Thanks for the replies. As Martin notes, I haven't said it is out of scope, but that *some may* feel that way. It is a tricky question, actually. If I had to call it on my own view, I'd say sign it as it is worthwhile. "Free and open" being the key words here - if there is widespread and secretive surveillance, then the web, and the knowledge contained therein, becomes neither free nor open. But I can see that it isn't necessarily clear-cut, hence asking the question. On 28 November 2013 15:23, Richard Symonds <richard.symonds(a)wikimedia.org.uk > Well, it's not really directly linked to our objects ("for the benefit of > the public, to promote and support the widest possible public access to, > use of and contribution to Open Content of an encyclopaedic or educational > nature or of similar utility to the general public"). That said, ensuring > that data safeguards are in place (in part by signing things like this) > would help encourage people to use the internet and be more open with their > knowledge (as they can trust it more if it's properly regulated and data > isn't being surreptitiously obtained by all and sundry). > > A complex question. > > Richard Symonds > Wikimedia UK > 0207 065 0992 > > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered > Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. > United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia > movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who > operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). > > *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control > over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* > > > On 28 November 2013 15:18, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> >> On 28 November 2013 13:24, Stevie Benton <stevie.benton(a)wikimedia.org.uk> >>> > Hello everyone, >> > >> > Wikimedia UK has been asked to consider signing a document supporting >> these >> > International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to >> > Communications Surveillance In principle I think this is worthwhile and >> > shows that we are on the side of the every day internet user. But some >> may >> > say it is out of our scope. What do people think? If there's a consensus >> > I'll add Wikimedia UK to the list. >> > >> > This can be discussed on this list or on the Water Cooler of the WMUK >> wiki >> > if you prefer. >> >> What were the "out of our scope" objections? >> >> Thanks, >> Fae >> -- >> faewik(a)gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia UK mailing list >> wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org >> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org > > -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*

Correction: I'm replying as a volunteer and member :-) On Nov 29, 2013 12:07 AM, "Richard Symonds" <chasemewiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

For the record, I think this is the sort of cause that WMUK should be seen to be aligned with. Surveillance of your access to information is a form of cost, especially when the information you access potentially covers all topics. It's an unconventional kind of cost (and some people wouldn't even call it that) but if you give up privacy to find and use information, that's a sense in which you're paying for it.* We work for access to knowledge which is free, in multiple senses, and universal as far as possible, so I think a campaign for sensible restrictions on surveillance is something we should be aligned with. I hope, but don't presume, that others share this opinion, and I guess this is also the thinking behind Stevie's question. Apologies if this is "mansplaining": I expect readers already understand this. On 28 November 2013 15:23, Martin Poulter &lt;infobomb(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Dr Martin L Poulter Jisc Wikimedia Ambassador, July 2013 - March 2014 Wikipedia contributor http://enwp.org/User:MartinPoulter Volunteer, Wikimedia UK http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:MartinPoulter<http://uk.wikimedia.org/… Musician http://soundcloud.com/martin-poulter http://myspace.com/comapilot Person http://infobomb.org/