[Foundation-l] Note regarding status of privacy policy

[Todd Allen]

On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> So you are checked. You have to appreciate that by your own words, there
> must be a reasonable suspicion. You even insist that it is published that
> you have been checked. This means that it is now generally known that you
> are under a reasonable suspicion... How nice, that you are now known to have
> a tarnished reputation...
>
> Actually when you are checked, and it is not published that you were
> checked, you are much better off. When everyone can demand checking because
> THEY are suspicious, publication of check results will only increase the
> amount of vigilantism. Really, you are much better off when trusted people
> do their checking and keep their confidences.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

If I have a "Contact me" email address, I can be easily notified that
I have been checked without "tarnishing my reputation", and I can
choose to make that as public or nonpublic as I like. "You have been
checkusered" by email would result in no tarnishment of a public
reputation while properly notifying the target. Granted, in some
circumstances, suppression of notification may be appropriate, but
such suppression should be logged and justified.

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