I think the idea that making the log of checks public will be a service
to those subject to CheckUser is misguided. One of the best reasons for
keeping the logs private is not security through obscurity but the
prevention of unwarranted stigma and drama. Most checks (which aren't
just scanning a vandal or persistent sockpuppeteer's IP for other
accounts) are performed because there is some amount of uncertainty. Not
all checks are positive, and a negative result doesn't necessarily mean
the check was unwarranted. I think those who have been checked without a
public request deserve not to have suspicion cast on them by public logs
if the check did not produce evidence of guilt. At the same time,
because even justified checks will often upset the subject, the
CheckUser deserves to be able to act on valid suspicions without fear of
retaliation. The community doesn't need the discord that a public log
would generate. That's not to say that there should be no oversight, but
that a public log is not the way to do it.
Dominic
On 6/14/12 6:34 PM, En Pine wrote:
Nathan, I’d like to respond to all three of your recent comments.
Can you explain how this is so? I did a fair amount of work at SPI as a
clerk, and I'm not sure I understand how the mere fact that a check was
performed is giving sockpuppeters a roadmap for how to avoid detection. If
you mean they could test the CU net by running a bunch of socks on
different strategies to see which get checked and which don't, that seems
like a lot of work that a vanishingly small number of abusers would
attempt... and also basically the same information as they would receive
when those sock accounts are ultimately blocked or not blocked per CU.
~Nathan
I think you might be amazed that the persistence and sophistication of some
individuals. I personally haven’t dealt with them much on-wiki, but I’ve
certainly seen them on IRC.
Here are some problems with that rationale:
1) If a sock confirmation results from a CU check, the person is blocked,
which is a pretty big tip off all its own. If a case is filed at SPI, then
tons of evidence is submitted, then a CU check is performed in public, then
a block is or is not imposed. That whole process is a pretty big tip off
too, but we haven't shut it down for providing a road map to abusers.
You are correct that the start of the CU case is public at the time of filing
at WP:SPI. The identity of the CU is also public when it is run for those filed
cases. I believe that we are discussing in this thread are instances of the CU
tool being used, or data from the tool being used and shared among
functionaries who are permitted access to private data, when that use or
sharing is not made publicly known at WP:SPI. I am not a Checkuser but perhaps
someone who is a Checkuser can give some examples of situations when this
happens. I personally know of at least two scenarios.
2) You can't dispute the use of CU on your information if you don't know
that it was used. It's kind of like secret wiretapping with a FISA warrant;
if you never know you've been wiretapped, how are you supposed to challenge
it or know whether it was used improperly? As for "various groups can
investigate", to some extent that's true. Most of them are checkusers,
however, and they still tend not to disclose all relevant information. I'm
not saying that any CU is doing anything improper or that it's likely, but
such allegations have been made in the past, and it seems like a pretty cut
and dried case of people having a right to know how their own information
is being used. If Wikimedia were based in Europe, it would most likely be
required by law.
Nathan
When you use Wikipedia, information about what you do is logged. The same is
true for other websites. In most cases on the internet in general, it’s
impossible for the average user to know if their information has been used or
disclosed in a way that is contrary to the site’s privacy policy. Sometimes
misuse or preventable, improper disclosure of private data is made publicly
known, as has happened with many online services being hacked for credit card
or password information. The reality on the internet is that generally the
information you provide can’t be guaranteed to remain private and secure. It is
true that there can be abuses of investigative tools like CU, search warrants,
and almost anything else. The best that can be done is to take reasonable
precautions and to be careful about what you disclose in the first place, for
the people who are trusted with special investigative tools to be honest and
competent, to have sufficient “separation of powers” to help as much as
possible to verify that the investigators are honest and competent, and for
there to be penalties for investigators who misuse their authority. Regarding
the investigative use of private information, as I think others have said also,
sometimes there may be a good reason to keep an active investigation from being
known to the individual who is being investigated. Like you, I value
accountability and transparency, and I would gladly listen to suggestions that
enhance accountability and transparency while maintaining reasonable safeguards
for active investigations. There needs to be a balance. I prefer transparency,
but sometimes there are good reasons for information to remain private.
Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
