Re: [Wikimedia-l] Stop the New Privacy Policy until Lila is Thoroughly Briefed on It, Countdown 14 Hours

2014-06-06 Thread Jon Davies 
+1 Not easy.


On 6 June 2014 18:52, Richard Symonds 
wrote:

> +1... Well done Michelle!
> On 6 Jun 2014 18:46, "Dan Rosenthal"  wrote:
>
> > Echoing Luis's shout-out to Michelle for such a colossal achievement.
> >
> >
> > Dan Rosenthal
> > 
> >
> > "P.S. Let me take this opportunity to again thank Michelle Paulson for
> her
> > work leading this process; all told, it has been something like 18 months
> > of work for her. And that is only the start for her - now that the policy
> > is in place, she'll be working extensively with ops, analytics, the
> > ombudsmen, and many others to ensure compliance and look for other ways
> to
> > improve privacy. She deserves a big round of applause from every
> > privacy-concerned Wikimedian for her tireless work on this issue,
> sometimes
> > under literally thankless conditions. :)"
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
*Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*.  Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169
tweet @jonatreesdavies

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.

Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Stop the New Privacy Policy until Lila is Thoroughly Briefed on It, Countdown 14 Hours

2014-06-06 Thread Richard Symonds 
+1... Well done Michelle!
On 6 Jun 2014 18:46, "Dan Rosenthal"  wrote:

> Echoing Luis's shout-out to Michelle for such a colossal achievement.
>
>
> Dan Rosenthal
> 
>
> "P.S. Let me take this opportunity to again thank Michelle Paulson for her
> work leading this process; all told, it has been something like 18 months
> of work for her. And that is only the start for her - now that the policy
> is in place, she'll be working extensively with ops, analytics, the
> ombudsmen, and many others to ensure compliance and look for other ways to
> improve privacy. She deserves a big round of applause from every
> privacy-concerned Wikimedian for her tireless work on this issue, sometimes
> under literally thankless conditions. :)"
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Stop the New Privacy Policy until Lila is Thoroughly Briefed on It, Countdown 14 Hours

2014-06-06 Thread Dan Rosenthal 
Echoing Luis's shout-out to Michelle for such a colossal achievement.


Dan Rosenthal


"P.S. Let me take this opportunity to again thank Michelle Paulson for her
work leading this process; all told, it has been something like 18 months
of work for her. And that is only the start for her - now that the policy
is in place, she'll be working extensively with ops, analytics, the
ombudsmen, and many others to ensure compliance and look for other ways to
improve privacy. She deserves a big round of applause from every
privacy-concerned Wikimedian for her tireless work on this issue, sometimes
under literally thankless conditions. :)"
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Stop the New Privacy Policy until Lila is Thoroughly Briefed on It, Countdown 14 Hours

2014-06-06 Thread Marc A. Pelletier 
On 06/06/2014 06:14 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> Regardless of the merits of the policy, which others have addressed,
> and with all due respect to Lila, her arrival has no bearing on this.

And, unless I am mistaken, adoption of the policy was an act of the
Board of Trustees who are, quite literally, Lila's boss.  :-)

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Stop the New Privacy Policy until Lila is Thoroughly Briefed on It, Countdown 14 Hours

2014-06-06 Thread Andy Mabbett 
On 5 June 2014 17:21, Trillium Corsage  wrote:
> I am writing to ask that the new privacy policy be stopped, pending briefings 
> of and thorough consideration by the incoming executive director Lila 
> Tretikov.

Regardless of the merits of the policy, which others have addressed,
and with all due respect to Lila, her arrival has no bearing on this.
She's the CEO, and a change of CEO does not invalidate the WMF or
community processes used, nor decisions reached, under her
predecessor.

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Stop the New Privacy Policy until Lila is Thoroughly Briefed on It, Countdown 14 Hours

2014-06-06 Thread Gryllida 
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014, at 5:02, Trillium Corsage wrote:
> They're going to behave better if they know they can be held accountable for 
> their actions. 

That's not something you can force on people. 

