[Mailman-Developers] GDPR disclaimers and redaction in mailman 2
Someone has asked me about some adjustments mailman 2 related to what they think they have to do for GDPR compliance. One is to add some checkbox stuff to agree at subscription time that you understand what info you're providing. I expect this could be spliced in the same way CAPTCHAs are. Another is to provide different views of what lists exist depending on what IP address you're connecting from, so internal lists are only visible on the internal network. Has anyone done stuff like this? I think they're running 2.15, probably possible to update to more recent versions of 2.x but 3.x is not in the cards. Tnx. R's, John PS: I am definitely not looking for arguments about whether the GDPR needs this. It's their money, they get to say what they want. ___ Mailman-Developers mailing list -- mailman-developers@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-developers-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mm3/mailman3/lists/mailman-developers.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: https://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: https://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Re: [Mailman-Developers] GDPR
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, noskcaJ leahciM wrote: You might need to pay for a consultation this time. We did. There is indeed a lawful basis for processing that is archiving in the public interest. But you simply misunderstand those provisions if you believe they give any public or private operator of every archived mail list scope to deny the right to be forgotten. In view of our competent legal advice, we'll take our chances. Nobody's denying the right to be forgotten, but some of us are familiar with the case law and have some idea what it means. Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly ___ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Re: [Mailman-Developers] GDPR
You might need to pay for a consultation this time. There is indeed a lawful basis for processing that is archiving in the public interest. But you simply misunderstand those provisions if you believe they give any public or private operator of every archived mail list scope to deny the right to be forgotten. leahciM - Original Message - In article <01qj5jk26gxi000...@encompasserve.org> you write: >| tl;dr > >Too long: The regulation and articles are even longer. > >Didn't Read: But you replied none-the-less ;-) Having been talking to some actual lawyers about GDPR compliance, I find this analysis absurd. Specifically about the right to be forgotten, it means that you have to be able to unsubscribe, i.e., the list operator forgets that you subscribed, but it does not mean that everyone has an arbitrary right to unsay anything they might later regret. I note that the putative analysis of Art. 17 skips over the exceptions which include archiving in the public interest. There might be some tweaks to Mailman to make it easier to document who signed up and when, but for the most part it's not a big deal. Remember that when GDPR analyses talk about mailing lists, what they have in mind are broadcast lists (which is what 99% of lists are), not the discussion lists that Mailman runs. R's, John ___ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/jackson%40eisner.decus.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 ___ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Re: [Mailman-Developers] GDPR
In article <01qj5jk26gxi000...@encompasserve.org> you write: >| tl;dr > >Too long: The regulation and articles are even longer. > >Didn't Read: But you replied none-the-less ;-) Having been talking to some actual lawyers about GDPR compliance, I find this analysis absurd. Specifically about the right to be forgotten, it means that you have to be able to unsubscribe, i.e., the list operator forgets that you subscribed, but it does not mean that everyone has an arbitrary right to unsay anything they might later regret. I note that the putative analysis of Art. 17 skips over the exceptions which include archiving in the public interest. There might be some tweaks to Mailman to make it easier to document who signed up and when, but for the most part it's not a big deal. Remember that when GDPR analyses talk about mailing lists, what they have in mind are broadcast lists (which is what 99% of lists are), not the discussion lists that Mailman runs. R's, John ___ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Re: [Mailman-Developers] GDPR
noskcaJ leahciM writes: > It's the law. Some of us have to deal with it; like it or not. > GDPR merely calls for explicit consent (where appropriate). E.g. > A picture is worth a thousand words: None of this is helpful to me; as far as I can tell it's not responsive to what I wrote or asked. > You sound angry. Yup. You do not display an understanding of what I wrote, and presume that *I* misunderstand the need and oppose your program. I do understand privacy, and although my values differ from the EU's, I do not oppose dealing with GDPR "someday". The questions are "when" and "with what resources" and "what is an accurate specification of what needs to be done". Your answers are "soon" and "it's easy" and "don't worry about it", and I don't think any of those are valid or useful. > Stephen, look at it another way. I'm already looking at it that way, and telling you it will be expensive to deal with it properly in Mailman, and in similar applications. Mailman currently likely does not have the resources to do so in the next two years. > You can, however, have regard to law regulating use of personal > data. Once again, I don't think that is a useful way to think about software development (don't we all just love DOD-STD-2167A?), and I suspect my feelings are pretty representative of OSS volunteer developers. I assure you (and everybody else who worries about GDPR) that we *will* have regard for *our* (European) *users'* *needs* vs. the law, and *their* *preferences* vs. privacy that may not be defined by law. The mere existence of a law? "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." We'll do what we do, and do it well, when the time comes that we believe it serves our users better than alternative tasks do. For example, better installation procedures and Mailman 2to3 migration automation are *definitely* going to come before GDPR mitigation. Without those, there won't be very many users in Europe (or anywhere) to care about GDPR. Almost certainly, better authentication for the core will come before, too. Otherwise we won't be able to protect from some important threats to privacy, and this is something we've been thinking about for quite a while. And so on. So until GDPR's turn comes, "patches, real legal advice, and money welcome." I REALLY would like to hear from a EU information rights lawyer who's active in the personal data privacy field, or somebody facing imminent application of the law at their Mailman site who can get precise information about how regulators are going to interpret these laws, from lawyers or regulators. Steve -- Associate Professor Division of Policy and Planning Science http://turnbull/sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/ Faculty of Systems and Information Email: turnb...@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tel: 029-853-5175 Tennodai 1-1-1, Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN ___ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Re: [Mailman-Developers] GDPR
| noskcaJ leahciM writes:
|
| > | tl;dr
| >
| > Too long: The regulation and articles are even longer.
