It seems like you can either deny James's knowledge of the technical/legal
overlap or ask him questions, but probably not both :p.
One element I can answer: no, it does not contain flash objects, flash is
not a technology included in the Wikimedia stack on account of it barely
being classifiable as a technology.
On Sunday, 1 May 2016, Toby Dollmann <toby.dollmann(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It's
certainly possible that this is only 'obvious' to me because of my
knowledge of outside organizations or law but it doesn't surprise me.
Your reply is not obvious to me. I understand that your employment is
exclusively with WMF and you do not appear to be particularly
qualified (or experienced) in law.
Treating the cookie statement as an explanation / extension of WMF's
privacy policy and noting the poster's concern that the WMF legal team
have amended certain descriptors for locally stored objects (not
cookies) of indeterminate (theoretically infinite) persistence, would
you clarify the following technical /legal aspects relating to cookies
and their usage on Wikimedia.
1. Whether, or not, editors of Wikimedia websites", say
"en.wikipedia.org" or "commons.wikimedia.org", can edit if cookies
(broadly construed) are disabled and not stored on client devices.
2. Whether, or not, the locally stored objects referenced in the
cookie policy include
(i) Javascript code, or
(ii) Flash objects
3. Whether, or not, the locally stored objects inserted by the WMF, on
client computers and stored there, have the capability of collecting
extensive personal information of editors, the degree of which not
being explicitly disclosed in advance to users.
4. Whether, or not, the WMF is aware that a certain "toxic and
juvenile .. problem" [reff#1] WMF sysop (now banned) with extensive
knowledge of WMF's checkuser process, the cookie policy and its
internals has achieved remarkable technical capability to closely
impersonate other editors and get them blocked by a network (aka "porn
crew") of surviving cooperative "community appointed" sysops favorably
still disposed to him/her. That this problem person (who has also
threatened legal action against WMF) extensively uses mobile Wikipedia
via "millions of IPs" [ref#2] in multiple languages, including several
some fairly obscure ones, for abusive purposes which are 'obviously'
related to WMF_legal's recent subject edit.
Toby
[ref#1] "I should be clear - the problem is not the abuse of me, but
the toxic and juvenile environment at Commons. I have never failed in
30 seconds of looking to find a horrifying BLP violation at commons of
a photo of an identifiable woman engaged in sexual activity with
highly questionable provenance (for example a deleted flickr account).
Every time (including tonight) that I go there hoping to see
improvement, I am disappointed. And I think that as long as we
tolerate it and don't bounce some very bad admins, we will not solve
the problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)"
[ref#2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOdder&actio…
On 5/2/16, James Alexander <jalexander(a)wikimedia.org <javascript:;>>
wrote:
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Trillium Corsage
<
trillium2014(a)yandex.com <javascript:;>>
wrote:
> I noticed Michelle Paulson editing the "Cookie Statement" page, and it
> seemed kind of strange to me because I thought it more a technical and
IT
thing to
edit. But Michelle is WMF Legal, right
I won't/can't comment on the rest of your questions but I'm confused
about
why you would be surprised here... the cookie
statement is, essentially,
a
legal statement/privacy policy "type"
document (obviously different but
similar) and just like the privacy policy (or access to non public
information or document retention policy or terms of use or other policy
docs along those lines) the cookie statement has been owned by Legal for
as
long as it's existed (I can attest to that
fact since the CA team was
asked
> to help put it up for them).
>
It's certainly possible that this is only
'obvious' to me because of my
knowledge of outside organizations or law but it doesn't surprise me.
>
Cookie statements are part of the law in some countries (not necessarily
> ones we have to follow given our position in the US but Europe has laws
> about it for example) and so would usually be within the legal department
> for many organizations. Cookies are also closely tied with privacy and
the
privacy policy and so compliance and ensuring
that the org stays within
their promises would, also, often fall within the legal department
(though
everyone should/does have a hand in ensuring they
follow the promises the
org as a whole made).
James Alexander
Manager
Trust & Safety
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
?subject=unsubscribe>