headers
Kat Walsh | 1 May 2007 02:49

WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

The Wikimedia Foundation has passed a resolution requiring all users
with access to non-public data covered by the site's Privacy Policy to
provide identification to the Foundation. This includes checkusers,
oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS. In addition, all users
holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of
majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in.

To read the details of the resolution, please see:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Access_to_nonpublic_data

A number of parties have trusted us with private, sensitive, or
confidential information. Some of the handling of this information is
delegated, by necessity, to certain trusted volunteers. In
consideration of those who depend on us to behave responsibly, and the
reasonable and commonly-accepted practices for handling private
information, we wish to be able to say who is responsible for handling
this information to ensure that volunteers can be held accountable for
their own actions.

Those affected by this resolution should contact Cary Bass, WMF
volunteer coordinator, at cbass@... We will also attempt to
contact everyone individually who will need to do this; however,
please spread this message to those in your communities.

For the Wikimedia Foundation,
Kat Walsh

--

-- 
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Sean Whitton | 1 May 2007 20:58
Gravatar

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Well, it looks like I'm going to have to give up OTRS for a year and a
half or so. It seems to me a shame that this had to happen, as a
strong arm of the community is under eighteen. However, looking at the
reasoning behind this, I cannot deny that it is well founded and the
resolution in that light seems necessary. It makes sense that we need
to protect ourselves from unpleasant situations with age (I should
note that I totally agree with the requirement of some form of ID
right now for legal reasons, but age is the only thing I take issue
with).

Despite this, looking at the issue again and after having discussed it with

On 01/05/07, Kat Walsh <kat@...> wrote:
> The Wikimedia Foundation has passed a resolution requiring all users
> with access to non-public data covered by the site's Privacy Policy to
> provide identification to the Foundation. This includes checkusers,
> oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS. In addition, all users
> holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of
> majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in.
>
> To read the details of the resolution, please see:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Access_to_nonpublic_data
>
> A number of parties have trusted us with private, sensitive, or
> confidential information. Some of the handling of this information is
> delegated, by necessity, to certain trusted volunteers. In
> consideration of those who depend on us to behave responsibly, and the
> reasonable and commonly-accepted practices for handling private
> information, we wish to be able to say who is responsible for handling
> this information to ensure that volunteers can be held accountable for
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Sean Whitton | 1 May 2007 21:01
Gravatar

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Whoops, gmail keyboard shortcuts can be too good at times... here is the rest:

... others, I think that there is perhaps a way for the Foundation to
get round the issue in order to keep volunteers. I know that I handle
a good deal of private information for freenode as part of the group
registration process, but we are getting round this by using a
Non-Consent Agreement - this will allow us to all handle data
regardless of age as we are still legally bound. Why would we escape
this legally just for being under 18? I'm sure that the law still
places a degree of liability upon minors.

Simply: I think that there must be a way to get round this to help
both WMF and its younger volunteers, but that in general the
resolution is a good idea - we need *something* covering this hole, so
to speak, before an accident happens.

Thanks,
Sean

On 01/05/07, Sean Whitton <sean@...> wrote:
> Well, it looks like I'm going to have to give up OTRS for a year and a
> half or so. It seems to me a shame that this had to happen, as a
> strong arm of the community is under eighteen. However, looking at the
> reasoning behind this, I cannot deny that it is well founded and the
> resolution in that light seems necessary. It makes sense that we need
> to protect ourselves from unpleasant situations with age (I should
> note that I totally agree with the requirement of some form of ID
> right now for legal reasons, but age is the only thing I take issue
> with).
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Aphaia | 2 May 2007 07:26
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

On 5/2/07, Sean Whitton <sean@...> wrote:
> Whoops, gmail keyboard shortcuts can be too good at times... here is the rest:
>
> ... others, I think that there is perhaps a way for the Foundation to
> get round the issue in order to keep volunteers. I know that I handle
> a good deal of private information for freenode as part of the group
> registration process, but we are getting round this by using a
> Non-Consent Agreement - this will allow us to all handle data
> regardless of age as we are still legally bound. Why would we escape
> this legally just for being under 18? I'm sure that the law still
> places a degree of liability upon minors.

Yes but not a total degree. I feel need to add that both parents and
minors can cancel the deed of minors if the parents give no explicit
consent retrospective, even after the minor reached adulthood. It
would be an idea to ask their parents a consent in a paper, but I
don't know if WMF can handle enourmous paperwork currently in addition
to all confirmation process of other people.

--

-- 
KIZU Naoko
  Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
  * habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Sean Whitton | 3 May 2007 13:28
Gravatar

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

I believe that such a paper opinion from the parent would be legally
bounding if we worded it right.

> don't know if WMF can handle enourmous paperwork currently in addition
> to all confirmation process of other people.

There aren't *that* many of us working in these areas - correct me if
I'm wrong, but I don't think it'd be a great deal extra :)

Thanks,
Sean

On 02/05/07, Aphaia <aphaia@...> wrote:
> On 5/2/07, Sean Whitton <sean@...> wrote:
> > Whoops, gmail keyboard shortcuts can be too good at times... here is the rest:
> >
> > ... others, I think that there is perhaps a way for the Foundation to
> > get round the issue in order to keep volunteers. I know that I handle
> > a good deal of private information for freenode as part of the group
> > registration process, but we are getting round this by using a
> > Non-Consent Agreement - this will allow us to all handle data
> > regardless of age as we are still legally bound. Why would we escape
> > this legally just for being under 18? I'm sure that the law still
> > places a degree of liability upon minors.
>
> Yes but not a total degree. I feel need to add that both parents and
> minors can cancel the deed of minors if the parents give no explicit
> consent retrospective, even after the minor reached adulthood. It
> would be an idea to ask their parents a consent in a paper, but I
> don't know if WMF can handle enourmous paperwork currently in addition
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Mohamed Magdy | 1 May 2007 14:18
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Kat Walsh wrote:
> In addition, all users
> holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of
> majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in.
>
>   
Ahem... the resolution says "explicitly over the age at which they are 
capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction 
in which they reside"

That clearly says (implies) that it means over the Age of Consent[1] NOT 
the Age of Majority[2]...it is either that you wrote it wrong or it was 
wrote wrongly in the wiki.

 <at> alnokta
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Andrew Gray | 1 May 2007 21:38
Picon
Andrew Gray <shimgray@...>

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

On 02/05/07, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k@...> wrote:
> Kat Walsh wrote:
> > In addition, all users
> > holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of
> > majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in.
> >
> >
> Ahem... the resolution says "explicitly over the age at which they are
> capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction
> in which they reside"
>
> That clearly says (implies) that it means over the Age of Consent[1] NOT
> the Age of Majority[2]...it is either that you wrote it wrong or it was
> wrote wrongly in the wiki.

No, the age at which you can legally make a binding decision
independent of parental (etc) consent is indeed the age of majority.
The age of consent relates to the the capacity of the individual to
consent to sexual activity, and really doesn't factor in here much...
I really don't see how that can be interpreted as "must be over the
age of consent" unless you squint really hard.

--

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray@...
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Mohamed Magdy | 2 May 2007 05:05
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 02/05/07, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k@...> wrote:
>   
>> Kat Walsh wrote:
>>     
>>> In addition, all users
>>> holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of
>>> majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> Ahem... the resolution says "explicitly over the age at which they are
>> capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction
>> in which they reside"
>>
>> That clearly says (implies) that it means over the Age of Consent[1] NOT
>> the Age of Majority[2]...it is either that you wrote it wrong or it was
>> wrote wrongly in the wiki.
>>     
>
> No, the age at which you can legally make a binding decision
> independent of parental (etc) consent is indeed the age of majority.
> The age of consent relates to the the capacity of the individual to
> consent to sexual activity, and really doesn't factor in here much...
> I really don't see how that can be interpreted as "must be over the
> age of consent" unless you squint really hard.
>
>   
;) pardon me then..sorry...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
GerardM | 1 May 2007 11:34
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Hoi,
Does this mean that developers have to identify themselves as well and have
to be so mature that they are proven legally adult ?

