Back in the 1980's BBS sysops validated new users on some of the more abused dial-up BBS systems via snail mail. The person had to provide a real address in order to receive their login password - just as many systems use email addresses today. The big difference between these two mechanisms is that using snail mail has a chain of custody and implies the possibility of some kind of legal action for misuse whereas email has no real chain of custody or rarely any legal standing.
So is it going to be a hoop to jump through or something more?
Making a copy and mailing it isn't much better than forging a document and mailing it. Who knows whether the copy even belongs to the person in question?
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.
No it isn't free, but that's the price a blocked user might have to pay for abusing what was freely given in the first place. :-/
Do they have notaries in the Netherlands? ?Why not simply ask them to mail a notarized statement that "I am Foo at such an address and request an ublock so I may edit as Bar"? I still am not sure if this is something I would completely endorse, but at least it would be meaningful and not so easily forged.
Notaries usually charge for that kind of thing. It's not usually much, but it's substantially more than the cost of a stamp, which is all the current policy costs.
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.
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
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
Sure it would reduce the amount of private data considered, but also the name&address could (should) be considered private, and hence it wouldn't take away the fundamental concerns as they are stated by several people.
Best,
Lodewijk
2011/7/12 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org