On 8/13/07, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
The last time I alluded to people with checkuser
abusing their power I
was told privately to contact the privacy ombudsman. But recent
discussion on foundation-l has concluded that the privacy ombudsman
has no power over inappropriate use of checkuser, because
inappropriate use of checkuser is not a violation of the privacy
policy.
I'd disagree; inappropriate use of checkuser in a way that breaches
the privacy policy is a violation of the privacy policy. However,
many uses of checkuser that might be questioned are not breaches of
the privacy policy as currently formulated.
-Matt
But that's the out, only breaches of checkuser that breach "privacy
policy is a violation of privacy policy." So, if a checkuser stumbles
upon some information about you, that isn't covered by privacy policy,
and WHILE NOT RUNNING A CHECK USER ON YOU, there's never going to be
an invasion of privacy policy.
So, nicely offering to share results about someone to others with
check user status on this list serve is not a violation of privacy
policy.
It's a load of shit constituted by people who should never trusted
with ensuring anyone's privacy, but it's not a violation of privacy
policy.
It's an outrageous and childish abuse of powers. Checkuser isn't a
game or a private toy, and Wikipedia should NOT consider people's
privacy a toy that certain "trusted" folks are given the power to play
with.
No good can come of this abuse--it's going to become an ugly scandal
one day, as long as those with checkuser power keep treating it as a
special little toy they have, and as long as Wikipedia has no privacy
policy that protects users from information revealed incidently in
check user cases.
KP