i think many people might not understand what is the real problem here with 
this aspect in the general framework. I might make a brutal simplification, of 
course.
In any case, if you manage to make the moment when a logged-in user is 
connected to a platform for the first time a secret, that basically do not have 
a big impact on anything most of the people do, so I can probably tell you to 
go on. What would be the effect? The info will disappear from the SUL table or 
something like that. Whatever.
But I guess, cynically, that a "non-solution" of "don't use the bot" is much 
more fitting for the "social ecosystem" and the way it evolves on wiki 
platforms. This way you did not address a higher level aspect of the issue, you 
remove the global feeling of alert down a notch and you can act in any case as 
if you did something in that direction. Also, it makes no solid precedent when 
future real privacy problem are discussed. 
That's why asking to remove the info completely, from my point of view, it's 
even slightly better.  At least next time we discuss privacy in other matter I 
have a strong precedent case to cite. I mean... if people make a fuzz about 
this, I expect they really care about other things. I could ping all the 
favorable to such information removal one by one in a future RfC.
Alex 

    Il Venerdì 26 Gennaio 2018 3:37, John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com> ha 
scritto:
 

 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