I passed on part of this thread to Jonathan Zittrain, an eminent lawyer and net scholar who enjoyed a misspent youth administering online fora, and has thought about related issues a great deal. His comments below.
I see this as an issue of being clear about what is expected, what may be required of people as a result of their actions in a role (in the descriptions of checkuser responsibilities), and what may happen with user data (in the privacy policy). There is nothing in any of this that should limit the participation of younger community members.
SJ
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jonathan Zittrain ...zed@law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] check user... (fwd)
In any case, it doesn't seem to me a youngster problem. It's a broader agency problem -- volunteers are harder to rein in than "real" employees. I see the same issue with CDA 230 immunity, since the way Wikipedia works necessarily blurs the line between who is Wikipedia and who is "another speaker," when Wikipedia only speaks through its volunteers. (Substantively speaking, that is.)
I think the real solution would be a privacy policy that just lays all this out, and says there will be circumstances in which disclosures can take place, and people should take that into account from the start. Then you don't have to exclude the kids.
Bias against clever youngsters.... annoying. S
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 16:59:24 +0000 From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] check user...
-----Original Message----- From: wiki_tomos@inter7.jp [mailto:wiki_tomos@inter7.jp] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 11:33 PM To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] check user...
I think check user generates certain legal risk to the Foundation especially when he is a minor.
Wikimedia Foundation has a privacy policy. It seems the Foundation is expressively promising that certain information will not be released to the third party unless specific conditions are met.
And here, "third party release" does not include, at least the way I read the privacy policy, release of personal information from Wikimedia Foundation to a check user. It suggests that, at least in the context of privacy policy, the check users are insiders for the Foundation, not a third party.
This, in turn, means that the Foundation has a legal responsibility to make check users to understand and follow its privacy policy.
So when check user breaks the promise - i.e. violate the Foundation's privacy policy, one may question if the Foundation is partly responsible for the violation.
If a check user is legally a minor, he may be able to legally get away with breaking promises he has made, including the compliance with privacy policy. I am not sure if minors really are less reliable than adults, but if they are equally unreliable, then the Foundation is more responsible for minors' violation of privacy policy than adults.
So, not because minors are less reliable, but because adults can bear more legal risk when they abuse their check user privilege, it is legally safer for the Foundation to limit the check user to adults.
How significant this difference? That is perhaps open to debate.
I personally think that the better course of action to mitigate the legal risk is to treat check users as outsiders in the privacy policy.
I am not a lawyer, so be reminded that my reasoning could be flawed..
Best,
Tomos
Your legal reasoning is fine, although a parent could sign off on the legal liability. I think our problem is not with allowing a 15 year old to do responsible work, but with the understandable skepticism we will face if we ever have to explain it to a court or in the public press.
Fred
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
sounds like sound advice :-)
On 4/2/07, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
I passed on part of this thread to Jonathan Zittrain, an eminent lawyer and net scholar who enjoyed a misspent youth administering online fora, and has thought about related issues a great deal. His comments below.
I see this as an issue of being clear about what is expected, what may be required of people as a result of their actions in a role (in the descriptions of checkuser responsibilities), and what may happen with user data (in the privacy policy). There is nothing in any of this that should limit the participation of younger community members.
SJ
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jonathan Zittrain ...zed@law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] check user... (fwd)
In any case, it doesn't seem to me a youngster problem. It's a broader agency problem -- volunteers are harder to rein in than "real" employees. I see the same issue with CDA 230 immunity, since the way Wikipedia works necessarily blurs the line between who is Wikipedia and who is "another speaker," when Wikipedia only speaks through its volunteers. (Substantively speaking, that is.)
I think the real solution would be a privacy policy that just lays all this out, and says there will be circumstances in which disclosures can take place, and people should take that into account from the start. Then you don't have to exclude the kids.
Bias against clever youngsters.... annoying. S
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 16:59:24 +0000 From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] check user...
-----Original Message----- From: wiki_tomos@inter7.jp [mailto:wiki_tomos@inter7.jp] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 11:33 PM To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] check user...
I think check user generates certain legal risk to the Foundation
especially
when he is a minor.
Wikimedia Foundation has a privacy policy. It seems the Foundation is expressively promising that certain information will not be released to the third party unless specific conditions are met.
And here, "third party release" does not include, at least the way I read the privacy policy, release of personal information from Wikimedia Foundation to a check user. It suggests that, at least in the context of privacy policy, the check users are insiders for the Foundation, not a third party.
This, in turn, means that the Foundation has a legal responsibility to make check users to understand and follow its privacy policy.
So when check user breaks the promise - i.e. violate the Foundation's privacy policy, one may question if the Foundation is partly
responsible
for the violation.
If a check user is legally a minor, he may be able to legally get away
with
breaking promises he has made, including the compliance with privacy
policy.
I am not sure if minors really are less reliable than adults, but if
they
are equally unreliable, then the Foundation is more responsible for
minors'
violation of privacy policy than adults.
So, not because minors are less reliable, but because adults can bear more legal risk when they abuse their check user privilege, it is
legally
safer for the Foundation to limit the check user to adults.
How significant this difference? That is perhaps open to debate.
I personally think that the better course of action to mitigate the legal risk is to treat check users as outsiders in the privacy policy.
I am not a lawyer, so be reminded that my reasoning could be flawed..
Best,
Tomos
Your legal reasoning is fine, although a parent could sign off on the
legal
liability. I think our problem is not with allowing a 15 year old to do responsible work, but with the understandable skepticism we will face if
we
ever have to explain it to a court or in the public press.
Fred
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org