I hope the WMF will consider this not a position of trust in accordance with
this resolution.. If it is not, I think it I am sure that it is collateral
damage.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 5/1/07, Kat Walsh <kat@...> wrote:
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation has passed a resolution requiring all users
> with access to non-public data covered by the site's Privacy Policy to
> provide identification to the Foundation. This includes checkusers,
> oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS. In addition, all users
> holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of
> majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in.
>
> To read the details of the resolution, please see:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Access_to_nonpublic_data
>
> A number of parties have trusted us with private, sensitive, or
> confidential information. Some of the handling of this information is
> delegated, by necessity, to certain trusted volunteers. In
> consideration of those who depend on us to behave responsibly, and the
> reasonable and commonly-accepted practices for handling private
> information, we wish to be able to say who is responsible for handling
> this information to ensure that volunteers can be held accountable for
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Mark Bergsma | 1 May 2007 13:19
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

GerardM wrote:
> Hoi,
> Does this mean that developers have to identify themselves as well and have
> to be so mature that they are proven legally adult ?
> 
> I hope the WMF will consider this not a position of trust in accordance with
> this resolution.. If it is not, I think it I am sure that it is collateral
> damage.

Developers do not have access to private information, however people
with access to our servers do. That's one of the reasons why we do not
give out shell access to people under 18.

--

-- 
Mark Bergsma <mark@...>
System and Network Administrator, Wikimedia Foundation
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Mohamed Magdy | 1 May 2007 10:54
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

<snip>
"Passed with 6 support votes and 1 abstention,"

Can we know who refused and perhaps her/his reasons? :) or that would be 
off-limit?

=alnokta
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Florence Devouard | 1 May 2007 12:19
Picon
Favicon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Mohamed Magdy wrote:
> <snip>
> "Passed with 6 support votes and 1 abstention,"
> 
> Can we know who refused and perhaps her/his reasons? :) or that would be 
> off-limit?
> 
> =alnokta

Jimbo did not vote (it is not a blank vote where he refused to take a 
position, it is that he did not come to vote).

You may ask him, but I can pretty much (say 99%) affirm that you should 
not read anything special in the abstention (except "I was busy with 
other things and did not vote in time. But I am fully in agreement with 
the resolution").

It is frequent that some resolutions fail to get 100% of vote expressed.
To avoid blocking the decision making process, we even voted this 
resolution over a year ago: 
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_Consent_Procedures

Now, thanks for asking the question, because I just realised "abstain" 
with "did not vote" were mixed under a unique description "abstain". 
Which is not correct as in one case a vote is given, in the other, no 
vote is given. The meaning is not the same. I will go through all the 
resolutions to check and correct this.

Ant
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ray Saintonge | 1 May 2007 16:59

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Florence Devouard wrote:

>Mohamed Magdy wrote:
>  
>
>><snip>
>>"Passed with 6 support votes and 1 abstention,"
>>
>>Can we know who refused and perhaps her/his reasons? :) or that would be 
>>off-limit?
>>    
>>
>Jimbo did not vote (it is not a blank vote where he refused to take a 
>position, it is that he did not come to vote).
>
>You may ask him, but I can pretty much (say 99%) affirm that you should 
>not read anything special in the abstention (except "I was busy with 
>other things and did not vote in time. But I am fully in agreement with 
>the resolution").
>
>It is frequent that some resolutions fail to get 100% of vote expressed.
>To avoid blocking the decision making process, we even voted this 
>resolution over a year ago: 
>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_Consent_Procedures
>
>Now, thanks for asking the question, because I just realised "abstain" 
>with "did not vote" were mixed under a unique description "abstain". 
>Which is not correct as in one case a vote is given, in the other, no 
>vote is given. The meaning is not the same. I will go through all the 
>resolutions to check and correct this.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Anthony | 1 May 2007 18:12

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

On 5/1/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@...> wrote:
> "Did not vote" would be ambiguous.  The proper distinction should be
> between "abstain" and "absent".  "Absent" in particular states that the
> person was not there, and could not participate in the vote even if he
> wanted to.
>
That doesn't seem to be the case, though.  From the description
provided by Ant, this wasn't a resolution passed by vote during a
meeting, but rather it was an open-ended consent agreement.  There was
no "there" to be present or absent from.

Consent agreements usually have to be unanimous, but apparently
Florida law allows for "majority consent agreements", a term which I
just made up and has zero Google hits.

Anthony
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ray Saintonge | 1 May 2007 22:24

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Anthony wrote:

>On 5/1/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@...> wrote:
>  
>
>>"Did not vote" would be ambiguous.  The proper distinction should be
>>between "abstain" and "absent".  "Absent" in particular states that the
>>person was not there, and could not participate in the vote even if he
>>wanted to.
>>    
>>
>That doesn't seem to be the case, though.  From the description
>provided by Ant, this wasn't a resolution passed by vote during a
>meeting, but rather it was an open-ended consent agreement.  There was
>no "there" to be present or absent from.
>
"There" can be defined by the Foundation.  Perhaps it can be wherever 
the secretary happens to be since it's normally the secretary that keeps 
track of the books and records of the company.

Ec
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Florence Devouard | 1 May 2007 17:51
Picon
Favicon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Ray Saintonge wrote:

> There is a grammatical error in the Consent resolution procedure cited 
> above.  "Can not" in two words should probably be "cannot" in one word.  
> Having it in two words would have the effect of permitting a negative vote.
> 
> Ec

Uh ?
When at school, I remember learning that either we should write "can 
not" or "can't" ?

Is not that so ?
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ray Saintonge | 1 May 2007 21:47

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Florence Devouard wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>  
>
>>There is a grammatical error in the Consent resolution procedure cited 
>>above.  "Can not" in two words should probably be "cannot" in one word.  
>>Having it in two words would have the effect of permitting a negative vote.
>>
>>Ec
>>    
>>
>Uh ?
>When at school, I remember learning that either we should write "can 
>not" or "can't" ?
>
>Is not that so ?
>
Don't believe everything that you learned in school. :-)

Perhaps grammatical "inaccuracy" would have been a better choice than 
"error".

In most cases "can not" and "cannot" are indeed interchangeable, and in 
most circumstances and spoken speech it doesn't matter.  Both Fowler and 
the Oxford consider the two forms acceptable, with the one word form 
becoming more common.

Perhaps years of reading tax laws affects the way I read "legal" 
writing.  I often ask myself whether there is a plausibly unexpected way
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Sebastian Moleski | 1 May 2007 17:59
Picon
Gravatar

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

On 5/1/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9@...> wrote:
>
> Uh ?
> When at school, I remember learning that either we should write "can
> not" or "can't" ?
>
> Is not that so ?

This is true for almost all auxiliary verbs in the negative. "cannot" is a
special case though, of whch, thankfully, the English language has so few
;-)

sm

_______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Mohamed Magdy | 1 May 2007 12:47
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

<snip>
> Jimbo did not vote (it is not a blank vote where he refused to take a 
> position, it is that he did not come to vote).
>
> You may ask him, but I can pretty much (say 99%) affirm that you should 
> not read anything special in the abstention (except "I was busy with 
> other things and did not vote in time. But I am fully in agreement with 
> the resolution").
>
>   
ِAh, thanks :)
> Now, thanks for asking the question, because I just realised "abstain" 
> with "did not vote" were mixed under a unique description "abstain". 
> Which is not correct as in one case a vote is given, in the other, no 
> vote is given. The meaning is not the same. I will go through all the 
> resolutions to check and correct this.
>
>   
So.. Abstain --> s/he didn't like the thing but didn't want to say 
against .. just stated that it isn't nice . or the opposite: s/he liked 
the thing but didn't want to say yes..just stated that it is nice (may 
be s/he didn't want to be blamed if something went wrong or aren't sure 
s/he wants to say yes but yet wanted to say what s/he is in favor of :))

