[WikiEN-l] Privacy Study Looking for Volunteers

[Brian J Mingus]

I think now that we are suing the NSA that it's deeply hypocritical to be
surveilling users. A quick fix: stuff the ip field with random numbers.

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 8:38 AM, James Alexander <jalexander at wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> The idea of the IP being more private in the history/ public logs (for
> example a unique hash so that you know it's "an IP" but not where/what IP"
> ) is one that I know has been discussed and is desired by a good number
> within the foundation including within legal. I'll try to look for the
> phabricator task about it tomorrow. I think that's something that is likely
> to happen, it isn't easy though and requires a fair number of resources to
> be pointed at it to get it done so it's a question of priorities and
> convincing those who decide those things that it should be higher. I
> believe it's something, privacy wise, that legal would really like.
>
> I think it is unlikely in the short to medium term, however, to get rid of
> the IPs in the backend (in server logs and in the checkuser system for
> example) because the replacements just aren't there. I've spent a good
> amount of time thinking of a way to make the checkuser system as usable as
> necessary without revealing IPs for example (including a consultant who
> looked a lot but didn't really come up with anything we didn't know
> already). I think it's doable, but it would be a very difficult and long
> design process and I think it's unlikely in the near future.
>
> James Alexander
> Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation
> (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Kyanos <someanon126 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't believe a different license is needed. CC licenses can be used
> for
> > anonymous works: The author is not given and does not have to be
> credited,
> > but everything else (attribution of the work and share-alike) would stay
> > the same. So a change in the terms of use to the effect of, "Unregistered
> > edits are considered to have no named author," would be sufficient.
> >
> > Kyanos
> >
> > On 03/27/2015 06:41 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> >
> >> Perhaps we should move to a different licensing model for future IP
> >> edits. CC0 for IP edits would be a more sensible license for edits by
> an IP
> >> where in many cases no-one could attribute the edit to the individual
> who
> >> made it. If people don't want to release their edits as CC0 they can
> always
> >> create an account.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Jonathan Cardy
> >>
> >>
> >>  On 27 Mar 2015, at 10:28, Elias Friedman <elipongo at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It's actually required so as to provide attribution as per the Creative
> >>> Commons and other licenses we operate under.
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my Droid 4
> >>> Elias Friedman A.S., CCEMT-P
> >>> אליהו מתתיהו בן צבי
> >>> elipongo at gmail.com
> >>> "יְהִי אוֹר"
> >>>
> >>>
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>