[Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 11/28/2010 2:34:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
erikzachte at infodisiac.com writes:


> Repost with shortened url:
> 
> WJhonson:
> > The issue with the AOL Search Scandal is a red herring.  People are 
> > not going to be searching for their own phone number or Social 
> > Security numbers within Wikipedia.  And even if someone searches for 
> > such a thing, there is no way to know that they are looking for 
> > details on themselves, or on someone else.
> > 
> > Our entry on that regardless notes a lawsuit *four years old* with no 
> > resolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_scandal
> > 
> > Indicative I suggest of it being a non-story.
> 
> Many people did search for their own name occasionally, and relatively 
> often
> did search for local shops and local news. 
> Each of these clues were ambiguous and insignificant by themselves, but 
> once
> put together often did paint a unique picture of one single person.
> 
> Apparently de-anonimization is a nice pursuit for some would-be 
> detectives,
> and quite possibly also for government officials in some parts of the 
> world
> where privacy is considered a risk to a state's stability. 
> 
> The AOL data were taken offline very quickly (and the research team
> disbanded), but copies had already been made, and you can still find the
> data online now. 
> 
> http://www.gregsadetsky.com/aol-data/ 
> 
> The following article paints a rather graphical picture of how search 
> terms
> came to haunt back their author.
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/322a5pk
> 
> Erik Zachte
> 

You ignored my point.
Regardless of what occurred with the AOL details, that is a "Red Herring" 
as I said, because such an event would not and could not occur with Wikipedia 
details.

People regardless of whether or not they searched their own personal 
details within the AOL search engine... would not search their own personal 
details within the Wikipedia engine.

Do you know understand my point?
What this thread is about is releasing details of activity *within* 
Wikipedia.  We have no control over details of activity *outside* Wikipedia.

Thus, the event described here as the atom bomb of personal exposure, is 
moot (not relevant, not related, a red herring) to this thread.

W