Blank vote -->  where s/he refused to take a position

I'm confused here, if s/he cannot take a position how you then you go to 
'did not vote' so that you aren't calculated .. imho..you won't get 
counted if you don't have an opinion either yes or no...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Florence Devouard | 1 May 2007 13:11
Picon
Favicon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Mohamed Magdy wrote:
> <snip>
>> Jimbo did not vote (it is not a blank vote where he refused to take a 
>> position, it is that he did not come to vote).
>>
>> You may ask him, but I can pretty much (say 99%) affirm that you should 
>> not read anything special in the abstention (except "I was busy with 
>> other things and did not vote in time. But I am fully in agreement with 
>> the resolution").
>>
>>   
> ِAh, thanks :)
>> Now, thanks for asking the question, because I just realised "abstain" 
>> with "did not vote" were mixed under a unique description "abstain". 
>> Which is not correct as in one case a vote is given, in the other, no 
>> vote is given. The meaning is not the same. I will go through all the 
>> resolutions to check and correct this.
>>
>>   
> So.. Abstain --> s/he didn't like the thing but didn't want to say 
> against .. just stated that it isn't nice . or the opposite: s/he liked 
> the thing but didn't want to say yes..just stated that it is nice (may 
> be s/he didn't want to be blamed if something went wrong or aren't sure 
> s/he wants to say yes but yet wanted to say what s/he is in favor of :))
> 
> Blank vote -->  where s/he refused to take a position
> 
> I'm confused here, if s/he cannot take a position how you then you go to 
> 'did not vote' so that you aren't calculated .. imho..you won't get 
> counted if you don't have an opinion either yes or no...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Mohamed Magdy | 1 May 2007 13:27
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

<snip>
> Let me clarify.
> The resolution was drafted by Mindspillage on the 16 th of march.
> We had a board meeting on the 11th of march. The resolution was on the 
> agenda of that meeting. Which means board members knew that the 
> resolution would be voted upon that day.
> Two board members motionned it to vote (Jan-Bart and Kat).
> Then, on the 11th of april, 3 members voted: Jan-Bart, Kat and myself 
> (unsufficient quorum for it to be passed).
> Michael approved it on the 16th and Oscar on the 19th.
> Technically, that means the quorum was reached on the 16th and the 
> resolution was passed on the 16th.
>
> It was copied on the Foundation site on the 25th, which means that Jimbo 
> could have added his vote until the 25th practically. But did not.
>
> When I copy the resolutions, what I usually do is to mention something 
> like "4 approval, 1 against, 1 abstain, 1 vote missing".
> I now realise that Erik is not using the same system...
> So, I will go through all the resolutions to clarify and mention 
> somewhere the exact terminology and what it means.
>
> In this case, the abstain means "no vote expressed"
>
> ant
>
>
>   
oh no, I was just generalizing and trying to understand each term for 
the future resolutions..I wasn't asking for more clarifications
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
sannse | 1 May 2007 12:46
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

I will now be resigning as OTRS admin and relinquishing oversight.
That's mostly symbolic as I've not been active for some time, and
several people (including Kat) know my full details anyway.  My first
and middle names (Lisa Carter) are fully public as part of my work at
Wikia, but I choose to keep my last name private.  I believe everyone
in these positions should have that option.

I fully understand why the board have felt that they have had to go
this route, but I disagree with it strongly.  There are many reasons
to keep full identities private, and the vast majority are benign.
Keeping details private doesn't involve lying, and those that want to
lie can do so anyway.  This just pushes good, but nervous, people out
of these roles.  Roles where good people are desperately needed.

I'm sad to see where the Foundation is going with this change,
although I do appreciate the pressures that have precipitated it.

Regards,

-- sannse

(and /that/ is the only name you need to find out who I am and whether
I can be trusted.  Your choice either way.)
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Samuel Klein | 1 May 2007 17:02
Picon
Gravatar

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed


On Tue, 1 May 2007, sannse wrote:

> I'm sad to see where the Foundation is going with this change,
> although I do appreciate the pressures that have precipitated it.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- sannse
>
> (and /that/ is the only name you need to find out who I am and whether
> I can be trusted.  Your choice either way.)

This last comment is an important point.  I also think that this is an 
unfortunate policy.

1) The utility of sharing real names, and being a certain age, is 
overstated.  Require competence, maturity, and reputation; not the
paper assurance of age and Real identity.

2) Just ask people to share their real name, don't twist their arm.
They will tell you when they don't want to share, rather than fooling you.

3) If you really want to confirm that 'honest people are honest' and make 
community members jump through hoops, set that bar higher (leave out, for 
instance, basic OTRS access & checkuser)

SJ
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Andrew Gray | 1 May 2007 13:34
Picon
Andrew Gray <shimgray@...>

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

On 01/05/07, sannse <sannse@...> wrote:
> I will now be resigning as OTRS admin and relinquishing oversight.
> That's mostly symbolic as I've not been active for some time, and
> several people (including Kat) know my full details anyway.  My first
> and middle names (Lisa Carter) are fully public as part of my work at
> Wikia, but I choose to keep my last name private.  I believe everyone
> in these positions should have that option.

Surely if your full details are known to Kat, and she is happy and
confident in them, we can reasonably say you are identified to the
foundation? The Foundation, or one of its agents, has privately and
directly verified your identity; it would, I assume, be satisfied with
that.

--

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray@...
Permalink | Reply |
headers
sannse | 1 May 2007 18:37
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

> Surely if your full details are known to Kat, and she is happy and
> confident in them, we can reasonably say you are identified to the
> foundation? The Foundation, or one of its agents, has privately and
> directly verified your identity; it would, I assume, be satisfied with
> that.

I'm sure it would.  But I  would not be satisfied with that.  I oppose
this policy, and so my feeling is that my only moral choices are to
change my mind fully and follow the same verification process as
everyone else, or to resign.

Obviously the board and the Foundation still has my full support, I
just don't feel able to continue in these positions with this policy
in place.

-- sannse
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Brock Weller | 1 May 2007 19:01
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Just seems to be excessive paranoia Sannse. I guess you have your reasons,
but I can't imagine any legitimate ones for not wanting your information out
there. Even with the crap I had to go through with Brandt's minions it comes
out better for all.

Giving any sort of power (even adminship) to somebody who the community does
not know by name has always seemed wacky.

Have we gotten an answer about unblock-l volunteers? I create accounts, see
passwords, locations, frequently names and phone numbers there. Seems like
that should be verified somehow.

On 5/1/07, sannse <sannse@...> wrote:
>
> > Surely if your full details are known to Kat, and she is happy and
> > confident in them, we can reasonably say you are identified to the
> > foundation? The Foundation, or one of its agents, has privately and
> > directly verified your identity; it would, I assume, be satisfied with
> > that.
>
> I'm sure it would.  But I  would not be satisfied with that.  I oppose
> this policy, and so my feeling is that my only moral choices are to
> change my mind fully and follow the same verification process as
> everyone else, or to resign.
>
> Obviously the board and the Foundation still has my full support, I
> just don't feel able to continue in these positions with this policy
> in place.
>
> -- sannse
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
sannse | 1 May 2007 19:34
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

On 5/1/07, Brock Weller <brock.weller@...> wrote:
> Just seems to be excessive paranoia Sannse. I guess you have your reasons,
> but I can't imagine any legitimate ones for not wanting your information out
> there. Even with the crap I had to go through with Brandt's minions it comes
> out better for all.

I gave one good reason someone might have earlier.  As for my own
reasons (other than the philosophical/ethical issue of privacy) it's
quite simple.  I have a distinctive name, I live in a small town, I do
/not/ want phone calls about Wikimedia or Wikia in the middle of the
night.

When I first decided to keep my name private, I was concerned about
SOLLOG and the way he was harrasing various Wikipedians.  Nowadays I'd
be more worried about someone phoning me up to ask how to change the
logo on their Wikia :-)  but either way, I'd rather that didn't
happen.

(Yes, I know I can get my number delisted.  No, I don't wish to do that).

