How exactly do config files tell us what the WMF is retaining?
That the error logs are manually purged tells us that they are in fact
retaining details.
What I asked was an official statement of what and for how long.
The config files do not answer that question.
At any rate you didn't link to them anyway, not in this thread.
In a message dated 11/28/2010 5:37:18 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
aude.wiki(a)gmail.com writes:
The WMF server config files are there for everyone to see. Do you not
consider them "reliable" source? Do you not believe they are in fact
the server config settings used by WMF?
There are apache error logs (notice LogLevel) that are collected.
Those are manually purged, as of 2008. (source: Tim Starling
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-September/045811.html
)
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 6:51 PM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 11/28/2010 3:36:34 PM Pacific Standard Time,
russnelson(a)gmail.com writes:
> You misbelieve. Listen to Aude. She knows what she's talking about.
>
I'd rather have Aude cite a reliable source.
"The Wikimedia Foundation *MAY* keep raw logs of such
transactions" (emphasis added)
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Privacy_policy
Under the policy, WMF is permitted to collect and keep apache and
squid logs but the policy gives more leeway than what is done in
practice. WMF does collect squid logs but only 1/1000 sample. They
don't keep apache access logs, (e.g. I think these are what you mean
by ip server logs) per httpd.conf file that I linked to in earlier
email.
The WMF server config files are there for everyone to see. Do you not
consider them "reliable" source? Do you not believe they are in fact
the server config settings used by WMF?
There are apache error logs (notice LogLevel) that are collected.
Those are manually purged, as of 2008. (source: Tim Starling http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-September/045811.html
)
In that thread, you can read more of what Tim and others had to say on
to, including Sue.
I can't say more than that but hope you have enough info and sources.
Cheers,
-Katie (@aude)
People are not reliable sources. No living person is such an authority
that we should listen to that person. Not even on their own
biography, much
less anything else.
The role of the expert is not to spout dogma, but rather to build a case
using citable sources. No one is immune from this diction. The
Archangel
Gabriel told me so.
W
On a side-note you completely ignored what I actually stated.
Aude mentioned the checkuser logs. I pointed out that IP server logs
are
*not* the same thing as checkuser logs. The privacy policy states
that these
exist, that they are kept. It states or at least implies that as I
said,
they are not the same thing as the checkuser logs.
It does not state for how long, either is kept.
So there.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thank you for letting me know that YOU are not a reliable source of anything. Aude, on the other hand, I trust to be reliable.
WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 11/28/2010 3:36:34 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>russnelson(a)gmail.com writes:
>
>
>> You misbelieve. Listen to Aude. She knows what she's talking about.
>>
>
>I'd rather have Aude cite a reliable source.
>People are not reliable sources. No living person is such an authority
>that we should listen to that person. Not even on their own biography, much
>less anything else.
>
>The role of the expert is not to spout dogma, but rather to build a case
>using citable sources. No one is immune from this diction. The Archangel
>Gabriel told me so.
>
>W
>
>On a side-note you completely ignored what I actually stated.
>Aude mentioned the checkuser logs. I pointed out that IP server logs are
>*not* the same thing as checkuser logs. The privacy policy states that these
>exist, that they are kept. It states or at least implies that as I said,
>they are not the same thing as the checkuser logs.
>
>It does not state for how long, either is kept.
>
>So there.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
In a message dated 11/28/2010 3:36:34 PM Pacific Standard Time,
russnelson(a)gmail.com writes:
> You misbelieve. Listen to Aude. She knows what she's talking about.
>
I'd rather have Aude cite a reliable source.
People are not reliable sources. No living person is such an authority
that we should listen to that person. Not even on their own biography, much
less anything else.
The role of the expert is not to spout dogma, but rather to build a case
using citable sources. No one is immune from this diction. The Archangel
Gabriel told me so.
W
On a side-note you completely ignored what I actually stated.
Aude mentioned the checkuser logs. I pointed out that IP server logs are
*not* the same thing as checkuser logs. The privacy policy states that these
exist, that they are kept. It states or at least implies that as I said,
they are not the same thing as the checkuser logs.
It does not state for how long, either is kept.
So there.
My belief is that this is not so. Checkuser logs are not the same thing as
IP logs.
Are you suggesting that should a court, three months-and-a-day after a
logged in user made a libelous edit, order the WMF to release the IP address of
that user, they would not be able to do so? I suggest they would and
probably have.
I would like to see a clear citation to where, when and how the WMF retains
logs of user activity. Is there actually such an official statement
somewhere? And could anyone cite it with a link?
The issue with the AOL Search Scandal is a red herring. People are not
going to be searching for their own phone number or Social Security numbers
within Wikipedia. And even if someone searches for such a thing, there is no
way to know that they are looking for details on themselves, or on someone
else.
Our entry on that regardless notes a lawsuit *four years old* with no
resolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_scandal
Indicative I suggest of it being a non-story.
WJhonson wrote:
> Regardless of what occurred with the AOL details, that is a "Red Herring"
> as I said, because such an event would not and could not occur with
> Wikipedia details.
> People regardless of whether or not they searched their own personal
> details within the AOL search engine... would not search their own
> personal details within the Wikipedia engine.
I think you missed my point: that lots of innocent data pieced together tell
a new story.
People may not search their name in Wikipedia (although I'm not too sure
about that, many people might want to search for their surname looking for
famous ancestors).
They may not search for local shops, but will search for their home town,
the university they attended, their favorite car brands and sports, and so
on (please show a little imagination here).
Here is just one example of an article that may invoke scrutiny of
contributors.
http://tinyurl.com/2axrcar
Erik Zachte
In a message dated 11/28/2010 2:34:37 PM Pacific Standard Time,
erikzachte(a)infodisiac.com writes:
> Repost with shortened url:
>
> WJhonson:
> > The issue with the AOL Search Scandal is a red herring. People are
> > not going to be searching for their own phone number or Social
> > Security numbers within Wikipedia. And even if someone searches for
> > such a thing, there is no way to know that they are looking for
> > details on themselves, or on someone else.
> >
> > Our entry on that regardless notes a lawsuit *four years old* with no
> > resolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_scandal
> >
> > Indicative I suggest of it being a non-story.
>
> Many people did search for their own name occasionally, and relatively
> often
> did search for local shops and local news.
> Each of these clues were ambiguous and insignificant by themselves, but
> once
> put together often did paint a unique picture of one single person.
>
> Apparently de-anonimization is a nice pursuit for some would-be
> detectives,
> and quite possibly also for government officials in some parts of the
> world
> where privacy is considered a risk to a state's stability.
>
> The AOL data were taken offline very quickly (and the research team
> disbanded), but copies had already been made, and you can still find the
> data online now.
>
> http://www.gregsadetsky.com/aol-data/
>
> The following article paints a rather graphical picture of how search
> terms
> came to haunt back their author.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/322a5pk
>
> Erik Zachte
>
You ignored my point.
Regardless of what occurred with the AOL details, that is a "Red Herring"
as I said, because such an event would not and could not occur with Wikipedia
details.
People regardless of whether or not they searched their own personal
details within the AOL search engine... would not search their own personal
details within the Wikipedia engine.
Do you know understand my point?
What this thread is about is releasing details of activity *within*
Wikipedia. We have no control over details of activity *outside* Wikipedia.
Thus, the event described here as the atom bomb of personal exposure, is
moot (not relevant, not related, a red herring) to this thread.
W
Repost with shortened url:
WJhonson:
> The issue with the AOL Search Scandal is a red herring. People are
> not going to be searching for their own phone number or Social
> Security numbers within Wikipedia. And even if someone searches for
> such a thing, there is no way to know that they are looking for
> details on themselves, or on someone else.
>
> Our entry on that regardless notes a lawsuit *four years old* with no
> resolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_scandal
>
> Indicative I suggest of it being a non-story.
Many people did search for their own name occasionally, and relatively often
did search for local shops and local news.
Each of these clues were ambiguous and insignificant by themselves, but once
put together often did paint a unique picture of one single person.
Apparently de-anonimization is a nice pursuit for some would-be detectives,
and quite possibly also for government officials in some parts of the world
where privacy is considered a risk to a state's stability.
The AOL data were taken offline very quickly (and the research team
disbanded), but copies had already been made, and you can still find the
data online now.
http://www.gregsadetsky.com/aol-data/
The following article paints a rather graphical picture of how search terms
came to haunt back their author.
http://tinyurl.com/322a5pk
Erik Zachte
hello
should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
my native language is tatar and i would or i am going to write to
tatar wikipedia and say other people to write to it.
authors/managers/administrators of tatar texts are tatar people. for
that i think it is correct if tatar people can see web server logs. i
think this would not be bad for privacy of readers, because they would
see that logs are published, and can access wikipedia through proxy to
hide their ip address. ip-addresses of anonymous writers are already
published. if anonymouse readers want to hide their referer or search
keywords, they also can hide that by copy-pasting wikipedia article
url, and this also should be said shortly on every page and in privacy
page.
another advantage of this is that people could create custom analysers
of the logs.
i think logs should be divided with directory structure by years,
months, days, and probably hours.