Sure it would reduce the amount of private data considered, but also the name&address could (should) be considered private, and hence it wouldn't take away the fundamental concerns as they are stated by several people.
Best, Lodewijk 2011/7/12 Birgitte SB <birgitte...@yahoo.com> > A notarized statement wouldn't need to contain all the personal info. Just > a > name and something else to distinguish common names (I suggest an address > as the > snail mail method pretty often will include a return address anyway). The > rest > of the info like age, nationality, race, identification numbers, etc. is > only > seen by the notary who puts a seal on the document to verify that the > signature > was made by the person with that name. > > Birgitte SB > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> > > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > > Cc: r...@slmr.com > > Sent: Mon, July 11, 2011 6:50:57 AM > > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns > > > > I am not sure if that would solve any of the problems that some people > have > > with the current situation. Still the notarized statement (which > includes > > all personal data) would end up with an individual if I understand > > correctly. It would only add quite a lot of costs... > > > > 2011/7/11 Peter Gervai <grin...@gmail.com> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 02:28, Robin McCain <ro...@slmr.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I'd say that if you've blocked someone who is a sockpuppet or other > > > > abuser the burden of validating such a person should be on them, not > the > > > > wiki staff. At least a notary (or other public official) would have > to > > > > look at an identity document - verify its validity as well as see > that > > > > it indeed matches the person in question - then sign a document to > that > > > > effect. This completely removes the wiki staff from the need to > access > > > > the validity of a copy. > > > > > > I guess it is nice to offer the blocked people this alternative, > > > privacy-enhanced method along the old one. I'm sure current poster > > > would be pleased, and I guess the dutch wikigods could accept that > > > solution, too. > > > > > > -- > > > byte-byte, > > > grin > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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
