[Foundation-l] Note regarding status of privacy policy

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When someone accepts the function to checkuser, he accepts a role that is
clearly with the community. Calling such a person a  "third party" is in my
opinion wrong. The person doing the check user has accepted the rules that
allows for executing this function.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Michael Snow <wikipedia at verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> > If you see something in this last draft that strikes you as a
> > dealbreaker: that is potentially misleading or seriously problematic for
> > any reason, please send me or Mike a note. If we don't hear anything
> > within a week, I will ask the board to vote on the current version for
> > formal adoption.
> >
>
> It seems okay as a descriptive document.  I wish there were stricter and
> more explicit limits on what can be collected and for how long it can be
> kept, but that's probably not going to happen.  Specifically, I'd like to
> see a commitment to throw away the IP address and username information
> after
> a definite period of time, maybe 30 days.
>
> On a separate point, I disagree with Jon that "disclosure, not checking, is
> governed by the privacy policy".  There is essentially no difference
> between
> disclosure and checking when the people doing the checking are not agents
> of
> the foundation.  Checkusers are, for the most part, *third parties*, so
> giving them access to private information *is* disclosure to third parties.
> Maybe the privacy policy can (or is) worded in a way to get around that
> fact, but it shouldn't be.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>