-- sannse
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Anthony | 1 May 2007 18:46

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

On 5/1/07, sannse <sannse@...> wrote:
> > Surely if your full details are known to Kat, and she is happy and
> > confident in them, we can reasonably say you are identified to the
> > foundation? The Foundation, or one of its agents, has privately and
> > directly verified your identity; it would, I assume, be satisfied with
> > that.
>
> I'm sure it would.  But I  would not be satisfied with that.  I oppose
> this policy, and so my feeling is that my only moral choices are to
> change my mind fully and follow the same verification process as
> everyone else, or to resign.
>
I still don't understand what your problem is with the policy.  You
say your name is none of our business.  That's fine, but then my IP
address is none of your business.

Anthony
Permalink | Reply |
headers
sannse | 1 May 2007 19:09
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

On 5/1/07, Anthony <wikilegal@...> wrote:
> I still don't understand what your problem is with the policy.  You
> say your name is none of our business.  That's fine, but then my IP
> address is none of your business.

It's quite simple, I believe that privacy on-line is an important
ideal (while being fully aware of the practical limitations of that).
I believe anonymity should be an accepted choice, and should be no
barrier to participation in the Foundation.

I have no interest in your IP address, and would consider it the hight
of bad manners to try and find out what it was (unless of course it
was needed to prevent you disrupting the project with vandalism or
whatever)

-- sannse
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Thomas Dalton | 1 May 2007 13:05
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

> I will now be resigning as OTRS admin and relinquishing oversight.
> That's mostly symbolic as I've not been active for some time, and
> several people (including Kat) know my full details anyway.  My first
> and middle names (Lisa Carter) are fully public as part of my work at
> Wikia, but I choose to keep my last name private.  I believe everyone
> in these positions should have that option.

You would only be giving the information to the foundation - I don't
think they'll give it to anyone else (short of a subpoena, I guess).
What benign reasons can you really have for not wanting the WMF to
know who you are? Seems like slightly excessive paranoia, to me.
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Pedro Sanchez | 1 May 2007 17:45
Picon
Gravatar

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

On 5/1/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...> wrote:
> > I will now be resigning as OTRS admin and relinquishing oversight.
> > That's mostly symbolic as I've not been active for some time, and
> > several people (including Kat) know my full details anyway.  My first
> > and middle names (Lisa Carter) are fully public as part of my work at
> > Wikia, but I choose to keep my last name private.  I believe everyone
> > in these positions should have that option.
>
> You would only be giving the information to the foundation - I don't
> think they'll give it to anyone else (short of a subpoena, I guess).
> What benign reasons can you really have for not wanting the WMF to
> know who you are? Seems like slightly excessive paranoia, to me.
>

Yes I think most people are missing this point. The identities won't
be made public, they won't be posted on wiki, they will be privately
archived. The Foundation will be the only one having the information.
Permalink | Reply |
headers
David Gerard | 1 May 2007 17:59
Picon
Gravatar

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

On 01/05/07, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez@...> wrote:

> Yes I think most people are missing this point. The identities won't
> be made public, they won't be posted on wiki, they will be privately
> archived. The Foundation will be the only one having the information.

Except on those occasions when, as Sannse's case demonstrates, that
the Foundation cannot be trusted to keep the personal data secure of
someone needing it kept secure.

- d.
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Matthew Brown | 1 May 2007 21:07
Picon
Gravatar

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

On 5/1/07, David Gerard <dgerard@...> wrote:
> Except on those occasions when, as Sannse's case demonstrates, that
> the Foundation cannot be trusted to keep the personal data secure of
> someone needing it kept secure.

Which reminds me to ask: if we have a duty to identify ourselves to
the Foundation, what duties of confidentiality does the Foundation
agree to hold itself to?

What happens if this information is leaked - accidentally, on purpose,
through security breach or robbery or ... ?

Will the foundation fight a discovery motion or subpoena or the like
asking for our personal information, or will it roll over and give up
the information without a fight, in the hope a potential lawsuit will
go after us rather than them?  Will the Foundation even notify us in
this case?  I am concerned that harassing individuals, knowing the
Foundation has this info on file, will file bogus lawsuits just to get
their hands on it.

I'm also curious as to whether this changes our legal relationship
with the Foundation in other ways.

Most of this does not personally concern me all that much since I've
never made that much of an effort to keep my online identity private:
I am no good at keeping secrets.  But the implications may concern
others more than I.

-Matt
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Brad Patrick | 1 May 2007 22:55
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed


Sorry, can't let this go by unanswered.  My statements are historical
and have no bearing on what is presently being done, as I have nothing
to do with the Foundation anymore.  But:

1) Information obtained by the Foundation is subject to the privacy
policy adopted by the board.  Always.

2) What happens if...?  I don't understand your question.  If there is a
security breach, etc., it's a big problem, like it would be for any
company or organization.

3) Will the Foundation fight?  That depends, but the clearest answer you
will get is, there is no guarantee of security, only the best anyone can
 offer.  Any other statement is hogwash.  If your identity is so secret
that you can't let it be shared, then don't share it.  That is your
decision, and no one elses.  For example, I appreciate what sannse is
saying, and I hold her in very high regard, but I think her opposition
to the policy is misguided.  People *do* already know who she is.  The
point is that the Foundation cannot risk letting people no Foundation
person has shaken hands with, spoken to on the phone, etc., from having
the capacity to expose confidential information.  One word: Essjay.

In practice, persons who are the object of investigation by a third
party usually know someone is after them.  The standard practice
supported by EFF and other free speech organizations, and encouraged
under Florida law, is to advise the individual of the subpoena to allow
them the opportunity to file a motion to quash the subpoena and to seek
to intervene to limit or supply conditions for the discovery.  There is
never a guarantee the information can *never* be turned over.  Under
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Dmcdevit | 2 May 2007 11:32
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Brad Patrick wrote:
> 3) Will the Foundation fight?  That depends, but the clearest answer you
> will get is, there is no guarantee of security, only the best anyone can
>  offer.  Any other statement is hogwash.  If your identity is so secret
> that you can't let it be shared, then don't share it.  That is your
> decision, and no one elses.  For example, I appreciate what sannse is
> saying, and I hold her in very high regard, but I think her opposition
> to the policy is misguided.  People *do* already know who she is.  The
> point is that the Foundation cannot risk letting people no Foundation
> person has shaken hands with, spoken to on the phone, etc., from having
> the capacity to expose confidential information.  One word: Essjay.
>   
Has anyone ever (and I do mean *ever*) seriously asserted that Essjay in 
any way abused oversight, CheckUser, or OTRS access? That seems to me a 
serious misrepresentation of what was essentially a PR mishap for the 
WMF. If your point is only that he was a pseudonymous user with access 
to confidential information, then your one word might as well have been 
"Dmcdevit," or dozens of people here: 
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser#Current_users_with_access>. 
But crying "Essjay" is sensationalizing the issue, and kicking the man 
while he's down for no discernible reason.

Dominic
Permalink | Reply |
headers
David Gerard | 2 May 2007 11:40
Picon
Gravatar

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

On 02/05/07, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit@...> wrote:
> Brad Patrick wrote:

> > 3) Will the Foundation fight?  That depends, but the clearest answer you
> > will get is, there is no guarantee of security, only the best anyone can
> >  offer.  Any other statement is hogwash.  If your identity is so secret
> > that you can't let it be shared, then don't share it.  That is your
> > decision, and no one elses.  For example, I appreciate what sannse is
> > saying, and I hold her in very high regard, but I think her opposition
> > to the policy is misguided.  People *do* already know who she is.  The
> > point is that the Foundation cannot risk letting people no Foundation
> > person has shaken hands with, spoken to on the phone, etc., from having
> > the capacity to expose confidential information.  One word: Essjay.

