No, our concerns weren't paranoid at all. Have you even read the initial Draft Poposal? OK, let's shift the scenario from a WP-article about a public figure to personal data embedded in user pages or discussion pages. Then any erasure based on data protection claims would affect the consistency of the whole project. Aren't we worried about authors' retention all the time? Here is another reason why. And how do you judge the surveillence program deriving from Art 17.2? Do you think a volunteer community which is already concerned with maaany copyright and personality rights issues could handle that? And please, AGF. J
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I am only commenting on the WMF's interests, and of course am not
well-enough informed, however it seems to me the entire thrust of the
argument for WMF concern seems paranoid and foolish in the extreme.
On 11/01/13 03:24 AM, Jan Engelmann wrote:
> To put it bluntly: It could even affect charities in San
> Francisco.
Yes, it *would*, and this is not a bad thing. Privacy laws should be
as standardized as reasonably possible as it simplifies their
implementation. We don't hear such angst about other standards we
attempt to comply with though they are far more burdensome, such as
W3C and copyright. As far as I am aware, the WMF is generically
supportive of individual privacy on the internet, not afraid of it.
> Quite worrysome for the Wikimedia movement was the Commission's
> initial proposal for a "right to be forgotten" (Art. 17), a
> general guarantee for data subjects to get their personal data
> erased, if they didn't give their explicit permission. Lacking a
> clear-cut, consensual definition of "personal data", even the birth
> date of a Hollywood actress could be handled like that.
That is FUD, clear and simple. A public figure's personal data would
be handled differently than a private individual's data; that is
already true and while we do not know the specifics *we also do not
know or understand the specifics of the current 27 different laws
governing this data now.*
I would personally prefer a more measured coverage of the inevitable
legal changes affecting the Foundation's communities.
Amgine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ8E7NAAoJECWEXpXQfyMwmxsIALO3zop4p6gVuyYxMoWaMUev
WGkAoz0Ld+82E43EX88ctZe2kN3XZZKcekqsyZs5hmODhAOIly2dSHt/NDHHXeQo
t7kxrx8pkRawa/fmA3npRlyhI+iW11ZNjdcL5JSw+ntR/6lPwN1G8sl8hx0EIpsF
t8ScYo/aqc5is8524Ani1xKPKmciwH5X2eGBshT4tMIYrFXpTQ6RGib8x0JGQvj+
shtcLChkfsWAKQcXmPl/OppOPMXkhCQ2Bpt9xsjseoWR1qKfRG5bRktnP4jqhQOX
PWALJDyJIj0n7H/ENLMtgc44fkvaxuaJzfOU9FbqYMa2C5S6yPQSgO1CodiUFCM=
=BOm0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors