George Herbert wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 2:18 PM, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
The principle that secret evidence should not be
the basis for
punishments is more important
I'm confused... we do that all the time with
Checkuser results. Why would
other information of similarly sensitive nature not be both used and treated
with care in terms of distribution and privacy concerns?
Checkuser is a defined
operation. It has been pre-approved for use
under specified circumstances. When it was first introduced there was
talk about having at least two users authorized on each project so that
they could watch each other. Suggestions of abuse have been raised
before, but that too has a limited scope.
The current arguments relate to less well defined processes. When
transparency is important the circumstances where information must be
restricted need to be made very clear, or people will start to imagine
all sorts of conspiracies. Not saying who information came from may be
perfectly acceptable, but not saying what the sin was or giving the
person an opportunity to defend himself is bound to create problems.
Ec