> Has anyone ever (and I do mean *ever*) seriously asserted that Essjay in
> any way abused oversight, CheckUser, or OTRS access? That seems to me a
> serious misrepresentation of what was essentially a PR mishap for the
> WMF. If your point is only that he was a pseudonymous user with access
> to confidential information, then your one word might as well have been
> "Dmcdevit," or dozens of people here:
> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser#Current_users_with_access>.
> But crying "Essjay" is sensationalizing the issue, and kicking the man
> while he's down for no discernible reason.

Agreed. This is an allegation of malfeasance in use of the tools, and
needs to be substantiated or withdrawn.

- d.
Permalink | Reply |
headers
phoebe ayers | 2 May 2007 10:52
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

On 5/1/07, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf@...> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> <snip>
> offer.  Any other statement is hogwash.  If your identity is so secret
> that you can't let it be shared, then don't share it.  That is your
> decision, and no one elses.  For example, I appreciate what sannse is
> saying, and I hold her in very high regard, but I think her opposition
> to the policy is misguided.  People *do* already know who she is.  The
> point is that the Foundation cannot risk letting people no Foundation
> person has shaken hands with, spoken to on the phone, etc., from having
> the capacity to expose confidential information.  One word: Essjay.

<snip>

While appreciating that Brad doesn't speak for the Foundation, and noting
that I don't disagree with the proposed policy and am happy to provide my ID
to the WMF, etc.... I do find this statement about someone that "no
Foundation person has shaken hands with..." curious in light of the actual
resolution.

There is, as SJ hints at, a big difference between being personally
trustworthy -- online or off -- and having your identity confirmed. To take
myself as an example: I've met in person, shaken hands with and spoken on
the phone to many of the Foundation people; and I have a position of trust
(OTRS) that comes under this resolution. In short: I hope I'm considered
personally trustworthy, or at least personally known. That doesn't mean any
of you necessarily know my exact age, or my middle name, or the fact that I
really do have a California driver's license, or where I live, or that I
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Stephen Bain | 2 May 2007 11:09
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

On 5/2/07, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@...> wrote:
>
> The resolution seems like it is  filling in the
> gap of also getting a positive ID for people, so that as Kat says the
> Foundation can "ensure that volunteers can be held accountable for their own
> actions." It would be nice to clarify though if this in the only purpose or
> if there is a larger assumption being made about what these positive IDs
> will achieve.

That's basically it, as I understand it. It's about ensuring that
volunteers in these positions are legally competent in their
jurisdiction.

--

-- 
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain@...
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Matthew Brown | 1 May 2007 23:22
Picon
Gravatar

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Thanks for your answers, Brad, and I appreciate that you can only
speak for the situation before your leaving.

A lot of what I'm getting at, I guess, is wondering how seriously the
privacy policy will be enforced and whether this information will be
common knowledge in the office (and thus easily accidentally
disclosed) or whether it will be checked by someone and then placed
somewhere secure and not generally known by everyone who works in the
office.

My concerns are also that security breaches may be swept under the
carpet, and ignored or denied as the easier option.

Thank you for the clarification as to Florida law and the likely
policy the Foundation would follow if they received a legal request
for the information.  While I realize that the Foundation may not be
in the position of an iron-clad guarantee about anything, I would hope
at least that the correct procedure to follow will be decided upon in
advance and that the standard procedure include notifying the subject
of any subpoena/investigation/discovery if that is possible.

I know under certain circumstances such a notification is prohibited
and that the Foundation may not be able to contact someone, but my
concern is that if what to do in that circumstance is not considered
in advance, policy may be made up on-the-fly in a panic and my
experience is that poor decisions are sometimes made in such
circumstances.

As I said, my own identity is by no means considered a secret, though
my real name is sufficiently frequent that it's not enough to obtain
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
effe iets anders | 1 May 2007 23:38
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Another, maybe not *that* important, question might be: Will the
foundation be willing to remove the information out of the records if
the person resigns from the positions? Not that I care a very lot
about it, but I am somehow curious anyway :)

Lodewijk

2007/5/1, Matthew Brown <morven@...>:
> Thanks for your answers, Brad, and I appreciate that you can only
> speak for the situation before your leaving.
>
> A lot of what I'm getting at, I guess, is wondering how seriously the
> privacy policy will be enforced and whether this information will be
> common knowledge in the office (and thus easily accidentally
> disclosed) or whether it will be checked by someone and then placed
> somewhere secure and not generally known by everyone who works in the
> office.
>
> My concerns are also that security breaches may be swept under the
> carpet, and ignored or denied as the easier option.
>
> Thank you for the clarification as to Florida law and the likely
> policy the Foundation would follow if they received a legal request
> for the information.  While I realize that the Foundation may not be
> in the position of an iron-clad guarantee about anything, I would hope
> at least that the correct procedure to follow will be decided upon in
> advance and that the standard procedure include notifying the subject
> of any subpoena/investigation/discovery if that is possible.
>
> I know under certain circumstances such a notification is prohibited
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Matthew Brown | 2 May 2007 00:11
Picon
Gravatar

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

On 5/1/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders@...> wrote:
> Another, maybe not *that* important, question might be: Will the
> foundation be willing to remove the information out of the records if
> the person resigns from the positions? Not that I care a very lot
> about it, but I am somehow curious anyway :)

While I can't speak for the foundation, I can't see why they would be
willing.  After all, they don't necessarily know if you've done
anything wrong with your access until later.

-Matt
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Florence Devouard | 1 May 2007 18:15
Picon
Favicon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

David Gerard wrote:
> On 01/05/07, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez@...> wrote:
> 
>> Yes I think most people are missing this point. The identities won't
>> be made public, they won't be posted on wiki, they will be privately
>> archived. The Foundation will be the only one having the information.
> 
> 
> Except on those occasions when, as Sannse's case demonstrates, that
> the Foundation cannot be trusted to keep the personal data secure of
> someone needing it kept secure.
> 
> 
> - d.

This calls for a lawyer to be the one in charge of handling such 
information.

ant
Permalink | Reply |
headers
sannse | 1 May 2007 13:16
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

> You would only be giving the information to the foundation - I don't
> think they'll give it to anyone else (short of a subpoena, I guess).
> What benign reasons can you really have for not wanting the WMF to
> know who you are? Seems like slightly excessive paranoia, to me.

One person from Wikimedia has already accidentally used my real name
in a public mailing list (although iirc he spelt it wrong).  And a
private wiki with that name on my user page was found to be
accidentally open to all to view.  And that's with me being
"paranoid".

And as just one example of a reason: I am open on-line about being a
gay woman.  I'm not quite that open in the 3D world.  For me my real
name being linked with "sannse" would be a mild embarrassment that may
damage my relationship with a few aunts and uncles.  For some a
revelation like that could be /very/ dangerous in many ways.  That's
just one reason off the top of my head.

But really, that's not the point for me... my name is none of your
damn business.  It's no harm if you go rummaging though my underwear
drawer, but I'm not going to allow that either.

-- sannse
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Thomas Dalton | 1 May 2007 14:13
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

> One person from Wikimedia has already accidentally used my real name
> in a public mailing list (although iirc he spelt it wrong).  And a
> private wiki with that name on my user page was found to be
> accidentally open to all to view.  And that's with me being
> "paranoid".

I hope the people responsible have been slapped repeatedly with a wet
fish - they really do need to be more careful with private
information. Revealing private information is one of the worst things
a member of Wikimedia staff could do.
Permalink | Reply |
headers
GerardM | 1 May 2007 12:58
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Hoi,
The way I read the resolution is that the WMF will know who you are,
somewhere in a safe or something. This means that only when there is a
requirement to get into contact with you on a named basis you will be
addressed in this way. This should also be the extend to which someone needs
to be identified by his / her name.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 5/1/07, sannse <sannse@...> wrote:
>
> I will now be resigning as OTRS admin and relinquishing oversight.
> That's mostly symbolic as I've not been active for some time, and
> several people (including Kat) know my full details anyway.  My first
> and middle names (Lisa Carter) are fully public as part of my work at
> Wikia, but I choose to keep my last name private.  I believe everyone
> in these positions should have that option.
>
> I fully understand why the board have felt that they have had to go
> this route, but I disagree with it strongly.  There are many reasons
> to keep full identities private, and the vast majority are benign.
> Keeping details private doesn't involve lying, and those that want to
> lie can do so anyway.  This just pushes good, but nervous, people out
> of these roles.  Roles where good people are desperately needed.
>
> I'm sad to see where the Foundation is going with this change,
> although I do appreciate the pressures that have precipitated it.
>
> Regards,
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Kelly Martin | 1 May 2007 12:43
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

On 5/1/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9@...> wrote:
> Now, thanks for asking the question, because I just realised "abstain"
> with "did not vote" were mixed under a unique description "abstain".
> Which is not correct as in one case a vote is given, in the other, no
> vote is given. The meaning is not the same. I will go through all the
> resolutions to check and correct this.