| >
| > Didn't Read: But you replied none-the-less ;-)
|
| I read EVERYTHING. Above is advice to my readers: "I read, so you
| don't have to". ;-)
|
| I feel sorry for anyone who hangs out in places where "executive
| summary" is not the normal semantics of "tl;dr"!
|
| > There will be installations and use cases that are not
| > impacted. GDPR is European law and failing to comply with it is not
| > an option.
|
| Of course failing to comply is an option. Whether that leaves our
| European users with the option to use Mailman is another matter.
|
| > Awareness-raising should not, however, result in messengers being
| > shot.
|
| I took aim at the message, which is based on legislation that seems to
| be difficult to comply with, not at the messenger.
It's the law. Some of us have to deal with it; like it or not.
|
| > Art.7, Rec.32,42. Do not require that the word "consent" be used
| > rather than "confirm". However, consent is one of the lawful bases
| > and being unambiguous that consent is being requested seemed a
| > reasonable suggestion for the effort required to make the change.
|
| If and when we comply, "this is fine". I worry that it looks like an
| easy change we could do now, but until we are in compliance, which I
| would suppose includes making it clear at subscription time what the
| users are "consenting" to, it's a bad idea. At minimum it's
| unethical, at worst there could be legal liability if users thought
| they were "consenting" to a GDPR-compliant list configuration. No?
GDPR merely calls for explicit consent (where appropriate). E.g.
"By replying or clicking this link, you are consenting to your email
address being subscribed to the closed list xyz. You then receive
emails sent by other members subscribed to the list and emails that
you send to this list will be sent to the other subscribers of the list.
Emails you send to the list will also be archived on a website to which
you and other members of the list have a login and password to view."
|
| > The separate nomain and moderation settings can be kept, along with
| > their traditional meaning. However Art.18 and particularly
| > Rec.67. imply that a single "restriction" setting (that sets nomail
| > + moderation) that shows as "restriction" (and without the reverse
| > implication) is required.
|
| I have no idea what that means? As implemented in Mailman, "nomail"
| means the list functions as usual but the user gets no mail, and
| "moderation" means the list functions as usual but the user can't
| post. Neither protects the user's private data in any way that I
| understand. Could you explain what is mandated here again?
A picture is worth a thousand words:
digraph statechart {
size="2.91,2.75"; // Produces 280x70 pixel image
rankdir=LR;
edge [splines="curved", fontname=Helvetica, fontsize=11 rotate=90];
node [fixedsize=true, style=filled, color=black, fillcolor="#CFE7F5",
fontname=Helvetica, fontsize=11];
start [shape=doublecircle, style="filled,bold" color=black,
fillcolor=white, width=0.45];
start -> idle;
idle -> idle [label="rectify"];
idle -> erased [label="erase"];
end [shape=doublecircle, style="filled,bold" color=black, width=0.4];
erased -> end;
idle -> restricted [label="challenge,\nobjection,\nDSAR"];
restricted -> erased [label="erase"];
restricted -> idle [label="rectify"];
restricted -> idle [label="stet"];
}
As the graphviz dot graph shows, restricted is a "holding bay" for
people's data. As soon as any issue or query is raised about your
processing of someone's data, you're supposed to restrict or suspend
processing (using) it. You're not to delete it, just stop using it.
