Anthony wrote:
And I thought Ryan Lane was talking about the future, not the past. I
certainly was.
I think we should focus on the present, personally.
If a user goes to https://wikipedia.org, they're quietly redirected to
http://www.wikipedia.org. This is true of a large number of domains
No, but presenting an appearance of surprise is a bit disingenuous.
P
- Original Message -
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] NSA
On 31 July 2013 21:47
nawr...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] NSA
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Matthew Walker mwal...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
What surprises me is that anyone is surprised by any
Does the law actually require them to lie about data demands when
questioned?
P
- Original Message -
From: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 1:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] NSA
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013
Thanks, This answers my question.
P
- Original Message -
From: Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] NSA
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Michael Snow
wikipe
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 01/08/13 14:15, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Ryan Lane rl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I would be fired and jailed before I knowingly let that occur. If this was
the case I'd very surely not be
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote:
As a quick reminder here, before any conspiracy theories about orders and
data retention get out of control:
1) We've flat-out denied any sort of involvement in this, and we continue
to stand by that denial:
The letters must be sent to the organization rather than an individual. The
idea of going to an individual employee and strongarming them may happen, but
the law around NSLs is specific.
The court cases to date indicate that if an individual employee got a US NSL
and sued over it, the judge
It is funny (but also sad) to see how people thought that Internet privacy
was respected in Western world. Almost 99% only worried about China/Iran
Internet monitoring and censorship but we had here the most comprehensive
spy system logging every site you read.
Wake up!
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:44 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 01/08/13 14:15, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Ryan Lane rl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I would be fired and jailed before I knowingly let that occur. If this
was
the case I'd very surely not be
On Thursday, August 1, 2013, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:44 AM, Tim Starling
tstarl...@wikimedia.orgjavascript:;
wrote:
On 01/08/13 14:15, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Ryan Lane
rl...@wikimedia.orgjavascript:;
wrote:
I would be fired and jailed
See attachment.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data
Fred___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
See attachment.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data
the NSA has created a multi-tiered system that allows analysts to store
interesting content in other databases, such as one named Pinwale which
can store material for up to five years.
Fred
How is this related to the foundation?
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
See attachment.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data
Fred
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Apparently Wikipedia was or is one of the targeted websites.
Risker
On 31 July 2013 15:42, Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com wrote:
How is this related to the foundation?
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
See attachment.
Hmmm, the word wiki isn't named anywhere.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently Wikipedia was or is one of the targeted websites.
Risker
On 31 July 2013 15:42, Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com wrote:
How is this related to the foundation?
It's from a slide they have a bit down the page with our logal about why
they are interested in http. You can search for nearly everything a
typical user does on the internet
You can also see the slide on Jimmy's tweet about said issue:
https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/362626509648834560
I believe the concern derives from one of the subpages of the article:
https://image.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2013/7/31/1375269604628/KS8-001.jpg
(Credit to David Gerard for digging that out; this same issue is under
discussion on the Wikitech-L list.)
Risker
On 31 July
Look at the attached image.
Fred
Hmmm, the word wiki isn't named anywhere.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently Wikipedia was or is one of the targeted websites.
Risker
On 31 July 2013 15:42, Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com wrote:
How is
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe the concern derives from one of the subpages of the article:
https://image.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2013/7/31/1375269604628/KS8-001.jpg
(Credit to David Gerard for digging that out; this same
On 31 July 2013 20:48, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe the concern derives from one of the subpages of the article:
https://image.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2013/7/31/1375269604628/KS8-001.jpg
(Credit to David Gerard for digging that out; this same issue is
On 31 July 2013 21:00, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 July 2013 20:48, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe the concern derives from one of the subpages of the article:
https://image.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2013/7/31/1375269604628/KS8-001.jpg
(Credit
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:00 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 July 2013 21:00, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 July 2013 20:48, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe the concern derives from one of the subpages of the article:
On 31 July 2013 21:47, Ryan Lane rl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Why would we expect that we weren't being targeted? Knowing what people are
looking up is powerful knowledge.
That doesn't make it one dot less reprehensible.
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Ryan Lane rl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Why would we expect that we weren't being targeted? Knowing what people are
looking up is powerful knowledge.
