On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 11:07 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Luis Villa wrote:
...
I'll probably post some more details on the talk page in the next
day or two, but suffice to say that we continue to listen for options
that are aligned with our values and likely to have an impact on
the discussion.
Luis, could you please help us understand the specific reasons that the
proposed options (which seemed to be favored roughly 8 to 3 at the meta
feedback page) aren't considered to be aligned with the values you're
referring to?
I discussed this a bit yesterday in the talk page and will flesh that out
more, but the specific concern (raised here, on the blog, and in the talk
page) is that stopwatching is too US-focused. When counting those concerns
as anti-stopwatching votes, the ratio appears more balanced (and the
numbers are quite small, as well).
Would publicizing these free and open secure alternatives to
commercial applications known to be under surveillance
--
https://prism-break.org/ -- be sufficiently aligned with out values?
Those are international in application so it would not have the same
particular problem. (I'm frankly skeptical that any particular set of tools
can protect someone from a determined government, so I have not looked very
hard at prism-break, but at least conceptually it would seem to be aligned.)
Luis
--
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810
NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*