Under US parliamentary law, an "abstension" is a deliberate refusal to
vote: it means that the member is present in the chamber but actively
refused to cast a vote in the ballot.  Merely failing to vote due to
being absent or unavailable is not an abstension.  There is a
significant distinction, and your use of the incorrect term may have
confused some readers in the thread.

It would have been more appropriate to report the result as "six
members in favor, one member not voting".

Kelly
Permalink | Reply |
headers
geni | 1 May 2007 12:58
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

On 5/1/07, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin@...> wrote:
> Under US parliamentary law, an "abstension" is a deliberate refusal to
> vote: it means that the member is present in the chamber but actively
> refused to cast a vote in the ballot.  Merely failing to vote due to
> being absent or unavailable is not an abstension.  There is a
> significant distinction, and your use of the incorrect term may have
> confused some readers in the thread.

The UK english commons use is somewhat different however which is why
Frank Maguire was said to have abstained in person. So using the word
"abstain" to mean "abstain in person" would risk confusing UK readers.

Really there is no ideal wording.

--

-- 
geni
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Florence Devouard | 1 May 2007 12:54
Picon
Favicon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Kelly Martin wrote:
your use of the incorrect term may have
> confused some readers in the thread.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution:Access_to_nonpublic_data&action=history

> It would have been more appropriate to report the result as "six
> members in favor, one member not voting".
> 
> Kelly

correct
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Brianna Laugher | 1 May 2007 06:00
Picon
Gravatar

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

On 01/05/07, Kat Walsh <kat@...> wrote:
> Those affected by this resolution should contact Cary Bass, WMF
> volunteer coordinator, at cbass@... We will also attempt to
> contact everyone individually who will need to do this; however,
> please spread this message to those in your communities.

Before Cary gets inundated, what should we be supplying? Scans of
drivers licenses and the like? Fax of birth certs to the WMF office?

cheers,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Aphaia | 1 May 2007 10:24
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

On 5/1/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher@...> wrote:
> On 01/05/07, Kat Walsh <kat@...> wrote:
> > Those affected by this resolution should contact Cary Bass, WMF
> > volunteer coordinator, at cbass@... We will also attempt to
> > contact everyone individually who will need to do this; however,
> > please spread this message to those in your communities.
>
> Before Cary gets inundated, what should we be supplying? Scans of
> drivers licenses and the like? Fax of birth certs to the WMF office?

/me expects Cary announces the way to identify.

A next question. Some of us faxed a copy of passports once to the
Foundation office for another purpose. Is it sufficient for the
Office, if they are told "hey you have already gotten it" or they
would like us to send them it again?

--

-- 
KIZU Naoko
  Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
  * habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Cary Bass | 1 May 2007 14:49
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Aphaia wrote:
> /me expects Cary announces the way to identify.
>
> A next question. Some of us faxed a copy of passports once to the
> Foundation office for another purpose. Is it sufficient for the
> Office, if they are told "hey you have already gotten it" or they
> would like us to send them it again?
>
>   
/we is looking...

Cary
Permalink | Reply |
headers
shi zhao | 1 May 2007 10:45
Picon
Gravatar

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

How to prove their identity?

2007/5/1, Aphaia <aphaia@...>:
> On 5/1/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher@...> wrote:
> > On 01/05/07, Kat Walsh <kat@...> wrote:
> > > Those affected by this resolution should contact Cary Bass, WMF
> > > volunteer coordinator, at cbass@... We will also attempt to
> > > contact everyone individually who will need to do this; however,
> > > please spread this message to those in your communities.
> >
> > Before Cary gets inundated, what should we be supplying? Scans of
> > drivers licenses and the like? Fax of birth certs to the WMF office?
>
> /me expects Cary announces the way to identify.
>
> A next question. Some of us faxed a copy of passports once to the
> Foundation office for another purpose. Is it sufficient for the
> Office, if they are told "hey you have already gotten it" or they
> would like us to send them it again?
>
> --
> KIZU Naoko
>  Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
>  * habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
oscar van dillen | 1 May 2007 11:20
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

you mean, while we evidently trust them to use the tools as trusted members
of our community, we still cannot not trust them to *not* send in something
illegal such as a forged identity?

best,
oscar

On 5/1/07, shi zhao <shizhao@...> wrote:
>
> How to prove their identity?
>
> 2007/5/1, Aphaia <aphaia@...>:
> > On 5/1/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher@...> wrote:
> > > On 01/05/07, Kat Walsh <kat@...> wrote:
> > > > Those affected by this resolution should contact Cary Bass, WMF
> > > > volunteer coordinator, at cbass@... We will also attempt
> to
> > > > contact everyone individually who will need to do this; however,
> > > > please spread this message to those in your communities.
> > >
> > > Before Cary gets inundated, what should we be supplying? Scans of
> > > drivers licenses and the like? Fax of birth certs to the WMF office?
> >
> > /me expects Cary announces the way to identify.
> >
> > A next question. Some of us faxed a copy of passports once to the
> > Foundation office for another purpose. Is it sufficient for the
> > Office, if they are told "hey you have already gotten it" or they
> > would like us to send them it again?
> >
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Mohamed Magdy | 1 May 2007 11:56
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

oscar van dillen wrote:
> you mean, while we evidently trust them to use the tools as trusted members
> of our community, we still cannot not trust them to *not* send in something
> illegal such as a forged identity?
>
>   
I'm just responding to the question as I interpreted it..no more no 
less... but in my opinion..we should always assume good faith...that 
those spending this *crazy* time on the projects have nice reason and 
want to make it  better...and after all..what harm could anyone do that 
is not revertible?

<snip>

)alnokta
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Aphaia | 1 May 2007 11:25
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

On 5/1/07, oscar van dillen <oscarvandillen@...> wrote:
> you mean, while we evidently trust them to use the tools as trusted members
> of our community, we still cannot not trust them to *not* send in something
> illegal such as a forged identity?

I would like to point out Ryan Jordan didn't stop to claim his fake
identification after he got some positions of trust including a global
one (boardvote access). So your argument sounds me a bit unwise. But
forging an identity which looks as if the goverment issues is not a
same thing, hopefully.

> best,
> oscar
>
> On 5/1/07, shi zhao <shizhao@...> wrote:
> >
> > How to prove their identity?
> >
> > 2007/5/1, Aphaia <aphaia@...>:
> > > On 5/1/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher@...> wrote:
> > > > On 01/05/07, Kat Walsh <kat@...> wrote:
> > > > > Those affected by this resolution should contact Cary Bass, WMF
> > > > > volunteer coordinator, at cbass@... We will also attempt
> > to
> > > > > contact everyone individually who will need to do this; however,
> > > > > please spread this message to those in your communities.
> > > >
> > > > Before Cary gets inundated, what should we be supplying? Scans of
> > > > drivers licenses and the like? Fax of birth certs to the WMF office?
> > >
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Walter Vermeir | 1 May 2007 11:05
Picon
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

shi zhao schreef:
> How to prove their identity?

Is it not so that in some country's, like the USA, that is impossible?
No identity cards, no national database of birth registration, change of
address, change of sex, marital status, dead. I believe wives even
change there name there when the marry. I do not see how you could
possibly be sure about the identity of anybody in a country like that.

