Nathan writes:
With respect, legal issues are debated on many projects practically
every day. This particular issue is no different. In some jurisdictions, just accessing such files can expose one to legal risk. While Mike is a good lawyer, he doesn't represent individual editors - and the Foundation's interests and liabilities (as a host, not a content provider) may not fully intersect with the needs of individual editors.
Keep in mind, though, that PM is constantly asking for Foundation intervention with regard to the images that he is so consistently reviewing and concerned about. Why PM wants Foundation intervention rather than community consensus is unclear to me -- it should be clear, however, that the Foundation is disinclined to engage in editorial intervention in the absence of a clear legal imperative.
With regard to the Foundation's legal obligations, I expect my colleagues at the DOJ and elsewhere will contact me if they have a problem with Foundation policies or operations.
--Mike
2010/1/19 Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com:
Keep in mind, though, that PM is constantly asking for Foundation intervention with regard to the images that he is so consistently reviewing and concerned about. Why PM wants Foundation intervention rather than community consensus is unclear to me --
It's because the communities (en:wp and commons) keep telling him to go away.
- d.
( ah c'mon d - who loves ya' baby ;-) It's good to see you (Mike) here too - I'm glad you're clearly aware of the concerns I've consistently raised, and I appreciate that I may not have been completely clear about what I would hope the foundation, as oppose to the communities, might be able to do - lemme give it a shot :-) There's obviously an ongoing issue of some sort for Andrew, as a 'dev' to write above 'the images that I've had to delete have made me extremely uncomfortable' - could you (or Andrew) confirm that the appropriate authorities were contacted in the case of child pornography being uploaded - and would we agree that this is something the foundation can help facilitate as oppose to responsibility lying with the communities? while we're at it, is it fair to infer from Andrew's post above that media depicting 'a 16-year-old masturbating is not "real" child pornography, and is in fact legal..' is the foundation's official position? - In the context of andrew requesting discussion with counsel as oppose to each other, it might be good to clear that up? The bottom line is that I think the foundation can provide leadership to the communities, as well as specific software adjustments, perhaps including things like 'click here to say you're 18', or some sort of 'descriptive image tagging' - what I hope I'm showing by highlighting the volume and nature of much media on wmf projects is the fact that for a variety of reasons guidance and leadership from the foundation would be a good thing :-) (please note that I'm not asking for hundreds of images or articles to be deleted, nor am I claiming the wmf is nasty, evil and depraved, nor that looking at folking putting bits and bobs into each other (and themselves!) is necessary a bad thing - just that discussion of regulation is a good idea!) Perhaps worthy of note also is the nature of project usage, as another commons user put it semi-rhetorically; 'are we becoming a systematic pornography source?' ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff...) These stat.s; http://wikistics.falsikon.de/2009/wikimedia/commons/ seem to say 'yes' - there's a clear use of commons as porn source in my view, and I don't think commons as 'the best porn you can get at school, or in the library' is a good look for wmf :-) - mileage may vary of course, but thems my thoughts..... Finally, your last bit, Mike, seemed to indicate that you feel the DOJ (department of justice, I think) would be wanting to talk to you if anything bad was going on.... does that really prohibit us from chatting about stuff here? Has the foundation discussed such things with the DOJ specifically? (would you, as foundation counsel, prefer such concerns to be raised with them? - hopefully the door's not completely closed on this issue - that would be a shame) best, Peter, PM. On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:59 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/19 Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com:
Keep in mind, though, that PM is constantly asking for Foundation intervention with regard to the images that he is so consistently
reviewing
and concerned about. Why PM wants Foundation intervention rather than community consensus is unclear to me --
It's because the communities (en:wp and commons) keep telling him to go away.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:41 PM, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.comwrote:
Finally, your last bit, Mike, seemed to indicate that you feel the DOJ (department of justice, I think) would be wanting to talk to you if anything bad was going on.... does that really prohibit us from chatting about stuff here? Has the foundation discussed such things with the DOJ specifically? (would you, as foundation counsel, prefer such concerns to be raised with them? - hopefully the door's not completely closed on this issue - that would be a shame)
Please understand that I have many contacts with the law-enforcement community, and have had them for many years. Please also understand that I don't disclose every legally related communication to foundation-l.
What I said, generally, remains true: that if DOJ has a problem with Wikimedia content or policies, I'll likely be the first to hear about it. We have not yet been contacted by DOJ or any state law-enforcement agency regarding the content that PM is so very deeply concerned with and focused on.