(That implies send/receive). And, in your system it should show as
restricted.
| > The existing authentication [by email confirmation] should be
| > good-enough. It isn't envisaged that authentication be improved
| > *just* to protect against other people deleting a subscriber's
| > posts.
|
| You miss the point. We don't care what the law mandates, except
| insofar as our users do. Our responsibility is to our users (the list
| admins of several flavors) and to their users (the subscribers and
| posters). Given the guarantees the law describes as its goals, if we
| say we comply with the law, our users will expect us to implement it
| as *they* want, not to whatever the minimal level the law prescribes.
| (Of course if the minimal level exceeds what users expect, then we
| have to do it anyway, but that's unusual in my experience.)
You sound angry.
|
| > Please see above proportionate and reasonable measures.
|
| Nothing about GDPR is proportionate or reasonable in the context of
| email and mailing lists. GDPR fails both on grounds of what is
| reasonable to implement in email, and on grounds of actually
Re: [Mailman-Developers] GDPR
noskcaJ leahciM writes: > | tl;dr > > Too long: The regulation and articles are even longer. > > Didn't Read: But you replied none-the-less ;-) I read EVERYTHING. Above is advice to my readers: "I read, so you don't have to". ;-) I feel sorry for anyone who hangs out in places where "executive summary" is not the normal semantics of "tl;dr"! > There will be installations and use cases that are not > impacted. GDPR is European law and failing to comply with it is not > an option. Of course failing to comply is an option. Whether that leaves our European users with the option to use Mailman is another matter. > Awareness-raising should not, however, result in messengers being > shot. I took aim at the message, which is based on legislation that seems to be difficult to comply with, not at the messenger. > Art.7, Rec.32,42. Do not require that the word "consent" be used > rather than "confirm". However, consent is one of the lawful bases > and being unambiguous that consent is being requested seemed a > reasonable suggestion for the effort required to make the change. If and when we comply, "this is fine". I worry that it looks like an easy change we could do now, but until we are in compliance, which I would suppose includes making it clear at subscription time what the users are "consenting" to, it's a bad idea. At minimum it's unethical, at worst there could be legal liability if users thought they were "consenting" to a GDPR-compliant list configuration. No? > The separate nomain and moderation settings can be kept, along with > their traditional meaning. However Art.18 and particularly > Rec.67. imply that a single "restriction" setting (that sets nomail > + moderation) that shows as "restriction" (and without the reverse > implication) is required. I have no idea what that means? As implemented in Mailman, "nomail" means the list functions as usual but the user gets no mail, and "moderation" means the list functions as usual but the user can't post. Neither protects the user's private data in any way that I understand. Could you explain what is mandated here again? > The existing authentication [by email confirmation] should be > good-enough. It isn't envisaged that authentication be improved > *just* to protect against other people deleting a subscriber's > posts. You miss the point. We don't care what the law mandates, except insofar as our users do. Our responsibility is to our users (the list admins of several flavors) and to their users (the subscribers and posters). Given the guarantees the law describes as its goals, if we say we comply with the law, our users will expect us to implement it as *they* want, not to whatever the minimal level the law prescribes. (Of course if the minimal level exceeds what users expect, then we have to do it anyway, but that's unusual in my experience.) > Please see above proportionate and reasonable measures. Nothing about GDPR is proportionate or reasonable in the context of email and mailing lists. GDPR fails both on grounds of what is reasonable to implement in email, and on grounds of actually protecting users' privacy, as far as I can tell from your description. > That surely is the point rather than some technical distinction > between which elements are owned by whom. It's not "some technical distinction." It's "you can expect that many features of the mailing list will fail to work as they should" -- including the new privacy features mandated by the law. This is what I mean by "nothing is proportionate or reasonable." I don't know about other communication systems that will be affected by this legislation, but as described the folks who wrote the law did not understand or care how it would work with mailing lists and similar protocols (netnews, for example). > | > iii) to hide or disguise identities inadvertently disclosed > | > in list members' posts e.g. from quoting others etc. > | > | That's not reasonable. As above, we don't own the text, the poster > | does. Again, discouraging harvesting is reasonable, but hiding > | identities in text is not a reasonable requirement. > > Some already do this, but don't try to go-beyond replacing '@' > signs etc. Just so. But this does not satisfy "hide or disguise identity" as I understand it. Then there are things like ".signatures" -- but many MUAs and/or users use this feature in a "technically incorrect" way, and of course they are frequently hidden -- and munged -- in quoted passages and the like. I think that users will reasonably expect more than a token effort to implement a hide-or-disguise requirement. >From the point of view of mailing list implementers, GDPR is a hot mess. I agree with Barry, that some of the features that actually protect privacy are going to require a lot of effort to implement. In any case, to serve our users (and theirs) well, specification and implementation should be done by someb