- Ryan
Indeed. It's much more safe and sensible to just go down to your library
and check out a book.
Oh,
What surprises me is that anyone is surprised by any of this information.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
What surprises me is that anyone is surprised by any of this information.
It's one thing to have suspicions and theories about it; but if the third
party is constantly denying the allegations and with no recourse there's no
point in getting angry. Now that we have reasonable doubt, I hesitate
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Matthew Walker mwal...@wikimedia.org wrote:
What surprises me is that anyone is surprised by any of this information.
It's one thing to have suspicions and theories about it; but if the third
party is constantly denying the allegations and with no recourse
On 31 July 2013 23:01, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that's just naive. Of course it was always denied until it
became impossible to deny it. That's how these things work. But I have
honestly assumed for many years that virtually everything transmitted
over almost any electronic
Thanks David. Always appreciate your wit.
That said, I wasn't claiming that anticipating being monitored was
exceptional. Quite the opposite; I said I was surprised there was
anyone who didn't already assume everything was trapped and traced.
Your reaction of Fuck. Fuck these people. suggests you
And another thought - you know what unites most of the other companies
represented by the logos in that image? Leaks have confirmed that most
of them are the subject of secret orders to turn over huge amounts of
raw data to the government. They are all bound to secrecy by law, so
without
On 7/31/2013 3:31 PM, Nathan wrote:
And another thought - you know what unites most of the other companies
represented by the logos in that image? Leaks have confirmed that most
of them are the subject of secret orders to turn over huge amounts of
raw data to the government. They are all bound
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
On 7/31/2013 3:31 PM, Nathan wrote:
And another thought - you know what unites most of the other companies
represented by the logos in that image? Leaks have confirmed that most
of them are the subject of secret
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.comwrote:
Now if you imagine the puzzle globe on that slide implies that
Wikipedia traffic is retained for intelligence analysis, it's a short
hop to assume that the Wikimedia Foundation is also the subject of a
blanket order
I think it's more reasonable to assume that
Wikipedia (which shares many features with Google, Yahoo, Twitter,
Facebook and other social networks) has been the subject of this kind
of demand than that it hasn't. No one with direct knowledge would be
able to do anything other than deny it, but
I think it's more reasonable to assume that
Wikipedia (which shares many features with Google, Yahoo, Twitter,
Facebook and other social networks) has been the subject of this kind
of demand than that it hasn't. No one with direct knowledge would be
able to do anything other than deny it, but we
On 07/31/2013 09:27 PM, Ryan Lane wrote:
I would be fired and jailed before I knowingly let that occur. If this was
the case I'd very surely not be working for Wikimedia Foundation.
And very many of us live outside the jurisdiction of the entities that
would be doing the monitoring and would be
Also keep in mind that WMF has explicitly stated that they received no such
demand. If they had, they still could say If we had received such a
demand, we couldn't legally discuss it, still comply with the order, and
let us read between the lines. While I don't always agree with WMF, I have
more
Nathan wrote:
... It seems that most of the data they
collect is wiped within 3 days; that the data itself can only be
analyzed under a fairly specific set of minimization rules
Are you referring to the 2009 Holder minimization rules which per
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Ryan Lane rl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I would be fired and jailed before I knowingly let that occur. If this was
the case I'd very surely not be working for Wikimedia Foundation.
Key word there being knowingly.
___
On 01/08/13 14:15, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Ryan Lane rl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I would be fired and jailed before I knowingly let that occur. If this was
the case I'd very surely not be working for Wikimedia Foundation.
Key word there being knowingly.
I don't
very helpful, james. thanks so much for clue-ing me in. definitely want to
know more of the backstory on the chapters sometime. ttyt :)
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013, Tim Starling wrote:
On 01/08/13 14:15, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Ryan Lane
Whoops! :) That wasn't meant to be a reply-to-all. Sorry, everyone. Rookie
mistake... :]
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Anna Koval ako...@wikimedia.org wrote:
very helpful, james. thanks so much for clue-ing me in. definitely want
to know more of the backstory on the chapters sometime.
43 matches
Mail list logo
