[Foundation-l] Abuse filter

Nathan nawrich at gmail.com
Wed Mar 25 15:53:37 UTC 2009

I asked this in the last e-mail, but I'll make it the primary point of this
one - do you have specific references that led to your current understanding
of the problem? Has the distinction you describe in the collection of
information been litigated somewhere else, or the subject of a law in any
jurisdiction? As it stands, the logging is a crucial element of the filter.
It's probably possible to obscure IP data from the log, but I don't see why
that would be necessary at this point.


On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:35 AM, John at Darkstar <vacuum at jeb.no> wrote:

> It is not refusing to accept some kind of edit that creates the problem,
> it is the logging of the action because you then collect information
> about the users. Preventing the vandalism instead of reacting to it
> shifts the actions from a public context to a private context. By
> avoiding collecting such information and adhering to "administration of
> the system" most of the problem simply goes away. Its not about using or
> not using the extension, its about limiting the logging so that no one
> can gain access to any data to make later actions against the users (ie.
> the vandals).
> WMF may choose to log the information anyhow, like it may choose to not
> respect copyright laws in some countries. I don't think that is very
> wise, but I can only say what I believe is right.
> John

More information about the foundation-l mailing list