People can easily be anonymous by means of generic nicknames, shared IPs and 
whatnot - even releasing a contributors's IP out in the public, which clearly 
violates privacy of a registered contributor, would not help to hold him/her 
"accountable" if he does not want to. And if he wants to, he can put 
identifying information on his/her personal page anyway.

I don't see any relation of a privacy policy to such kind goal.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Stop the New Privacy Policy until Lila is Thoroughly Briefed on It, Countdown 14 Hours

2014-06-05 Thread Trillium Corsage 
To Luis and others, 

First thank you for responding. Now,  you referred to WMF lawyer Michelle 
Paulson's "excellent blog post," yes I suppose it is that. It's a terrific 
marketing document and piece of salesmanship, with feel-good phrases like "the 
Wikimedia way is unique," "open and collaborative process," and "the policy 
wouldn’t have been possible without support from users like you." Its title is 
a bit ominous: "Launching a Privacy Policy Built the Wiki Way." I, and 90 
percent of editors if they understood what they are about to be subjected to, 
want a privacy policy built by lawyers and executives that they reasonably 
trust to protect their interests, not one that purports to be written as if a 
Wikipedia article by whomever shows up and starts typing.

Is the policy, as Paulson states, truly "intended to protect the user 
community?" Explain to me and others that are concerned how Wikipedia using 
tracking pixels, supercookies, GPS technology, and metadata on us is designed 
to protect us. As Jimi Hendrix sang: "let us stop talking falsely now, the 
hour's getting late." What Paulson and Brigham are doing there, only with the 
other tracking and analysis technologies that I quoted directly from the policy 
in my email preceding last, is not protecting the users but rather establishing 
the legal defense position of "you were duly warned."

Luis, please tell me if I'm wrong then, for example, how my being monitored at 
Wikipedia with tracking pixels and GPS technologies protects me or my 
interests.  
 
I also disagree with you where you emphasize that there were 200,000 words of 
constructive discussion. To anyone who reads Wikipedia talkpages, there is a 
great portion of chat-room-like content as well as redundancy as well as people 
that just don't know what they are talking about. So it doesn't convince me for 
you to brandish "200,000 words," no more than "2 million." Wikipedia editors 
don't keep up with that, they depend on specialists to look out for their 
interests, and this policy is not doing that at all. 

How does it look out for the community's interests to accord total anonymity 
and exemption from the policy to the hundreds of administrators that are 
basically online role-playing gamers, pushing around editors and 
"investigating" them at whim and to the devil knows what ends? Not long ago one 
of these types actually banned a Nobel Prize winner Brian Josephson. The same 
administrator had previously boasted on Wikipedia of his large penis, and 
further cursed a content editor that he should "rot in the hell that is eternal 
block." Josephson won his Nobel in physics "for his theoretical predictions of 
the properties of a supercurrent through a tunnel barrier." The administrator, 
that goes by at least three known usernames, is a cheap dumb anonymous 
cyberbully. The world the WMF is making places the one above the other, but I'm 
not sure it's the right one. 
(Https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=DangerousPanda&page=User%3ABrian+Josephson&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=),
 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=503298359.)

The answer is simple on that part at least. The WMF must start identifying, if 
not publicly at least to it, those it accords access to the 
personal-identifiable information of editors. They're going to behave better if 
they know they can be held accountable for their actions. 

Trillium Corsage

05.06.2014, 18:34, "Luis Villa" :
> Hi, Trillium and others-
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Stop the New Privacy Policy until Lila is Thoroughly Briefed on It, Countdown 14 Hours

2014-06-05 Thread Fæ 
On 5 June 2014 18:33, Luis Villa  wrote:
...
> If you still have concerns, please put them on the talk page. Just like we
> did this time around, we'll review all those comments and incorporate them
> when we next revise the policy, or, if appropriate, incorporate it into the
> FAQ. We're also still welcoming questions about the data retention
> guidelines, and will continue to revise that as a living document that
> reflects our current best practices:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_retention_guidelines
>
> Hope that helps clarify.

It does clarify.

The thinking behind Nemo's irony in response to Nathan's statement, is
probably in part due to the fact that some concerns were ignored (i.e.
no reply of any sort from legal) and then archived as addressed
without comment, while other concerns were debated at length, some
volunteers dropping out probably due to volunteer fatigue during that
process, but with little or no end impact on the policy. The statement
on this email list was:
"As a result, the finished policy has rightly garnered a lot of
support and approval"

This is true, however it is more accurate to say:
"As a result, the policy has rightly garnered a lot of debate."

Reflecting the tone of your email, you may prefer a more politic but
still accurate statement of:
"As a result, the policy has benefited from an extensive process of
consultation, resulting in several changes being included by WMF
Legal."

At the end of the day, the websites are owned by the Foundation, and
it is WMF Legal that advises the Foundation board of trustees on these
aspects and proposes policy documents. I am grateful that even though
you could go away into a back-room and come out with Vatican style
proclamations of policy, instead you make attempts to consult with
those members of the community interested in participating on meta. At
times this is time consuming, however even when done, this is not
evidence of "support and approval". Perhaps such a claim could be made
if the process included an extensive !vote on the outcome with
overwhelming support, however this would be a dodgy proposition if WMF
legal were unable to recommend the result.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Stop the New Privacy Policy until Lila is Thoroughly Briefed on It, Countdown 14 Hours

2014-06-05 Thread Trillium Corsage 
Dear Mr. Brigham,

Excuse me, I should have copied you in the email I sent to the Wikimedia-l list 
I sent a few minutes ago, because I mentioned you in it. Here: 
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-June/072499.html.

Trillium Corsage

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Stop the New Privacy Policy until Lila is Thoroughly Briefed on It, Countdown 14 Hours

2014-06-05 Thread Luis Villa 
Hi, Trillium and others-

The privacy policy has been the subject of one of the most extensive public
discussions we've ever done. It was announced here repeatedly, was bannered
extensively to give all readers and editors an opportunity to participate,
and was open for discussion for nearly six months. The resulting discussion
got feedback from hundreds of Wikimedians, including the engineering, ops,
and analytics teams at the Foundation. Altogether, those folks wrote almost
*two hundred thousand words*. That led to over 250 changes to the initial
draft, many of them strengthening the protections we initially put in. The
resulting final draft was then discussed extensively with the board, who
approved it last month. (For more details, see Michelle's excellent blog
post here:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/05/07/launching-a-privacy-policy-built-the-wiki-way/
)

This is not to say the document is perfect - we know as Wikimedians that
any written document can be argued over literally until the end of time. :)
But we must, at some point, finalize legal policies so that we can move
forward and implement them. For this policy, that point came when the board
approved it last month. We'll now focus on making sure we're in compliance,
and figuring out other ways to improve user privacy (like improving our
HTTPS situation, being more systematic about anonymization and aggregation
practices, etc.).

If you still have concerns, please put them on the talk page. Just like we
did this time around, we'll review all those comments and incorporate them
when we next revise the policy, or, if appropriate, incorporate it into the
FAQ. We're also still welcoming questions about the data retention
guidelines, and will continue to revise that as a living document that
reflects our current best practices:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_retention_guidelines

Hope that helps clarify.
Luis

P.S. Let me take this opportunity to again thank Michelle Paulson for her
work leading this process; all told, it has been something like 18 months
of work for her. And that is only the start for her - now that the policy
is in place, she'll be working extensively with ops, analytics, the
ombudsmen, and many others to ensure compliance and look for other ways to
improve privacy. She deserves a big round of applause from every
privacy-concerned Wikimedian for her tireless work on this issue, sometimes
under literally thankless conditions. :)





On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Trillium Corsage 
wrote:

> I am writing to ask that the new privacy policy be stopped, pending
> briefings of and thorough consideration by the incoming executive director
> Lila Tretikov. The timing of this major policy change with all its
> implications, including great legal implications, is at minimum
> discourteous to Ms. Tretikov in this the second day of her tenure, and in
> my judgement should additionally be viewed as alarming.
>
> "Wikimedia is beholden to no one, yet accountable to each and every human
> being," she said day before last. Yet the new policy makes every effort to
> distance it from accountability, by attempting to force every editor to
> consent to the most privacy-invasive technologies known, which include, all
> quoted:
>
> "You should be aware that specific data made public by you or aggregated
> data that is made public by us can be used by anyone for analysis and to
> infer information about users, such as which country a user is from,
> political affiliation, and gender." "Type of device you are using possibly
> including unique device identification numbers." "The type and version of
> your browser, your browser's language preference, the type and version of
> your device's operating system." "The name of your internet service
> provider or mobile carrier." "Which pages you request and visit, and the
> date and time of each request" (note: says "visit," not merely "edit"). "We
> actively collect information with tracking pixels, cookies, and local
> storage." "We use your email address." "We can use GPS and other
> technologies commonly used to determine location." "We may receive
> metadata." "IP address of the device (or your proxy server) you are using
> to access the Internet, which could be used to infer your geographical
> location." (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy).
>
> What is the heck is all this? Editors don't know they are signing up for
> this! But it gets even worse, because the WMF is not only providing this to
> its employees, but to hundreds of anonymous "administrators" to whom it
> grants access to this non-public, easily personally-identifying data. This
> means particularly, but not limited to: checkusers, arbitrators, stewards,
> UTRS users, and "community developers." Who are they? While Ms. Tretikov
> aspires to accountability, the new privacy policy flees to "exemptions" and
> "we know nothing." It specifically exempts these hundreds of people from
> the privacy policy. The WMF's Privacy Fellow R

[Wikimedia-l] Stop the New Privacy Policy until Lila is Thoroughly Briefed on It, Countdown 14 Hours

2014-06-05 Thread Trillium Corsage 
I am writing to ask that the new privacy policy be stopped, pending briefings 
of and thorough consideration by the incoming executive director Lila Tretikov. 
The timing of this major policy change with all its implications, including 
great legal implications, is at minimum discourteous to Ms. Tretikov in this 
the second day of her tenure, and in my judgement should additionally be viewed 
as alarming. 

"Wikimedia is beholden to no one, yet accountable to each and every human 
being," she said day before last. Yet the new policy makes every effort to 
distance it from accountability, by attempting to force every editor to consent 
to the most privacy-invasive technologies known, which include, all quoted:

"You should be aware that specific data made public by you or aggregated data 
that is made public by us can be used by anyone for analysis and to infer 
information about users, such as which country a user is from, political 
affiliation, and gender." "Type of device you are using possibly including 
unique device identification numbers." "The type and version of your browser, 
your browser's language preference, the type and version of your device's 
operating system." "The name of your internet service provider or mobile 
carrier." "Which pages you request and visit, and the date and time of each 
request" (note: says "visit," not merely "edit"). "We actively collect 
information with tracking pixels, cookies, and local storage." "We use your 
email address." "We can use GPS and other technologies commonly used to 
determine location." "We may receive metadata." "IP address of the device (or 
your proxy server) you are using to access the Internet, which could be used to 
infer your geographical location." 
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy).

What is the heck is all this? Editors don't know they are signing up for this! 
But it gets even worse, because the WMF is not only providing this to its 
employees, but to hundreds of anonymous "administrators" to whom it grants 
access to this non-public, easily personally-identifying data. This means 
particularly, but not limited to: checkusers, arbitrators, stewards, UTRS 
users, and "community developers." Who are they? While Ms. Tretikov aspires to 
accountability, the new privacy policy flees to "exemptions" and "we know 
nothing." It specifically exempts these hundreds of people from the privacy 
policy. The WMF's Privacy Fellow Roshni Patel said two weeks ago "the 
Foundation can’t control the actions of community members such as 
administrative volunteers so we don’t include them under the privacy policy." 
Is this accountability? No. She further mystifyingly continues: "however, under 
the access policy, these volunteers must sign a confidentiality agreement." 
Mystifyingly, because it's *not* *true*. That part of the privacy policy 
"Requirements for Community Members Applying for Access to Nonpublic 
Information" requires only an email address and an assertion from an anonymous 
individual that he or she is 18 or over. Is there requirement there somewhere 
for a signature? No. Shall they sign for example under the nicknames of the 
prominent administrators like "Beeblebrox" and "Wizardman?" This is not 
accountability. 
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy#Minimum_requirements_for_community_members_applying_for_access_to_nonpublic_information_rights.)

How can the executive director be expected to assume responsibility for this 
stuff in 14 hours, on her third official day on the job? Out of simple courtesy 
to her, it needs to be delayed, while she is briefed on it by those who most 
understand it, like the general counsel Geoff Brigham.

Trillium Corsage
 



   




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Stop the New Privacy Policy until Lila is Thoroughly Briefed on It, Countdown 14 Hours

2014-06-05 Thread Nathan 
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
wrote:

> Nathan, 05/06/2014 18:46:
>
>  As a result, the finished policy has rightly garnered a lot of support and
>> approval,
>>
>
> {{citation needed}}
>
>
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/05/07/launching-a-privacy-policy-built-the-wiki-way/

See comments. I've seen positive comments in other venues as well but don't
have time to search for more citations.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Stop the New Privacy Policy until Lila is Thoroughly Briefed on It, Countdown 14 Hours

2014-06-05 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo) 

Nathan, 05/06/2014 18:46:

As a result, the finished policy has rightly garnered a lot of support and
approval,


{{citation needed}}


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Stop the New Privacy Policy until Lila is Thoroughly Briefed on It, Countdown 14 Hours

2014-06-05 Thread Nathan 
I think your concerns are way overblown, and you mishcaracterize or
misunderstand the nature of the data collection that occurs. You also fail
to even mention that there are safeguards that apply to how the data is
used and how long it is retained.

Far from escaping accountability, the WMF privacy policy is a leap ahead of
the types of policies (if any) that you encounter elsewhere on the web. It
places strong limits on the use and retention of data, is provided to users
in an easily understandable manner with a prominent and accurate brief
summary and it was developed with the very substantial input of community
members.

As a result, the finished policy has rightly garnered a lot of support and
approval, and personally I'm happy to see it go live tomorrow.

~Nathan


On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Trillium Corsage 
wrote:

> I am writing to ask that the new privacy policy be stopped, pending
> briefings of and thorough consideration by the incoming executive director
> Lila Tretikov. The timing of this major policy change with all its
> implications, including great legal implications, is at minimum
> discourteous to Ms. Tretikov in this the second day of her tenure, and in
> my judgement should additionally be viewed as alarming.
>
> "Wikimedia is beholden to no one, yet accountable to each and every human
> being," she said day before last. Yet the new policy makes every effort to
> distance it from accountability, by attempting to force every editor to
> consent to the most privacy-invasive technologies known, which include, all
> quoted:
>
> "You should be aware that specific data made public by you or aggregated
> data that is made public by us can be used by anyone for analysis and to
> infer information about users, such as which country a user is from,
> political affiliation, and gender." "Type of device you are using possibly
> including unique device identification numbers." "The type and version of
> your browser, your browser's language preference, the type and version of
> your device's operating system." "The name of your internet service
> provider or mobile carrier." "Which pages you request and visit, and the
> date and time of each request" (note: says "visit," not merely "edit"). "We
> actively collect information with tracking pixels, cookies, and local
> storage." "We use your email address." "We can use GPS and other
> technologies commonly used to determine location." "We may receive
> metadata." "IP address of the device (or your proxy server) you are using
> to access the Internet, which could be used to infer your geographical
> location." (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy).
>
> What is the heck is all this? Editors don't know they are signing up for
> this! But it gets even worse, because the WMF is not only providing this to
> its employees, but to hundreds of anonymous "administrators" to whom it
> grants access to this non-public, easily personally-identifying data. This
> means particularly, but not limited to: checkusers, arbitrators, stewards,
> UTRS users, and "community developers." Who are they? While Ms. Tretikov
> aspires to accountability, the new privacy policy flees to "exemptions" and
> "we know nothing." It specifically exempts these hundreds of people from
> the privacy policy. The WMF's Privacy Fellow Roshni Patel said two weeks
> ago "the Foundation can’t control the actions of community members such as
> administrative volunteers so we don’t include them under the privacy
> policy." Is this accountability? No. She further mystifyingly continues:
> "however, under the access policy, these volunteers must sign a
> confidentiality agreement." Mystifyingly, because it's *not* *true*. That
> part of the privacy policy "Requirements for Community Members Applying for
> Access to Nonpublic Information" requires only an email address and an
> assertion from an anonymous individual that he or she is 18 or over. Is
> there requirement there somewhere for a signature? No. Shall they sign for
> example under the nicknames of the prominent administrators like
> "Beeblebrox" and "Wizardman?" This is not accountability. (
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy#Minimum_requirements_for_community_members_applying_for_access_to_nonpublic_information_rights
> .)
>
> How can the executive director be expected to assume responsibility for
> this stuff in 14 hours, on her third official day on the job? Out of simple
> courtesy to her, it needs to be delayed, while she is briefed on it by
> those who most understand it, like the general counsel Geoff Brigham.
>
> Trillium Corsage
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
_

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Stop the New Privacy Policy until Lila is Thoroughly Briefed on It, Countdown 14 Hours

2014-06-05 Thread Rand McRanderson 
I think this is all information that is generally collected by server log
files.
Ie, I do not think there is anything special being collected
On Jun 5, 2014 12:21 PM, "Trillium Corsage"  wrote:

> I am writing to ask that the new privacy policy be stopped, pending
> briefings of and thorough consideration by the incoming executive director
> Lila Tretikov. The timing of this major policy change with all its
> implications, including great legal implications, is at minimum
> discourteous to Ms. Tretikov in this the second day of her tenure, and in
> my judgement should additionally be viewed as alarming.
>
> "Wikimedia is beholden to no one, yet accountable to each and every human
> being," she said day before last. Yet the new policy makes every effort to
> distance it from accountability, by attempting to force every editor to
> consent to the most privacy-invasive technologies known, which include, all
> quoted:
>
> "You should be aware that specific data made public by you or aggregated
> data that is made public by us can be used by anyone for analysis and to
> infer information about users, such as which country a user is from,
> political affiliation, and gender." "Type of device you are using possibly
> including unique device identification numbers." "The type and version of
> your browser, your browser's language preference, the type and version of
> your device's operating system." "The name of your internet service
> provider or mobile carrier." "Which pages you request and visit, and the
> date and time of each request" (note: says "visit," not merely "edit"). "We
> actively collect information with tracking pixels, cookies, and local
> storage." "We use your email address." "We can use GPS and other
> technologies commonly used to determine location." "We may receive
> metadata." "IP address of the device (or your proxy server) you are using
> to access the Internet, which could be used to infer your geographical
> location." (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy).
>
> What is the heck is all this? Editors don't know they are signing up for
> this! But it gets even worse, because the WMF is not only providing this to
> its employees, but to hundreds of anonymous "administrators" to whom it
> grants access to this non-public, easily personally-identifying data. This
> means particularly, but not limited to: checkusers, arbitrators, stewards,
> UTRS users, and "community developers." Who are they? While Ms. Tretikov
> aspires to accountability, the new privacy policy flees to "exemptions" and
> "we know nothing." It specifically exempts these hundreds of people from
> the privacy policy. The WMF's Privacy Fellow Roshni Patel said two weeks
> ago "the Foundation can’t control the actions of community members such as
> administrative volunteers so we don’t include them under the privacy
> policy." Is this accountability? No. She further mystifyingly continues:
> "however, under the access policy, these volunteers must sign a
> confidentiality agreement." Mystifyingly, because it's *not* *true*. That
> part of the privacy policy "Requirements for Community Members Applying for
> Access to Nonpublic Information" requires only an email address and an
> assertion from an anonymous individual that he or she is 18 or over. Is
> there requirement there somewhere for a signature? No. Shall they sign for
> example under the nicknames of the prominent administrators like
> "Beeblebrox" and "Wizardman?" This is not accountability. (
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy#Minimum_requirements_for_community_members_applying_for_access_to_nonpublic_information_rights
> .)
>
> How can the executive director be expected to assume responsibility for
> this stuff in 14 hours, on her third official day on the job? Out of simple
> courtesy to her, it needs to be delayed, while she is briefed on it by
> those who most understand it, like the general counsel Geoff Brigham.
>
> Trillium Corsage
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,