Are the developers lawyers? A developer claiming something has an unwanted privacy issue is very different from making claims about something being a legal issue on the behalf of Foundation. Simply don't do it. John
Brian skrev: > Or by one of the WMF developers removing the web bug. > > 2009/6/6 John at Darkstar <vac...@jeb.no> > >> You can make claims about what you yourself wants or believe, but do >> *not* claim that your personal beliefs reflects legal issues for >> Foundation. If Foundation needs to make claims about what is and whats >> not a legal issue, then such claims should be made by Mike. >> >> John >> >> Brian skrev: >>> I also have not seen a clear explanation of what those who would like to >>> generate statistics using web bugs plan to do with that data. How do they >>> plan to use the data, and why aren't the plethora of statistics now made >>> officially available by the WMF not satisfactory? >>> >>> You have bypassed the correct procedure. The amount of time that it takes >>> the WMF to accomplish goals can be frustrating. Getting them to make your >>> goal their goal can be frustrating. But it all has to start with you >>> presenting them with a coherent goal that takes all the constraints into >>> account. Then you need to get WMF approval which often involves getting >>> community approval. >>> >>> Let's be clear that the privacy policy is a legal issue for the WMF. >>> Volunteer admins cannot take user privacy into their own hands, under >> their >>> own interpretation. That's just not how it works! >>> >>> >>> 2009/6/6 Brian <brian.min...@colorado.edu> >>> >>>> This is another e-mail on this subject that just strikes me as flawed. >>>> These are not vague privacy fears - they are real privacy fears. I see a >>>> fundamental failure by those involved in this controversy to understand >> this >>>> point. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Tisza Gergő <gti...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Robert Rohde <raro...@...> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> You may not be aware, but the relaying of page view data to third >>>>>> party analysis platforms has been tried on a number of occasions in >>>>>> the past and consistently shutdown. (I think this even includes cases >>>>>> before the Privacy Policy was adopted.) >>>>>> >>>>>> However, to my recollection there has never been a case that quite >>>>>> mirrors yours since we are talking about a privately hosted server >>>>>> administered by a highly trusted community member. >>>>> The (WM-DE-owned) toolserver ran a statistics script called WikiCharts >> for >>>>> a few >>>>> years, which worked with data relayed by Common.js from several >>>>> wikipedias, >>>>> including de and en. While that is not exactly the same situation (as >> the >>>>> WMF >>>>> has access to the toolserver), I think it proves my point that passing >> IP >>>>> data >>>>> to an (in the strict organizational sense) third-party server does not >>>>> necessarily violate the privacy policy, neither letter nor spirit, as >> long >>>>> as >>>>> that server remains within the larger WM community. >>>>> >>>>> It is important to understand that this is a much more general question >>>>> than >>>>> that of web statistics: any third-party service that interacts with the >>>>> standard >>>>> wiki user interface receives private data, whether it needs it or not, >>>>> because >>>>> the user interface (the HTML page) is "executed" in the user's browser, >>>>> and the >>>>> browser has to contact the third-party service, and it cannot hide its >> IP >>>>> in >>>>> that process. For example, we considered setting up some sort of spell >>>>> checking >>>>> service for hu.wp. That is something that cannot be done well centrally >> - >>>>> there >>>>> is too much difference between languages. And if you do it with a local >>>>> server, >>>>> it has to communicate with the user's browser, and could in theory log >>>>> requests >>>>> and correlate them with edits on the wiki, thus it has to conform with >> the >>>>> privacy guidelines. It would be a shame if all such uses would be >> blindly >>>>> forbidden because of vague privacy fears. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> foundation-l mailing list >>>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> foundation-l mailing list >>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