--

-- 
Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org
Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Mohamed Magdy | 1 May 2007 11:21
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Walter Vermeir wrote:
> shi zhao schreef:
>   
>> How to prove their identity?
>>     
>
> Is it not so that in some country's, like the USA, that is impossible?
> No identity cards, no national database of birth registration, change of
> address, change of sex, marital status, dead. I believe wives even
> change there name there when the marry. I do not see how you could
> possibly be sure about the identity of anybody in a country like that.
>
>   
can i?
...
...
...
lol :)

Seriously though, I think Shi was talking about how to make sure that 
whatever information the user is sending are the truth..and that s/he 
isn't forging it somehow...

=alnokta
Permalink | Reply |
headers
teun spaans | 1 May 2007 12:48
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

I think that She meant that some kinds if identification will not be
available in every country.

On 5/2/07, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k@...> wrote:
>
> Walter Vermeir wrote:
> > shi zhao schreef:
> >
> >> How to prove their identity?
> >>
> >
> > Is it not so that in some country's, like the USA, that is impossible?
> > No identity cards, no national database of birth registration, change of
> > address, change of sex, marital status, dead. I believe wives even
> > change there name there when the marry. I do not see how you could
> > possibly be sure about the identity of anybody in a country like that.
> >
> >
> can i?
> ...
> ...
> ...
> lol :)
>
> Seriously though, I think Shi was talking about how to make sure that
> whatever information the user is sending are the truth..and that s/he
> isn't forging it somehow...
>
> =alnokta
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
oscar van dillen | 1 May 2007 12:50
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

afaik Shi is a He ;-)

On 5/1/07, teun spaans <teun.spaans@...> wrote:
>
> I think that She meant that some kinds if identification will not be
> available in every country.
>
> On 5/2/07, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k@...> wrote:
> >
> > Walter Vermeir wrote:
> > > shi zhao schreef:
> > >
> > >> How to prove their identity?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Is it not so that in some country's, like the USA, that is impossible?
> > > No identity cards, no national database of birth registration, change
> of
> > > address, change of sex, marital status, dead. I believe wives even
> > > change there name there when the marry. I do not see how you could
> > > possibly be sure about the identity of anybody in a country like that.
> > >
> > >
> > can i?
> > ...
> > ...
> > ...
> > lol :)
> >
> > Seriously though, I think Shi was talking about how to make sure that
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
teun spaans | 1 May 2007 13:38
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Thank you. Actually She was just a typo for Shi. ;-(

On 5/1/07, oscar van dillen <oscarvandillen@...> wrote:
>
> afaik Shi is a He ;-)
>
> On 5/1/07, teun spaans <teun.spaans@...> wrote:
> >
> > I think that She meant that some kinds if identification will not be
> > available in every country.
> >
> > On 5/2/07, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Walter Vermeir wrote:
> > > > shi zhao schreef:
> > > >
> > > >> How to prove their identity?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Is it not so that in some country's, like the USA, that is
> impossible?
> > > > No identity cards, no national database of birth registration,
> change
> > of
> > > > address, change of sex, marital status, dead. I believe wives even
> > > > change there name there when the marry. I do not see how you could
> > > > possibly be sure about the identity of anybody in a country like
> that.
> > > >
> > > >
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
David Gerard | 1 May 2007 11:29
Picon
Gravatar

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

On 02/05/07, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k@...> wrote:

> Seriously though, I think Shi was talking about how to make sure that
> whatever information the user is sending are the truth..and that s/he
> isn't forging it somehow...

Fairly obviously, this isn't going to be forgery proof. Its power
would be as an arse-covering measure in case a volunteer with private
info turns evil or crazy. That is, the Foundation has the identity
info supplied by the volunteer, and if they lied then the volunteer is
the liar.

- d.
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Mohamed Magdy | 1 May 2007 12:00
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

<snip>
> and if they lied then the volunteer is
> the liar.
>
>
>   
...and thus the foundation cannot be held responsible...

Ah, so that (resolution) is for the legal issues?

$alnokta
Permalink | Reply |
headers
FloNight | 1 May 2007 12:04
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

And it helps keep honest people honest. People that are truly up to no good
will find a way to beat even the most security minded systems.

Sydney

On 5/2/07, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k@...> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > and if they lied then the volunteer is
> > the liar.
> >
> >
> >
> ...and thus the foundation cannot be held responsible...
>
> Ah, so that (resolution) is for the legal issues?
>
> $alnokta
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
Permalink | Reply |
headers
David Gerard | 1 May 2007 12:56
Picon
Gravatar

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

On 01/05/07, FloNight <sydney.poore@...> wrote:

> And it helps keep honest people honest.

That's a really awful reason that makes no sense. It's like keeping
tall people tall.

- d.
Permalink | Reply |
headers
FloNight | 1 May 2007 11:43
Picon

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

In the United States commonly a notary public  is used to certify the
identity of a person signing forms and supplying identification. So that
might be an option for some people. Otherwise just having them provide ID
and sign a form stating it is valid provides a measure of protection for the
organization.

Sydney aka FloNight

On 5/1/07, David Gerard <dgerard@...> wrote:
>
> On 02/05/07, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k@...> wrote:
>
> > Seriously though, I think Shi was talking about how to make sure that
> > whatever information the user is sending are the truth..and that s/he
> > isn't forging it somehow...
>
>
> Fairly obviously, this isn't going to be forgery proof. Its power
> would be as an arse-covering measure in case a volunteer with private
> info turns evil or crazy. That is, the Foundation has the identity
> info supplied by the volunteer, and if they lied then the volunteer is
> the liar.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
George Herbert | 1 May 2007 03:20
Picon
Gravatar

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

On 4/30/07, Kat Walsh <kat@...> wrote:
> The Wikimedia Foundation has passed a resolution requiring all users
> with access to non-public data covered by the site's Privacy Policy to
> provide identification to the Foundation. This includes checkusers,
> oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS. In addition, all users
> holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of
> majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in.
>
> To read the details of the resolution, please see:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Access_to_nonpublic_data
>
> A number of parties have trusted us with private, sensitive, or
> confidential information. Some of the handling of this information is
> delegated, by necessity, to certain trusted volunteers. In
> consideration of those who depend on us to behave responsibly, and the
> reasonable and commonly-accepted practices for handling private
> information, we wish to be able to say who is responsible for handling
> this information to ensure that volunteers can be held accountable for
> their own actions.
>
> Those affected by this resolution should contact Cary Bass, WMF
> volunteer coordinator, at cbass@... We will also attempt to
> contact everyone individually who will need to do this; however,
> please spread this message to those in your communities.
>
> For the Wikimedia Foundation,
> Kat Walsh

Clarification query: Does this apply to the unblock-en-l volunteer
staff as well?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Casey Brown | 1 May 2007 03:32
Picon
Gravatar

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public datapassed

I don't think so.  We do not have access to non-public data.  There are
messages posted everywhere that this is just a mailing list and that they
should not share any private information.

Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces@...
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@...] On Behalf Of George
Herbert
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 9:21 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List; Requests from blocked users
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WMF resolution on access to non-public
datapassed

On 4/30/07, Kat Walsh <kat@...> wrote:
> The Wikimedia Foundation has passed a resolution requiring all users
> with access to non-public data covered by the site's Privacy Policy to
> provide identification to the Foundation. This includes checkusers,
> oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS. In addition, all users
> holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of
> majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in.
>
> To read the details of the resolution, please see:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Access_to_nonpublic_data
>
> A number of parties have trusted us with private, sensitive, or
> confidential information. Some of the handling of this information is
> delegated, by necessity, to certain trusted volunteers. In
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Casey Brown | 1 May 2007 03:32
Picon
Gravatar

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public datapassed

I don't think so.  We do not have access to non-public data.  There are
messages posted everywhere that this is just a mailing list and that they
should not share any private information.

Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces@...
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@...] On Behalf Of George
Herbert
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 9:21 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List; Requests from blocked users
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WMF resolution on access to non-public
datapassed

On 4/30/07, Kat Walsh <kat@...> wrote:
> The Wikimedia Foundation has passed a resolution requiring all users
> with access to non-public data covered by the site's Privacy Policy to
> provide identification to the Foundation. This includes checkusers,
> oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS. In addition, all users
> holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of
> majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in.
>
> To read the details of the resolution, please see:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Access_to_nonpublic_data
>
> A number of parties have trusted us with private, sensitive, or
> confidential information. Some of the handling of this information is
> delegated, by necessity, to certain trusted volunteers. In
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Claudio Mastroianni | 1 May 2007 10:33
Picon

[Risoluzioni WMF] Richiesta di documenti e maggiore età per alcuni ruoli

Vi giro un messaggio ufficiale della WMF scritto da Kat Walsh "per la  
Wikimedia Foundation".
Riassumo in breve: chi svolge compiti con ruolo di checkuser,  
oversight (che noi non abbiamo), steward e anche i volontari OTRS  
dovranno avere più di 18 anni e inviare un documento alla Foundation.

Buona lettura,

Gatto Nero

Inizio messaggio inoltrato:

> Da: "Kat Walsh" <kat <at> mindspillage.org>
> Data: 01 maggio 2007 2:49:14 GMT+02:00
> A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation- 
> l <at> lists.wikimedia.org>
> Oggetto: [Foundation-l] WMF resolution on access to non-public data  
> passed
>
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation has passed a resolution requiring all users
> with access to non-public data covered by the site's Privacy Policy to
> provide identification to the Foundation. This includes checkusers,
> oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS. In addition, all users
> holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of
> majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in.
>
> To read the details of the resolution, please see:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/ 
> Resolution:Access_to_nonpublic_data
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ivan Vighetto | 1 May 2007 21:28
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [Risoluzioni WMF] Richiesta di documenti e maggiore età per alcuni ruoli

Attenzione, per chi è interessato, inviare solo una e-mail all'indirizzo
cbass <at> wikimedia.org. Verrà comunicato in seguito come "identificarsi".

2007/5/1, Claudio Mastroianni <gattonero <at> gmail.com>:
>
> Vi giro un messaggio ufficiale della WMF scritto da Kat Walsh "per la
> Wikimedia Foundation".
> Riassumo in breve: chi svolge compiti con ruolo di checkuser,
> oversight (che noi non abbiamo), steward e anche i volontari OTRS
> dovranno avere più di 18 anni e inviare un documento alla Foundation.
>
> Buona lettura,
>
> Gatto Nero
>
>
> Inizio messaggio inoltrato:
>
> > Da: "Kat Walsh" <kat <at> mindspillage.org>
> > Data: 01 maggio 2007 2:49:14 GMT+02:00
> > A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-
> > l <at> lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Oggetto: [Foundation-l] WMF resolution on access to non-public data
> > passed
> >
> >
> > The Wikimedia Foundation has passed a resolution requiring all users
> > with access to non-public data covered by the site's Privacy Policy to
> > provide identification to the Foundation. This includes checkusers,
> > oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS. In addition, all users
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
senpai | 1 May 2007 21:37
Picon

Re: [Risoluzioni WMF] Richiesta di documenti e maggiore età per alcuni ruoli


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ivan Vighetto" <sbisolo <at> gmail.com>
To: "Mailing list per Wikipedia in italiano" <wikiit-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiIT-l][Risoluzioni WMF] Richiesta di documenti e maggiore 
età per alcuni ruoli

Attenzione, per chi è interessato, inviare solo una e-mail all'indirizzo
cbass <at> wikimedia.org. Verrà comunicato in seguito come "identificarsi".

-------------------------

Indicando o scrivendo cosa ?

Senpai 

_______________________________________________
WikiIT-l mailing list
WikiIT-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
Pagina per iscriversi/disiscriversi: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiit-l
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Frieda Brioschi | 2 May 2007 08:36
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [Risoluzioni WMF] Richiesta di documenti e maggiore età per alcuni ruoli

>Il 01/05/07, senpai <wikisenpai <at> gmail.com> ha scritto:
> Indicando o scrivendo cosa ?

Tenuto conto che hanno scritto che tenteranno loro di contattare le
persone, sarei quasi dell'idea di aspettare che si facciano vivi..
Anche perché immagino che sia necessaria almeno una copia di un
documento di identità..
(avranno imparato qualcosa dal caso EssJay, no?)

Ciao,
Frieda
___________________________________________
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Frieda

_______________________________________________
WikiIT-l mailing list
WikiIT-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
Pagina per iscriversi/disiscriversi: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiit-l
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Fabio | 4 May 2007 19:35
Picon
Favicon

R: [Risoluzioni WMF] Richiesta di documenti e maggiore età per alcuni ruoli

Ho contattato Bastique (Cary Bass) e mi ha detto che comunicherà a tempo
debito quando vorrà le suddette informazioni.

Fabexplosive

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: wikiit-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikiit-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org] Per conto di Frieda Brioschi
Inviato: mercoledì 2 maggio 2007 8.36
A: Mailing list per Wikipedia in italiano
Oggetto: Re: [WikiIT-l][Risoluzioni WMF] Richiesta di documenti e maggiore
età per alcuni ruoli

>Il 01/05/07, senpai <wikisenpai <at> gmail.com> ha scritto:
> Indicando o scrivendo cosa ?

Tenuto conto che hanno scritto che tenteranno loro di contattare le
persone, sarei quasi dell'idea di aspettare che si facciano vivi..
Anche perché immagino che sia necessaria almeno una copia di un
documento di identità..
(avranno imparato qualcosa dal caso EssJay, no?)

Ciao,
Frieda
___________________________________________
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Frieda

_______________________________________________
WikiIT-l mailing list
WikiIT-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Fabio | 4 May 2007 19:35
Picon
Favicon

R: [Risoluzioni WMF] Richiesta di documenti e maggiore età per alcuni ruoli

Ho contattato Bastique (Cary Bass) e mi ha detto che comunicherà a tempo
debito quando vorrà le suddette informazioni.

Fabexplosive

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: wikiit-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikiit-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org] Per conto di Frieda Brioschi
Inviato: mercoledì 2 maggio 2007 8.36
A: Mailing list per Wikipedia in italiano
Oggetto: Re: [WikiIT-l][Risoluzioni WMF] Richiesta di documenti e maggiore
età per alcuni ruoli

>Il 01/05/07, senpai <wikisenpai <at> gmail.com> ha scritto:
> Indicando o scrivendo cosa ?

Tenuto conto che hanno scritto che tenteranno loro di contattare le
persone, sarei quasi dell'idea di aspettare che si facciano vivi..
Anche perché immagino che sia necessaria almeno una copia di un
documento di identità..
(avranno imparato qualcosa dal caso EssJay, no?)

Ciao,
Frieda
___________________________________________
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Frieda

_______________________________________________
WikiIT-l mailing list
WikiIT-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jacopo Prisco | 1 May 2007 21:40
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [Risoluzioni WMF] Richiesta di documenti e maggiore età per alcuni ruoli

Il 01/05/07, senpai<wikisenpai <at> gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ivan Vighetto" <sbisolo <at> gmail.com>
> To: "Mailing list per Wikipedia in italiano" <wikiit-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 9:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [WikiIT-l][Risoluzioni WMF] Richiesta di documenti e maggiore
> età per alcuni ruoli
>
> Attenzione, per chi è interessato, inviare solo una e-mail all'indirizzo
> cbass <at> wikimedia.org. Verrà comunicato in seguito come "identificarsi".
>
> -------------------------
>
> Indicando o scrivendo cosa ?
>
> Senpai

Io gli ho mandato una email questa mattina dicendogli appunto di
essere un operatore OTRS ed i dettagli per l'identificazione, presumo
sia sufficiente.

Jacopo

_______________________________________________
WikiIT-l mailing list
WikiIT-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
Pagina per iscriversi/disiscriversi: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiit-l
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane