On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 11:07 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman@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.