I made some concrete suggestions on that talk page which would acknowledge the support so far for taking a stand, while making it clear that our interest is in a global effort to keep the web open, not something limited to any one nation. We should feel comfortable making those sorts of global statements about what matters to our vision of access to the toolchain of knowledge - not only access to raw data and free tools for recompiling and viewing it, but the ability to read and contribute anonymously. Without all of those things, many groups and cross-sections of the world will be unable to share what they know and discover information that they need. Sam. On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Luis Villa <lvilla(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 7:19 PM, David Cuenca <dacuetu(a)gmail.com> wrote: You are right that we need something more than just an "open" Web: we need one without single points of failure that minimizes the ability for intermediaries to restrict access - both reading and contributing. As I wrote previously, the ability to read and contribute anonymously (or at least pseudonymously) is an essential part of this. And that is something that Wikimedia projects, unlike many widespread sources and sinks for knowledge, have fought for since the beginning. SJ

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 11:07 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote: I discussed this a bit yesterday in the talk page and will flesh that out more, but the specific concern (raised here, on the blog, and in the talk page) is that stopwatching is too US-focused. When counting those concerns as anti-stopwatching votes, the ratio appears more balanced (and the numbers are quite small, as well). Would publicizing these free and open secure alternatives to Those are international in application so it would not have the same particular problem. (I'm frankly skeptical that any particular set of tools can protect someone from a determined government, so I have not looked very hard at prism-break, but at least conceptually it would seem to be aligned.) Luis -- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:07 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote: Our values? ... Our practise. No. SSL is mandatory to avoid surveillance, but TOR is also quite important. The very first entry on prism-break is TOR, which is blocked on Wikimedia projects for editing, by explicit blocks and by the TorBlock extension, which is enabled on all wikis, even Chinese Wikipedia. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:TorBlock https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version The mobile functionality is very unfriendly for privacy. Loading a non-mobile HTTPS url (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984), redirects the reader to the mobile HTTP page. If they clicked on a https link believing that their browsing pattern was not able to be monitored, their reading patterns are in clear text on the internet without them being informed of this. The EFF is pushing solutions to send readers from HTTP to HTTPS sites, and WMF is sending readers from HTTPS to HTTP - transparently. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35215 (reported March 2012, last comment from WMF tech team in April 2013 indicates this may not be fixed soon) Admins can bypass the Tor block, however logging in on Mobile is not easy. In the mobile search type in special:userlogin. The login screen appears, and the 'sign in' button replies to the user that there was a cookie error. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31045 (reported 2011; closed as INVALID the same day) When using the Orweb browser (part of the tor solution for Android), trying to log in is even more difficult as you cant go to the Desktop site without tying in a long url that bypasses the mobile site. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51277 (reported by me today) -- John Vandenberg

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc(a)uberbox.org> wrote: One possible solution could be to allow Tor users to register and to edit while registered, maybe the registry requirements could be higher to avoid extreme sockpuppetry, and the edits could be flagged as "Tor edit" in all change logs and user signature. Micru