[Advocacy Advisors] EU Data Protection Reform / "Right to be forgotten" softened

[Jan Engelmann]

No, our concerns weren't paranoid at all. Have you even read the initial
Draft Poposal? OK, let's shift the scenario from a WP-article about a
public figure to personal data embedded in user pages or discussion pages.
Then any erasure based on data protection claims would affect the
consistency of the whole project. Aren't we worried about authors'
retention all the time? Here is another reason why. And how do you judge
the surveillence program deriving from Art 17.2? Do you think a volunteer
community which is already concerned with maaany copyright and personality
rights issues could handle that? And please, AGF. J
Am 11.01.2013 18:41 schrieb "Amgine" <amgine at wikimedians.ca>:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I am only commenting on the WMF's interests, and of course am not
> well-enough informed, however it seems to me the entire thrust of the
> argument for WMF concern seems paranoid and foolish in the extreme.
>
>
> On 11/01/13 03:24 AM, Jan Engelmann wrote:
> > To put it bluntly: It could even affect charities in San
> > Francisco.
>
> Yes, it *would*, and this is not a bad thing. Privacy laws should be
> as standardized as reasonably possible as it simplifies their
> implementation. We don't hear such angst about other standards we
> attempt to comply with though they are far more burdensome, such as
> W3C and copyright. As far as I am aware, the WMF is generically
> supportive of individual privacy on the internet, not afraid of it.
>
> > Quite worrysome for the Wikimedia movement was the Commission's
> > initial proposal for a "right to be forgotten" (Art. 17), a
> > general guarantee for data subjects to get their personal data
> > erased, if they didn't give their explicit permission. Lacking a
> > clear-cut, consensual definition of "personal data", even the birth
> > date of a Hollywood actress could be handled like that.
>
> That is FUD, clear and simple. A public figure's personal data would
> be handled differently than a private individual's data; that is
> already true and while we do not know the specifics *we also do not
> know or understand the specifics of the current 27 different laws
> governing this data now.*
>
>
> I would personally prefer a more measured coverage of the inevitable
> legal changes affecting the Foundation's communities.
>
> Amgine
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ8E7NAAoJECWEXpXQfyMwmxsIALO3zop4p6gVuyYxMoWaMUev
> WGkAoz0Ld+82E43EX88ctZe2kN3XZZKcekqsyZs5hmODhAOIly2dSHt/NDHHXeQo
> t7kxrx8pkRawa/fmA3npRlyhI+iW11ZNjdcL5JSw+ntR/6lPwN1G8sl8hx0EIpsF
> t8ScYo/aqc5is8524Ani1xKPKmciwH5X2eGBshT4tMIYrFXpTQ6RGib8x0JGQvj+
> shtcLChkfsWAKQcXmPl/OppOPMXkhCQ2Bpt9xsjseoWR1qKfRG5bRktnP4jqhQOX
> PWALJDyJIj0n7H/ENLMtgc44fkvaxuaJzfOU9FbqYMa2C5S6yPQSgO1CodiUFCM=
> =BOm0
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20130111/7840e257/attachment.html>