I think now that we are suing the NSA that it's
deeply hypocritical to be
surveilling users. A quick fix: stuff the ip field with random numbers.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 8:38 AM, James Alexander <jalexander(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
The idea of the IP being more private in the
history/ public logs (for
example a unique hash so that you know it's "an IP" but not where/what
IP"
) is one that I know has been discussed and is desired by a good number
within the foundation including within legal. I'll try to look for the
phabricator task about it tomorrow. I think that's something that is likely
to happen, it isn't easy though and requires a fair number of resources to
be pointed at it to get it done so it's a question of priorities and
convincing those who decide those things that it should be higher. I
believe it's something, privacy wise, that legal would really like.
I think it is unlikely in the short to medium term, however, to get rid of
the IPs in the backend (in server logs and in the checkuser system for
example) because the replacements just aren't there. I've spent a good
amount of time thinking of a way to make the checkuser system as usable as
necessary without revealing IPs for example (including a consultant who
looked a lot but didn't really come up with anything we didn't know
already). I think it's doable, but it would be a very difficult and long
design process and I think it's unlikely in the near future.
James Alexander
Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Kyanos <someanon126(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I don't believe a different license is
needed. CC licenses can be used
for
anonymous works: The author is not given and does
not have to be
credited,
but everything else (attribution of the work and
share-alike) would stay
the same. So a change in the terms of use to the effect of, "Unregistered
edits are considered to have no named author," would be sufficient.
Kyanos
On 03/27/2015 06:41 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> Perhaps we should move to a different licensing model for future IP
> edits. CC0 for IP edits would be a more sensible license for edits by
an IP
> where in many cases no-one could attribute
the edit to the individual
who
> made it. If people don't want to release
their edits as CC0 they can
always
create an
account.
Regards
Jonathan Cardy
On 27 Mar 2015, at 10:28, Elias Friedman <elipongo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's actually required so as to provide attribution as per the Creative
> Commons and other licenses we operate under.
>
> Sent from my Droid 4
> Elias Friedman A.S., CCEMT-P
> אליהו מתתיהו בן צבי
> elipongo(a)gmail.com
> "יְהִי אוֹר"
>
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: