Fine! If people refuse the easy way out, then create an Rfc, and start the
process to make creation of new user accounts non-public information.

Den fre. 26. jan. 2018, 03.04 skrev Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>:

> you are not "exposing the user unknowingly visiting the site" with the bot
> itself...when you visit the site you are integrated in the SUL, it's public
> information since ages. The fact that a bot takes care of it or a human
> being leaves a message does not tell you a lot more. Sometimes on certain
> wiki welcome messages are delivered sometimes they are not. Sometimes
> immediately, sometimes later. It's a very fragmented situation so the bot
> tells you basically nothing per se, it simple makes some people aware that
> the information of visiting a site exists and it is public.
> So the question is not about the bot, the question is if when you do
> thishttps://
> commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ACentralAuth&target=Alexmar983
> and you can read that it's public that for example I was attached on
> fawiki on 21:41, 11 April 2012, which is basically when I visited it the
> first time. Although not strictly, I could have visited it and the system
> having problem and log me out (that also happen) so technically this is not
> even true sometimes... But even if it was precise, is the public knowledge
> of this information really a threat to my privacy? or it is justing many of
> the things I implicitly agree when I make an account?
> The "violation of privacy" of such information, it's not even comparable
> with dozen of other things in your life. But seriously if THIS is a problem
> and had to be "put secret" than I'd expect to be informed when a check user
> look at my data. You know.... a few group of people decide when it's right
> or wrong to look at my personal data and not informing me when they do it
> probably because they found nothing (but they have such information in
> their hand now, don't they? Shouldn't I generic user be informed about
> it?), that's not very nice for the privacy of anyone. So the core point is
> not that I receive a message once a year that makes me aware that the SUL
> information exist, but that I don't receive a lot of other messages that I
> should receiving about who's looking at many others of my personal data.
> Privacy is a serious matter. I expect RfC for things that have impact. Now
> imagine that I go to people that are worried and tell them the nobody
> really cares that they are not informed when someone look inside their
> provider data (because put in the end of a small group of people is
> "enough") or that the disaggregated information of CU activity is not
> public for the majority of platforms... but someone cares so much if they
> receive a welcoming message by bot when they visit a platform for the first
> time. I am quite sure that the users I know will not be impressed.
>
>     Il Venerdì 26 Gennaio 2018 0:27, John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com>
> ha scritto:
>
>
>  I can't see that T42006 is relevant in this case. It is about abusive use
> of a bot, not about creation of the central account in itself.
>
> The existence of a central account leads to creation of the local account.
> This is probably acceptable. Then this may lead to the abusiv behavior, ie
> exposing the user unknowingly visiting the site. This is probably not
> intended and not acceptable.
>
> I wonder if the solution is to filter down the new users to real
> contributors, that would be pretty simple
>
> Den tor. 25. jan. 2018, 22.55 skrev Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Joe,
> >
> > I believe that the issue of a potential privacy violation was first
> raised
> > on this list on December 30th, and I first emailed WMF Legal about this
> > issue on January 1st. Keeping in mind that the issue involves potential
> > privacy violations, I think that it's reasonable to think that this issue
> > should have been reviewed within days, not weeks. I disagree with the
> > statement that "A subsequent review is clearly going to be a low priority
> > task as I am sure you can understand Pine." If anything, I think that the
> > situation is clear to the contrary and it should have been reviewed
> within
> > days.
> >
> > For me, an RfC about this matter would be for the purposes of (1)
> > encouraging WMF to give more attention to this matter, (2) attempting to
> > establish community consensus about whether the matters being raised here
> > involve privacy violations, and (3) what should be done, if anything.
> > Personally, I think that the status quo does involve privacy violations
> and
> > that there should be changes. Whether that view is shared by others is
> > something that the RfC would attempt to measure.
> >
> > In this circumstance I consider RfC to be similar to a ballot measure,
> and
> > I think that it's appropriate for me to say that if I think that there
> are
> > problems then I may use tools that are available to me to attempt to
> > address them, preferably with WMF's cooperation, but without WMF"s
> > cooperation if necessary and if possible.
> >
> > John,
> >
> > A previous discussion about the privacy issues occurred in
> > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T42006. I received a new email from
> WMF
> > Legal in which they affirmed their department's 2012 view on this matter.
> > The most recent email gave me the impression that they are receptive to
> > discussion about whether there should be changes although there may be
> > resource limitations. That sounds like a good starting place for a
> > conversation, and I think that on the community's side an RfC is the best
> > way to gauge the community's views. I am busy for the next few days but
> > I'll try to set up an RfC on Meta during the weekend.
> >
> > Pine <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine>
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CatherineMunro/Bright_Places>
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:29 AM, Joseph Seddon <jsed...@wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This conversation started in the middle of the Christmas break
> following
> > > which I suspect many staff took extended holidays, most departments are
> > in
> > > the middle annual planning and this week WMF are gathering for their
> > annual
> > > all hands meetings. So lets firtst consider the fact that senior legal
> > > staff have a lot on their plate.
> > >
> > > This problem has been discussed before and reviewed by legal as
> > acceptable.
> > > A subsequent review is clearly going to be a low priority task as I am
> > sure
> > > you can understand Pine.
> > >
> > > Making threats to handle ones demand and only in a manner that is
> > > acceptable to you is hardly going to make staff receptive to expediting
> > > your request. Lets give the good people time, afford them patience on
> our
> > > behalf and let them do their jobs.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:04 AM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > FYI for those on WIkimedia-l who may be interested, conversation
> about
> > > this
> > > > matter is ongoing. I am waiting a response from WMF Legal, and there
> > may
> > > be
> > > > others who have opened their own lines of inquiry.
> > > >
> > > > If I don't receive a reply from WMF Legal that I feel is
> satisfactory,
> > or
> > > > if I don't receive one at all, then I plan to set up an RfC about
> this
> > > > matter.
> > > >
> > > > Pine <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine>
> > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CatherineMunro/Bright_Places>
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm scared of the solutions that will "fix" this.
> > > > > I expect something as dramatically useful as the removal of
> "unblock
> > > this
> > > > > IP" button for IPs caught by autoblocks of registered users.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vito
> > > > >
> > > > > 2018-01-01 22:46 GMT+01:00 Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have created https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T183876 and am
> > > > pinging
> > > > > > Legal to request a review of this matter.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Happy new year,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pine
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
> > > ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Seddon
> > >
> > > *Community and Audience Engagement Associate*
> > > *Advancement (Fundraising), Wikimedia Foundation*
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to