Hoi,
When we have to explain that people aged 15 can do a responsible job, we can
do that in two ways
- show how a particular person has done so in the past
- show how they do a job compared to people who are more mature
When people want to be skepticle, they assume .. and assumptions are the
mothers of most fuck-ups. The notion that a person who is young cannot be
responsible is as believable as the notion that someone is responsible
because he is legally mature.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 4/1/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: wiki_tomos(a)inter7.jp [mailto:wiki_tomos@inter7.jp]
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 11:33 PM
To: foundation-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l