[Foundation-l] Note regarding status of privacy policy

[Todd Allen]

On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Jon <scream at datascreamer.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> SlimVirgin wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 10:46 AM, elisabeth bauer
>> <eflebeth at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> 2008/8/8 Michael Snow <wikipedia at verizon.net>:
>>>
>>>> The board intends to vote on this version, but before we do, I wanted to
>>>> provide one last opportunity for your feedback.
>>> While the policy deals at length with who has access it is very silent
>>> about when all these persons are allowed to access my data and
>>> actually access my data. The only thing somehow related to this was
>>> "As a general principle, the access to, and retention of, personally
>>> identifiable data in all projects should be minimal and should be used
>>> only internally to serve the well-being of the projects." which is
>>> somehow a bit vague. Who defines what is well-being? How is this
>>> controlled? Who does guarantee that a nosy checkuser doesn't just look
>>> up my user information, revealing my employer,  the wikipedia user
>>> name of my boyfriend and other friends just for fun? How would I even
>>> know?
>>
>> Elian, this is exactly the situation we have on the English Wikipedia.
>> Jimbo takes the view that checkusers may be conducted more or less at
>> random, for no reason, and the checkusers follow that lead. In other
>> words, the Foundation's checkuser policy is being openly flouted.
>>
>> We've been told we can't complain to the Ombudsman commission because
>> they only deal with violations of the privacy policy, not the
>> checkuser policy. We've been told we have no right to know whether
>> we've been checked. Attempts to introduce such a rule have led to the
>> checkusers saying they will not follow it. And when we do find out
>> that we've been checked, the only concern of the checkusers is to find
>> out who told us, and to punish that person. It really is a very bad
>> situation for the Foundation, one that's bound to lead to trouble
>> sooner or later.
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> I personally don't mind being checked.  Whenever, by whomever, so long
> as the results are not disclosed. (disclosure, not checking, is governed
> by the privacy policy.
>
> - --
> Best,
> Jon
>
> [User:NonvocalScream]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkid0QcACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtVy0QCeMQHlFaTDaQxNSNcE8CMzzknY
> hBwAoK05fUsbUBc4gXcWkZsfEazCNvA/
> =GMaV
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I do believe that checking is covered as well. And if it's not, it
needs to be. Checks should only be conducted at least upon reasonable
suspicion.

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.