "As a general principle, the access to, and retention of, personally
> >> >>> identifiable data in all projects should be minimal and should be
> used
> >> >>> only internally to serve the well-being of the projects." which is
> >> >>> somehow a bit vague. Who defines what is well-being? How is this
> >> >>> controlled? Who does guarantee that a nosy checkuser doesn't just
> look
> >> >>> up my user information, revealing my employer,  the wikipedia user
> >> >>> name of my boyfriend and other friends just for fun? How would I
> even
> >> >>> know?
> >> >>
> >> >> Elian, this is exactly the situation we have on the English
> Wikipedia.
> >> >> Jimbo takes the view that checkusers may be conducted more or less at
> >> >> random, for no reason, and the checkusers follow that lead. In other
> >> >> words, the Foundation's checkuser policy is being openly flouted.
> >> >>
> >> >> We've been told we can't complain to the Ombudsman commission because
> >> >> they only deal with violations of the privacy policy, not the
> >> >> checkuser policy. We've been told we have no right to know whether
> >> >> we've been checked. Attempts to introduce such a rule have led to the
> >> >> checkusers saying they will not follow it. And when we do find out
> >> >> that we've been checked, the only concern of the checkusers is to
> find
> >> >> out who told us, and to punish that person. It really is a very bad
> >> >> situation for the Foundation, one that's bound to lead to trouble
> >> >> sooner or later.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sarah
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> >> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >
> >> > I personally don't mind being checked.  Whenever, by whomever, so long
> >> > as the results are not disclosed. (disclosure, not checking, is
> governed
> >> > by the privacy policy.
> >> >
> >> > - --
> >> > Best,
> >> > Jon
> >> >
> >> > [User:NonvocalScream]
> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> >> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >> >
> >> > iEYEARECAAYFAkid0QcACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtVy0QCeMQHlFaTDaQxNSNcE8CMzzknY
> >> > hBwAoK05fUsbUBc4gXcWkZsfEazCNvA/
> >> > =GMaV
> >> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > foundation-l mailing list
> >> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >
> >>
> >> I do believe that checking is covered as well. And if it's not, it
> >> needs to be. Checks should only be conducted at least upon reasonable
> >> suspicion.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> If I have a "Contact me" email address, I can be easily notified that
> I have been checked without "tarnishing my reputation", and I can
> choose to make that as public or nonpublic as I like. "You have been
> checkusered" by email would result in no tarnishment of a public
> reputation while properly notifying the target. Granted, in some
> circumstances, suppression of notification may be appropriate, but
> such suppression should be logged and justified.
>
> --
> Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>