we do aggregations on full sample, not 1/1000 1/1000 gets saved to a file for post-mortems and "wtf is going on" type of analysis. Domas

We should all be asking "Is there really a problem here that would justify creating a major exception to our privacy policies?" -- because I haven't seen one. Did anyone notice how some of the earlier posts were suggesting that it was OK because people can anonymize themselves with a proxy or some other option -- a situation that would require a user (possibly one with no understanding of the concept of open proxies) to take technical steps simply to "opt-in" to privacy. Also, did anyone think to ask the tech team whether they'd be OK shouldering the burden of releasing these logs? Or the OTRS team whether they're OK with dealing the email burden that would come with that? Or Communications to see whether they agree with the negative PR of this? Any one of these above steps would probably have revealed that it is a bad idea. Just sayin. -Dan On Nov 28, 2010, at 3:41 PM, dinar qorbanof wrote:

2010/11/28 dinar qorbanof <qdinar(a)gmail.com>om>: no, probably as i asked is better, because it like has 2 questions in it, and usually logs are collected, and it is said in privacy policy that they may be collected, and even if they are not collected now, they can be collected. 2010/11/28 dinar qorbanof <qdinar(a)gmail.com>om>: i said "only about relative anonymousity, not against government, but against different people" about this: i said: for that i had said "some". also it is anonymous against government temporarily, before they trace source ip. (temporary anonymousity of reading is basic right, for more, easier trustability of internet, to check that server is not fooling users sending different content to different people. for example, theoretically, "closed" social network or forum can show to user his post with link, hoping he will feel ok, but hide it from other users, this maybe, for example because it is link to competitor site and owners of the closed site do some agressive smo blocking link to competitor sites. "closed" mean that you cannot read it if you are not logged in. but in this case the closed site also has risk to be "caught", if user checks his post with several people through alternative channels or publishing in open site about that he posted in closed site. but it is hard to check so. availability of anonymous reading is easy. and should be no premoderation. in that case, even users who do not see any link to competitor sites can be sure that they see that anybody else see in the site, and that anybody can post useful links and other posts, at least temporarily. )