Fine! If people refuse the easy way out, then create an Rfc, and start the process to make creation of new user accounts non-public information.
Den fre. 26. jan. 2018, 03.04 skrev Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l < [email protected]>: > you are not "exposing the user unknowingly visiting the site" with the bot > itself...when you visit the site you are integrated in the SUL, it's public > information since ages. The fact that a bot takes care of it or a human > being leaves a message does not tell you a lot more. Sometimes on certain > wiki welcome messages are delivered sometimes they are not. Sometimes > immediately, sometimes later. It's a very fragmented situation so the bot > tells you basically nothing per se, it simple makes some people aware that > the information of visiting a site exists and it is public. > So the question is not about the bot, the question is if when you do > thishttps:// > commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ACentralAuth&target=Alexmar983 > and you can read that it's public that for example I was attached on > fawiki on 21:41, 11 April 2012, which is basically when I visited it the > first time. Although not strictly, I could have visited it and the system > having problem and log me out (that also happen) so technically this is not > even true sometimes... But even if it was precise, is the public knowledge > of this information really a threat to my privacy? or it is justing many of > the things I implicitly agree when I make an account? > The "violation of privacy" of such information, it's not even comparable > with dozen of other things in your life. But seriously if THIS is a problem > and had to be "put secret" than I'd expect to be informed when a check user > look at my data. You know.... a few group of people decide when it's right > or wrong to look at my personal data and not informing me when they do it > probably because they found nothing (but they have such information in > their hand now, don't they? Shouldn't I generic user be informed about > it?), that's not very nice for the privacy of anyone. So the core point is > not that I receive a message once a year that makes me aware that the SUL > information exist, but that I don't receive a lot of other messages that I > should receiving about who's looking at many others of my personal data. > Privacy is a serious matter. I expect RfC for things that have impact. Now > imagine that I go to people that are worried and tell them the nobody > really cares that they are not informed when someone look inside their > provider data (because put in the end of a small group of people is > "enough") or that the disaggregated information of CU activity is not > public for the majority of platforms... but someone cares so much if they > receive a welcoming message by bot when they visit a platform for the first > time. I am quite sure that the users I know will not be impressed. > > Il Venerdì 26 Gennaio 2018 0:27, John Erling Blad <[email protected]> > ha scritto: > > > I can't see that T42006 is relevant in this case. It is about abusive use > of a bot, not about creation of the central account in itself. > > The existence of a central account leads to creation of the local account. > This is probably acceptable. Then this may lead to the abusiv behavior, ie > exposing the user unknowingly visiting the site. This is probably not > intended and not acceptable. > > I wonder if the solution is to filter down the new users to real > contributors, that would be pretty simple > > Den tor. 25. jan. 2018, 22.55 skrev Pine W <[email protected]>: > > > Joe, > > > > I believe that the issue of a potential privacy violation was first > raised > > on this list on December 30th, and I first emailed WMF Legal about this > > issue on January 1st. Keeping in mind that the issue involves potential > > privacy violations, I think that it's reasonable to think that this issue > > should have been reviewed within days, not weeks. I disagree with the > > statement that "A subsequent review is clearly going to be a low priority > > task as I am sure you can understand Pine." If anything, I think that the > > situation is clear to the contrary and it should have been reviewed > within > > days. > > > > For me, an RfC about this matter would be for the purposes of (1) > > encouraging WMF to give more attention to this matter, (2) attempting to > > establish community consensus about whether the matters being raised here > > involve privacy violations, and (3) what should be done, if anything. > > Personally, I think that the status quo does involve privacy violations > and > > that there should be changes. Whether that view is shared by others is > > something that the RfC would attempt to measure. > > > > In this circumstance I consider RfC to be similar to a ballot measure, > and > > I think that it's appropriate for me to say that if I think that there > are > > problems then I may use tools that are available to me to attempt to > > address them, preferably with WMF's cooperation, but without WMF"s > > cooperation if necessary and if possible. > > > > John, > > > > A previous discussion about the privacy issues occurred in > > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T42006. I received a new email from > WMF > > Legal in which they affirmed their department's 2012 view on this matter. > > The most recent email gave me the impression that they are receptive to > > discussion about whether there should be changes although there may be > > resource limitations. That sounds like a good starting place for a > > conversation, and I think that on the community's side an RfC is the best > > way to gauge the community's views. I am busy for the next few days but > > I'll try to set up an RfC on Meta during the weekend. > > > > Pine <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CatherineMunro/Bright_Places> > > > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:29 AM, Joseph Seddon <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > This conversation started in the middle of the Christmas break > following > > > which I suspect many staff took extended holidays, most departments are > > in > > > the middle annual planning and this week WMF are gathering for their > > annual > > > all hands meetings. So lets firtst consider the fact that senior legal > > > staff have a lot on their plate. > > > > > > This problem has been discussed before and reviewed by legal as > > acceptable. > > > A subsequent review is clearly going to be a low priority task as I am > > sure > > > you can understand Pine. > > > > > > Making threats to handle ones demand and only in a manner that is > > > acceptable to you is hardly going to make staff receptive to expediting > > > your request. Lets give the good people time, afford them patience on > our > > > behalf and let them do their jobs. > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:04 AM, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > FYI for those on WIkimedia-l who may be interested, conversation > about > > > this > > > > matter is ongoing. I am waiting a response from WMF Legal, and there > > may > > > be > > > > others who have opened their own lines of inquiry. > > > > > > > > If I don't receive a reply from WMF Legal that I feel is > satisfactory, > > or > > > > if I don't receive one at all, then I plan to set up an RfC about > this > > > > matter. > > > > > > > > Pine <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine> > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CatherineMunro/Bright_Places> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Vi to <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'm scared of the solutions that will "fix" this. > > > > > I expect something as dramatically useful as the removal of > "unblock > > > this > > > > > IP" button for IPs caught by autoblocks of registered users. > > > > > > > > > > Vito > > > > > > > > > > 2018-01-01 22:46 GMT+01:00 Pine W <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > > I have created https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T183876 and am > > > > pinging > > > > > > Legal to request a review of this matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > Happy new year, > > > > > > > > > > > > Pine > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > > > > New messages to: [email protected] > > > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma > > > ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > > <mailto:[email protected] > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > > > New messages to: [email protected] > > > > > Unsubscribe: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > <mailto:[email protected] > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > > New messages to: [email protected] > > > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Seddon > > > > > > *Community and Audience Engagement Associate* > > > *Advancement (Fundraising), Wikimedia Foundation* > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik > > > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > New messages to: [email protected] > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
