Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Anthere wrote:
I guess that most points you are raising do not really belong to the checkuser policy proper, but to the privacy policy.
More particular, these points are visible here : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Policy_on_release_of_data_deri...
That is exactly the same text as the text I was questioning - it's just as vague.
It is just as vague, because it is a copy of what the privacy policy says... :)
And yes, I agree, this is vague ----> to be discussed on the talk page.
(note : I did not write the privacy policy. Could Soufron or one of our legal persons help here ?)
What does "If the user has said they're from somewhere and the IP confirms it, it's not releasing private information to confirm it if needed." mean?
Well... I live in Clermont Ferrand and published this information myself. If for some reasons a check is done on my user:Anthere, I can not complain that it be publicly revealed that the user:Anthere ips are leading to Clermont Ferrand...
What happens if someone claims they are from somewhere (for example France), yet the IP address of the user suggests they are from somewhere else (for example Japan)?
Then I suppose it should be publicly said that the ip does not seem to sign a presence in France, but rather in Japan. If the person is suspected to be a sock puppet of someone in Japan, it may leads to high suspicions of sockpuppetry, both because of the common country and because of the lie. But the ip number should not be published.
Note that in case of pure mass vandalism, when range ips blocks are necessary, this will be nevertheless visible.
What does "generally" in "Revealing the country is generally not personally identifiable (e.g. "User:Querulous is coming in from the UK, User:Sockpuppet is coming in from Canada")." mean?
The problem with releasing data is to allow others to identify a "person". If my ip is fixed and if I edit under another name, such as user:antfish, the check will reveal that user:anthere and user:antfish are editing from the same ip... which could lead to high suspicion that both are the same editor.
Versus, if it is revealed that user:antfish is an editor with an ip in France... well, we are only 60 millions or so. This will not publicly prove I am user:Antfish.
I don't think you've defined "generally" there.
No. I suggest you ask to the original author of that sentence. I think it is David. Otherwise, perhaps Datrio, I did not check.
I'm still not happy with the idea that access to personal information can be given to people on the say-so that they will behave. Yes, the people who this will be given to are going to be some of the most trustworthy Wikipedians there are, but this is *personal information*. We should have some kind of legal agreement in place so there are no excuses.
Difficult to do as I understood... Amongst things we could do for example, is to require an editor with this type of access to provide his real name (privately) and a valid email. And have him confirm by email that he read the privacy policy. Would that be an idea ? Yes ? No ?
How is signing an agreement difficult? You get sent the agreement via email, print it off, sign it, scan it and email it back. Or, print it off and fax/post it back.
Chris
I remember there was some discussions on this proposal somewhere, but I can't find it anymore :-( At least, not on meta.
Perhaps those who commented at that time could repeat their arguments to Chris ?
Personnaly, I have no specific opinion either direction.
Ant