[Foundation-l] New draft of privacy policy (urgent)

[Thomas Dalton]

2008/6/23 Mike Godwin <mgodwin at wikimedia.org>:
>
> Thomas Dalton writes:
>
>> 2008/6/22 Mike Godwin <mgodwin at wikimedia.org>:
>>> I don't think education is exclusive as binding policy. Any policy we
>>> publish is going to have a binding effect, to the extent that people
>>> rely on our representations about what we do. That's why we have
>>> taken
>>> the pains to make the policy match our actual practice as completely
>>> as possible.
>>
>> You'll note, I said "primarily as binding policy". I know it is
>> binding policy now, but that's not its primary function, its primary
>> function is clearly one of education, and that should be changed.
>
> I am not sure what it is you are saying should be changed (it's
> unclear which function is referenced by "that"),

"That" refers to the fact that the document is primarily educational,
rather than actual policy.

> but there is no
> question that the document has to function both as a statement of
> binding policy and as an educational document.  Attempting to separate
> one from the other is asking for trouble down the line.

There is question - I question it. Policy and documentation are very
different things. Trying to combine the two is very difficult and, in
my opinion, doomed to failure for the reasons already given.

> We considered for a while separating the current policy into a
> statement of policy and an FAQ.  That would have "solved" the length
> problem, more or less, but it also would create a problem, since the
> FAQ itself would have functioned as a legally binding public promise
> as well.  In other words, it would have seemed to be more elegant but
> would have raised potentially more legal problems, especially to the
> extent that the public relied on representations in the FAQ rather
> than in the policy statement proper.

I guess that depends on how well you write it. The policy should
describe what the WMF commits to doing, the FAQ should explain why.
It's not easy to cleanly separate the two, but I believe it is
possible. Certainly, the explanations given in the FAQ will be used by
anyone interpreting the policy, but the answer to that is to make the
policy are precise as possible so there is as little room for
interpretation as possible - as you should do with any legal document
(that's why we put up with legalese, after all).

> We really did review a range of options before taking the particular
> approach we took, and we took this approach in full awareness that
> we'd end up with a longer work product. But that turns out to be the
> more legally prudent course to take.

Legality aside, we're telling you, as real people, that this policy
simply will not work. It doesn't matter how prudent it is, if it
doesn't work, it's useless.