In a message dated 11/28/2010 9:06:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, russnelson@gmail.com writes:
The policy is very explicit. It says that logs may be kept. If you know anything about operational requirements, you will understand that that means that logs are not routinely kept, but may be kept in order to diagnose problems. It's not practical to be more explicit than that. Aude has already explained that in the usual case, the http server itself keeps no logs (because they'd just tell ops which squids are accessing which server), and the squids themselves discard 99.9% of all accesses.
You're not likely to get any better explanation of what happens, because it's simply not practical or productive to keep you informed of which squids or servers have had logging turned on. Rest assures that nobody at the WMF cares who is accessing what page. They have more interesting problems to solve!
Yes I agree, the policy is extremely vague. We may be struck by lightning, we may be abducted by aliens, we may be sentient beings. May doesn't say anything. Why have a policy which uses "may"? So you can do anything at all and say "well we did say we MAY..." That's not a policy, it's a non-policy.
I know quite a lot about operational requirements, and I know that policies should state clearly what IS being done, not what may be done. It's quite practical to be more explicit. For example, the policy could state clearly what exactly is being done. That would be more explicit.
I know what Aude stated. I asked for a citation to the actual policy of the WMF on that point. But apparently there isn't any. You mean it's not practical or productive to keep users informed of what information is being stored on them. Why bother with a clear privacy policy, why not simply ignore anyone who pushes for one? And then claim you're not.... Very clever.
W