[Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

Tue Jul 12 16:46:21 UTC 2011

Sure it would reduce the amount of private data considered, but also the
name&address could (should) be considered private, and hence it wouldn't
take away the fundamental concerns as they are stated by several people.

Best,

Lodewijk

2011/7/12 Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>

> A notarized statement wouldn't need to contain all the personal info.  Just
> a
> name and something else to distinguish common names (I suggest an address
> as the
> snail mail method pretty often will include a return address anyway).   The
> rest
> of the info like age, nationality, race, identification numbers, etc. is
> only
> seen by the notary who puts a seal on the document to verify that the
> signature
> was made by the person with that name.
>
> Birgitte SB
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org>
> > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Cc: rm at slmr.com
> > Sent: Mon, July 11, 2011 6:50:57 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns
> >
> > I am not sure if that would solve any of the problems that some people
>  have
> > with the current situation. Still the notarized statement (which
>  includes
> > all personal data) would end up with an individual if I  understand
> > correctly. It would only add quite a lot of  costs...
> >
> > 2011/7/11 Peter Gervai <grinapo at gmail.com>
> >
> > > On Mon,  Jul 11, 2011 at 02:28, Robin McCain <robin at slmr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >  I'd say that if you've blocked someone who is a sockpuppet or other
> > > >  abuser the burden of validating such a person should be on them, not
> the
> > >  > wiki staff. At least a notary (or other public official) would have
>  to
> > > > look at an identity document - verify its validity as well as  see
> that
> > > > it indeed matches the person in question - then sign a  document to
> that
> > > > effect. This completely removes the wiki staff  from the need to
> access
> > > > the validity of a copy.
> > >
> > > I  guess it is nice to offer the blocked people this alternative,
> > >  privacy-enhanced method along the old one. I'm sure current poster
> > > would  be pleased, and I guess the dutch wikigods could accept that
> > > solution,  too.
> > >
> > > --
> > >  byte-byte,
> > >      grin
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >  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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>