On 15 May 2014 14:45, Stephen LaPorte slaporte@wikimedia.org wrote: ...
The purpose of the guideline is to provide opportunity for community members to guide and provide feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's advocacy positions. It is our internal guideline, not a binding policy or contract (see the FAQ for the guideline). If you have an issue with the Necessary and Proportionate principles or the WMF taking a stance against mass surveillance, you are welcome to raise it here or on Meta.
Hi Stephen,
I have already responded for a second time on the blog post in question. That is awaiting moderation right now, so I am cautious about discussing this in two places. However here is my point of view from what I have discovered today:
As I understand it the WMF promises to do 3 things before publishing a blog post like this: 1. "Advocacy Advisory Group (consultation)" - done 2. "RfC (consultation if time permits)" - not done 3. "General notice" - not done
Considering this is an important document in terms of global internet politics and the role of the WMF in representing our community (this is how the general public will see this action), I am puzzled as to why any WMF manager would want to be seen to choosing to skip #2 and #3.
The fact is that the policy in question has been worded so that that sexual orientation and LGBT minorities are not explicitly covered. I am sure that one can debate what the scope of "others" might be in the text, however as a member of that minority group, I would have absolutely no confidence that my right to privacy for my gay life would have any protection were I, say, using Grindr in Turkey to meet friends, even if the Telecoms companies in that country had agreed to the Principles. Indeed just by using Grindr I might be endangering any local LGBT people I talked to, who might later be prosecuted or persecuted for their 'immoral activities' using data collected by monitoring the application.
Had the WMF consulted more widely, I would have been able to put forward examples and the community could discuss if they were something to be concerned enough about, for the WMF to raise its own questions or clarifications before fully supporting the principles. By rushing ahead without consultation when there was plenty of time to do so, my concerns have been unnecessarily ignored as I had no voice in this process.
Fae