Somewhat off topic? That means we're somewhat on topic then, right? It sure
seems like we're on topic.
I would prefer it of the WMF took the initiative and asked the community
what they think about this issue as a whole. The discussion seems to have
lacked transparency up to now. "We're suing the NSA for something we're
doing. Yes, we're aware of that, and we'd like to do something about it,
but it's a low priority and that's the final word." I'm not sure
everyone
will agree with that.
Best,
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Oliver Keyes <okeyes(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
At this point we're really getting somewhat
off-topic; Brian, if you
want to continue this discussion about the trade-offs around privacy
and oversight, feel free to drop me an email. In the meantime, we
should probably leave the thread for the original subject ;)
On 29 March 2015 at 14:55, Oliver Keyes <okeyes(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Yes, you did state that, but you equated the
explanation and
circumstances with the NSA's behaviour, when in actual fact they are
very different. I note that while you've argued that privacy policies
aren't read, that's as far as your rebuttal goes.
There's no trump of one principle over another, and this is nothing to
do with content neutrality; again, I invite you to surface your
proposal on enwiki. It will completely eliminate the utility of
checkuser or hard-blocks or range blocks, but if the community wants
it as much as you seem to think I'm sure they'll support the idea.
On 29 March 2015 at 14:10, Brian J Mingus <brian.mingus(a)colorado.edu>
wrote:
> In general people do not read privacy
policies, nor do they understand
what
> IP addresses are or what you can do with
them.
>
> But if you recall, I simply stated that recording IP addresses is
invasive.
> And it is.
>
> This is especially true when you know that your recordings are
faciliating
> the active de-anonymization of people who are
editing Wikipedia. Not
just
> de-anonymization, but often public shaming.
>
> For WMF, the principle of neutrality clearly trumps the principles of
> privacy and free speech. For the NSA, substitute security for
neutrality.
> It's hypocritical.
>
> Luckily, it's easy to fix. Just stuff the ip fields with random numbers
and
> deal with the fallout. Stop tracking people.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Oliver Keyes <okeyes(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
>>
>> In order:
>>
>> 1. Yes, the WMF is suing the NSA. There are a few threads/blog posts
>> about this people here can point you to.
>> 2. Brian: The NSA needs to store data without the permission or
>> consent of the people generating it, sometimes through forcible
>> interception, decryption and the introduction and maintenance of
>> software exploits that allow them to do this but also allow any other
>> reasonably technical nation or non-nation actor who is paying
>> attention to exploit the same vulnerability, keeping this data for an
>> indefinite period, with very little legal or political oversight, in
>> order to stop terrorism, where very little evidence exists that this
>> has helped in any way.
>>
>> The WMF needs to store data for a 90 day period, which is explicitly
>> set down in a privacy policy that is transparent, human-readable,
>> linked from every edit interface, written with the involvement of the
>> people whose data is being stored, administered by a committee of
>> people who come from this population of editors, and explicitly sets
>> out what the data may or may not be used for, even within the
>> Wikimedia Foundation, in order to stop vandalism, where multiple
>> scientific studies have validated the hypothesis that being able to
>> make rangeblocks and prohibit sockpuppetry is beneficial to the
>> community we are all a part of and the wider population of readers.
>>
>> That's what's actually going on, here. If you thing these situations
>> are roughly analogous, that's your prerogative. If you think the
>> storage of this data is unnecessary, I recommend you go to your local
>> project and explain to them that being able to checkuser potential
>> sockpuppets or hard-block users is not needed: gaining consensus there
>> would be a good starting point to changing this.
>>
>> On 29 March 2015 at 11:57, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>> > Wikipedia is suing the NSA?
Seriously?
>> > On 28 Mar 2015 11:23, "Brian J Mingus"
<brian.mingus(a)colorado.edu>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> It has worked up to now, but I'm thinking that, especially given
>> >> Wikimedia
>> >> is suing the NSA, it is no longer justifiable. If the NSA can't
track
>> >> citizens, Wikimedia
shouldn't be tracking them either. Seems simple
:)
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Francesco Ariis <fa-ml(a)ariis.it>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 01:19:35PM -0400, Brian J Mingus wrote:
>> >> > > I think it's rather curious that edits to Wikipedia
aren't
private.
>> >> > > Why
>> >> > log
>> >> > > the IP address? Why log anything? It's invasive.
>> >> >
>> >> > I guess it's a sensible choice against abuse (vandalism) while
still
>> > allowing non registered users editing
rights
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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:
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation