A notarized statement wouldn't need to contain all the personal info. Just a name and something else to distinguish common names (I suggest an address as the snail mail method pretty often will include a return address anyway). The rest of the info like age, nationality, race, identification numbers, etc. is only seen by the notary who puts a seal on the document to verify that the signature was made by the person with that name.
Birgitte SB
----- Original Message ----
From: Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: rm@slmr.com Sent: Mon, July 11, 2011 6:50:57 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns
I am not sure if that would solve any of the problems that some people have with the current situation. Still the notarized statement (which includes all personal data) would end up with an individual if I understand correctly. It would only add quite a lot of costs...
2011/7/11 Peter Gervai grinapo@gmail.com
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 02:28, Robin McCain robin@slmr.com wrote:
I'd say that if you've blocked someone who is a sockpuppet or other abuser the burden of validating such a person should be on them, not the wiki staff. At least a notary (or other public official) would have to look at an identity document - verify its validity as well as see that it indeed matches the person in question - then sign a document to that effect. This completely removes the wiki staff from the need to access the validity of a copy.
I guess it is nice to offer the blocked people this alternative, privacy-enhanced method along the old one. I'm sure current poster would be pleased, and I guess the dutch wikigods could accept that solution, too.
-- byte-byte, grin
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l