--Mike
heh! indeed - I don't think anyone would expect you to disclose everything on this list! That would be rather silly ;-) I'm also certain of both your expertise and connections in regard to law enforcement, DOJs and whatnot - I certainly haven't meant to imply that your expertise in this regard is anything other than an assett for the wmf! I just had a good chat with someone pointing out that my posts probably conflate a few different areas, so perhaps while I may have your ear, Mike, I could ask you if you'd see any problem with expanding the role of OTRS to include managing assertions of model age and release related to explicit media - perhaps we could agree that might be a good thing? :-) cheers, Peter, PM. On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:41 PM, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.comwrote:
Finally, your last bit, Mike, seemed to indicate that you feel the DOJ (department of justice, I think) would be wanting to talk to you if anything bad was going on.... does that really prohibit us from chatting about stuff here? Has the foundation discussed such things with the DOJ specifically? (would you, as foundation counsel, prefer such concerns to be raised with them? - hopefully the door's not completely closed on this issue - that would be a shame)
Please understand that I have many contacts with the law-enforcement community, and have had them for many years. Please also understand that I don't disclose every legally related communication to foundation-l.
What I said, generally, remains true: that if DOJ has a problem with Wikimedia content or policies, I'll likely be the first to hear about it. We have not yet been contacted by DOJ or any state law-enforcement agency regarding the content that PM is so very deeply concerned with and focused on.
--Mike
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:31 PM, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.comwrote:
I just had a good chat with someone pointing out that my posts probably conflate a few different areas, so perhaps while I may have your ear, Mike, I could ask you if you'd see any problem with expanding the role of OTRS to include managing assertions of model age and release related to explicit media - perhaps we could agree that might be a good thing? :-)
I do not believe it is a good idea to expand duties of OTRS beyond those required by law. I do not believe OTRS is currently required by law to manage assertions of model age and release. I do not believe OTRS could scale to assume such duties. I do believe that attempting to get the Foundation to impose top-down intervention in this case when you can't persuade the community itself of your concerns about explicit media is a bad thing.
--Mike
(anonymous) wrote:
[...] while we're at it, is it fair to infer from Andrew's post above that media depicting 'a 16-year-old masturbating is not "real" child pornography, and is in fact legal..' is the foundation's official position? [...]
^^ I'm not a native speaker, but I'd think that you cannot omit Andrew's qualification ", though explicit, in New South Wales, Australia)" without changing his statement complete- ly. And I have a hard time trying to align this act of omis- sion with good faith.
Tim
In the specific case of the 16-year-old uploader's image, we don't really know if it was child porn or not, and the uploader denies that it was.
A self-identified 16-year-old girl uploaded an artistically processed image that was cropped to show a woman's genitals apparently engaged in masturbation. Because of the artistic processing it is not obvious whether the image was based on a photo, or if it was based on an illustration (as the uploader claims). Regardless, the image was not identifiable as a child. The entire case that this was child porn is based on the identity of the uploader and the suspicion that the image might have originally been a self-photo before the image processing.
Hence the image was deleted and oversighted out of what might be termed an abundance of caution. It might be illicit, and there were some reasons to be concerned that it was, but no definitive knowledge. However, since it wasn't actually useful to our mission probably better to be safe than try to worry about it further. That kind of caution is probably entirely appropriate when minors upload "self-made" images with sexual content. However, it should be acknowledged that we are unlikely to ever really know whether this particular image was child porn unless the uploader chooses to confess.
-Robert Rohde
Mike Godwin wrote:
Nathan writes:
With respect, legal issues are debated on many projects practically
every day. This particular issue is no different. In some jurisdictions, just accessing such files can expose one to legal risk. While Mike is a good lawyer, he doesn't represent individual editors - and the Foundation's interests and liabilities (as a host, not a content provider) may not fully intersect with the needs of individual editors.
Keep in mind, though, that PM is constantly asking for Foundation intervention with regard to the images that he is so consistently reviewing and concerned about. Why PM wants Foundation intervention rather than community consensus is unclear to me -- it should be clear, however, that the Foundation is disinclined to engage in editorial intervention in the absence of a clear legal imperative.
With regard to the Foundation's legal obligations, I expect my colleagues at the DOJ and elsewhere will contact me if they have a problem with Foundation policies or operations.
+1 Crystal clear. Nice to have it on the record from the person who holds your present office.
Yours; as a faithful internet veteran,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org