Hi, all- As some of you may have seen, we posted this this morning: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/07/18/wikimedia-foundation-letter-transparenc...
Letting people know that we'd signed on to this letter:
https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/weneedtoknow-transparency-letter.pdf
Given last week's discussion here, I wanted to shed a little more light here on why we signed this:
* Mission/Values: There has been some skepticism (like from MZ) about whether PRISM is sufficiently related to our mission and values for us to take action. Without getting into that general question, it is clear that the Foundation's ability to be transparent with the community is absolutely critical, so we thought this action was very clearly within the scope of our mission/values.
* International: This letter is very deliberately focused on an issue (transparency) that benefits all Wikimedians, not just Americans, and generally uses language that matches that.
As I said last week, and mention again in the blog post, we'll continue to look out for opportunities that make sense ourselves, and of course the community should always feel able and empowered to start things as well.
I will be offline a good chunk of today (moving apartments - bad timing!) but will try to monitor this thread and respond as quickly as I can to any questions.
Thanks- Luis
Hi Luis,
Just a question related to language/context of the blog post, what do you mean by "criminal programs" in the sentence "This letter partially addresses that issue by asking that the government share more information about the scope and size of these programs, as it does with similar criminal programs."?
(As a non-native, non-US reader, it comes through as if you are referring to PRISM as a criminal [~illegal] programme.)
Best regards, Bence
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi, all- As some of you may have seen, we posted this this morning:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/07/18/wikimedia-foundation-letter-transparenc...
Letting people know that we'd signed on to this letter:
https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/weneedtoknow-transparency-letter.pdf
Given last week's discussion here, I wanted to shed a little more light here on why we signed this:
- Mission/Values: There has been some skepticism (like from MZ) about
whether PRISM is sufficiently related to our mission and values for us to take action. Without getting into that general question, it is clear that the Foundation's ability to be transparent with the community is absolutely critical, so we thought this action was very clearly within the scope of our mission/values.
- International: This letter is very deliberately focused on an issue
(transparency) that benefits all Wikimedians, not just Americans, and generally uses language that matches that.
As I said last week, and mention again in the blog post, we'll continue to look out for opportunities that make sense ourselves, and of course the community should always feel able and empowered to start things as well.
I will be offline a good chunk of today (moving apartments - bad timing!) but will try to monitor this thread and respond as quickly as I can to any questions.
Thanks- 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.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
Just a question related to language/context of the blog post, what do you mean by "criminal programs" in the sentence "This letter partially addresses that issue by asking that the government share more information about the scope and size of these programs, as it does with similar criminal programs."?
(As a non-native, non-US reader, it comes through as if you are referring to PRISM as a criminal [~illegal] programme.)
It's unclear to me as well. I assume it means programs that governed by criminal statutes rather than civil statutes; clarification welcome.
-Jeremy
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Luis,
Just a question related to language/context of the blog post, what do you mean by "criminal programs" in the sentence "This letter partially addresses that issue by asking that the government share more information about the scope and size of these programs, as it does with similar criminal programs."?
(As a non-native, non-US reader, it comes through as if you are referring to PRISM as a criminal [~illegal] programme.)
Good question- I think that would probably be unclear for native speakers as well, now that you point it out. I will try to edit it at some point.
The actual letter says:
"Basic information about how the government uses its various law enforcement–related investigative authorities has been published for years without any apparent disruption to criminal investigations."
In other words, the US government annually publishes the number of subpoenas, wiretaps, etc. that it uses to catch criminals, without damaging those efforts. So we're urging them to make the same publication here.
Hope that helps- Luis
Best regards, Bence
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi, all- As some of you may have seen, we posted this this morning:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/07/18/wikimedia-foundation-letter-transparenc...
Letting people know that we'd signed on to this letter:
https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/weneedtoknow-transparency-letter.pdf
Given last week's discussion here, I wanted to shed a little more light here on why we signed this:
- Mission/Values: There has been some skepticism (like from MZ) about
whether PRISM is sufficiently related to our mission and values for us to take action. Without getting into that general question, it is clear that the Foundation's ability to be transparent with the community is absolutely critical, so we thought this action was very clearly within the scope of our mission/values.
- International: This letter is very deliberately focused on an issue
(transparency) that benefits all Wikimedians, not just Americans, and generally uses language that matches that.
As I said last week, and mention again in the blog post, we'll continue to look out for opportunities that make sense ourselves, and of course the community should always feel able and empowered to start things as well.
I will be offline a good chunk of today (moving apartments - bad timing!) but will try to monitor this thread and respond as quickly as I can to any questions.
Thanks- 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.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org