Re: [Mailman-Developers] GDPR
Barry Warsaw wrote: | noskcaJ leahciM wrote: | > GDPR is nearing the last 7 months of its 2 year transitional | > implementation before becoming part of the law in EU countries (inc., | > despite Brexit, the UK), affecting 0.5bn citizens together with US | > enterprises in under Privacy Shield (replacing Safe Harbour) as well as | > enterprises in EEA member countries and, outside of the EEA, countries | > whose privacy laws have been assessed for adequacy. Operators of lists | > such as MM are as much called-to-account as are the vast corporations | > behind popular social media that currently absolve themselves as being | > mere publishers. | | GDRP may be well-intentioned, and may even be a good idea, but I know | for a fact that many organizations both commercial and volunteer are | struggling mightily to comply within the required timeframe. I suspect | that many such organization will simply not be able to comply. No disagreement there then. (I've written a paper predicting it based on an estimate of current non-compliance with the existing Data Protection Act in the UK, 20 years after it came onto the UK's statute book. German-speaking countries have had existing tighter rules so will be in better-shape, though I haven't attempted an international comparison.) | Realistically, there is no way the GNU Mailman project can comply given | our available resources. One outcome could be that our downstream | consumers take over that responsibility. Another is that volunteers in | our community step up with offers to provide us with their expertise, | guidance, Well, hopefully I've provided a little input and am happy to continue to. | and code. We will welcome such volunteers and help ensure | that the legal requirements align with project goals, sensibilities, and | timelines. | | So, if you want to see a GDPR compliant GNU Mailman, please find some | people to help us. I'm less pessimistic. For those that have seen the requirements for the first time, it's entirely understandable to react to it coming-in left-of-field and see it as daunting. However some of the changes required may, with a little consideration, be seen to be not as extensive as first feared; and others, to be a good idea. | | Cheers, | -Barry | leahciM ___ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Re: [Mailman-Developers] GDPR
noskcaJ leahciM wrote: > GDPR is nearing the last 7 months of its 2 year transitional > implementation before becoming part of the law in EU countries (inc., > despite Brexit, the UK), affecting 0.5bn citizens together with US > enterprises in under Privacy Shield (replacing Safe Harbour) as well as > enterprises in EEA member countries and, outside of the EEA, countries > whose privacy laws have been assessed for adequacy. Operators of lists > such as MM are as much called-to-account as are the vast corporations > behind popular social media that currently absolve themselves as being > mere publishers. GDRP may be well-intentioned, and may even be a good idea, but I know for a fact that many organizations both commercial and volunteer are struggling mightily to comply within the required timeframe. I suspect that many such organization will simply not be able to comply. Realistically, there is no way the GNU Mailman project can comply given our available resources. One outcome could be that our downstream consumers take over that responsibility. Another is that volunteers in our community step up with offers to provide us with their expertise, guidance, and code. We will welcome such volunteers and help ensure that the legal requirements align with project goals, sensibilities, and timelines. So, if you want to see a GDPR compliant GNU Mailman, please find some people to help us. Cheers, -Barry ___ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Re: [Mailman-Developers] GDPR
| tl;dr Too long: The regulation and articles are even longer. Didn't Read: But you replied none-the-less ;-) ! I don't think this is worth thinking about until we get a | request from users who actually are threatened with liability for | their Mailman installations. There will be installations and use cases that are not impacted. GDPR is European law and failing to comply with it is not an option. It's generally recognised that for all impacted, work may be required to attain compliance. Awareness-raising should not, however, result in messengers being shot. | | Suggestions from where we can obtain funding to do this stuff? | The harder parts are non-trivial. | | noskcaJ leahciM writes: | | > 1. The term consent has a specific meaning within GDPR (i.e. one of a | > number of lawful bases on which personal data may be processed). | > The subscribe web flow and subscribe/confirm email exchanges should | > be edited to use the term "consent" rather than "confirm" where | > appropriate to make that consent explicit. | | I don't think this is something we should do blindly. If a list owner | or site affected by GDPR wants to consult a lawyer and contribute that | knowledge, I think we should follow up with changes, but I can see | issues that would involves potential liability for our users if we use | a word that has legal meaning and our procedures aren't up to the | standard. Art.7, Rec.32,42. Do not require that the word "consent" be used rather than "confirm". However, consent is one of the lawful bases and being unambiguous that consent is being requested seemed a reasonable suggestion for the effort required to make the change. | | > 2. The term restriction has a specific meaning within GDPR (in general | > it means suspending any use (processing) or disclosure of personal | > data. Nomail could usefully be renamed as "Restriction" and | | No, it can't. I see no good reason to include both nomail and privacy | protection in a single option. Nomail is very useful without being tied | to privacy options. | | > Nomail functionality extended made to operate both ways, i.e. | > restricting members from posting | | This is not what nomail does. That's moderation. Nomail prevents a | subscriber from receiving posts, and is primarily intended as a user | option, not an admin option. The separate nomain and moderation settings can be kept, along with their traditional meaning. However Art.18 and particularly Rec.67. imply that a single "restriction" setting (that sets nomail + moderation) that shows as "restriction" (and without the reverse implication) is required. | | > and restricting (suppresing) retrieval of a restricted member's | > details in a list of [subscribed] members. | | There's a separate user option for this, IIRC, as well as a global | option restricting availability of lists to the list and site admins. | I don't see a strong argument for combining these options, or | combining retrieval suppression with moderation. Please see clarification/compromise above. | | > 3. GDPR places strong record-keeping obligations on data controllers. | > It implies that audit trails of consent be | > maintained. | | Patches welcome. I don't think this is reasonable to ask of most | sites at present, and the security implications of "audit" | (identifying and authenticating users and crypto signing said "trails" | etc) seem daunting. Rec.13 to Art.30 provides for national for organisations under 250 persons. Even Rec.82 does not refer to explicitly to "audit" trails so this need not be over-egged. However it does seem reasonable that MM maintain records of the date and time of subscription/un-subscription and method (email/web). A record of subscription/un-subscription can be had as it stands from emails notifying the list manager; it's just that this isn't as convenient. | | > 4. GDPR provides that the right of erasure (that has coloquially become | > known as the "right to be forgotten) be provided upon request. In | > addition ot unsubscribing from a list, a list subscriber Should be | > able to initiate automated erasure from the site archive of all | > posts of and from a given subscriber. | | This is simply not feasible to guarantee in Mailman 3, since we | deliberately separated the archiver and sites (even individual lists) | may supply their own. [Following text moved to below] Art.17 (b) allows this right to be asserted at a whim; however it does refer to taking account of available technology and the cost of implementation and requiring (only) "reasonable" steps (which was reflected in what was said below). | | > There seems no reason for erasure to be moderated. Using the | > existing password authentication or a confirm string, subscribers | > could be provided with the ability themselves to
[Mailman-Developers] GDPR
tl;dr I don't think this is worth thinking about until we get a request from users who actually are threatened with liability for their Mailman installations. Suggestions from where we can obtain funding to do this stuff? The harder parts are non-trivial. noskcaJ leahciM writes: > 1. The term consent has a specific meaning within GDPR (i.e. one of a > number of lawful bases on which personal data may be processed). > The subscribe web flow and subscribe/confirm email exchanges should > be edited to use the term "consent" rather than "confirm" where > appropriate to make that consent explicit. I don't think this is something we should do blindly. If a list owner or site affected by GDPR wants to consult a lawyer and contribute that knowledge, I think we should follow up with changes, but I can see issues that would involves potential liability for our users if we use a word that has legal meaning and our procedures aren't up to the standard. > 2. The term restriction has a specific meaning within GDPR (in general > it means suspending any use (processing) or disclosure of personal > data. Nomail could usefully be renamed as "Restriction" and No, it can't. I see no good reason to include both nomail and privacy protection in a single option. Nomail is very useful without being tied to privacy options. > Nomail functionality extended made to operate both ways, i.e. > restricting members from posting This is not what nomail does. That's moderation. Nomail prevents a subscriber from receiving posts, and is primarily intended as a user option, not an admin option. > and restricting (suppresing) retrieval of a restricted member's > details in a list of [subscribed] members. There's a separate user option for this, IIRC, as well as a global option restricting availability of lists to the list and site admins. I don't see a strong argument for combining these options, or combining retrieval suppression with moderation. > 3. GDPR places strong record-keeping obligations on data controllers. > It implies that audit trails of consent be > maintained. Patches welcome. I don't think this is reasonable to ask of most sites at present, and the security implications of "audit" (identifying and authenticating users and crypto signing said "trails" etc) seem daunting. > 4. GDPR provides that the right of erasure (that has coloquially become > known as the "right to be forgotten) be provided upon request. In > addition ot unsubscribing from a list, a list subscriber Should be > able to initiate automated erasure from the site archive of all > posts of and from a given subscriber. This is simply not feasible to guarantee in Mailman 3, since we deliberately separated the archiver and sites (even individual lists) may supply their own. This also raises hairy issues about authentication. > There seems no reason for erasure to be moderated. Using the > existing password authentication or a confirm string, subscribers > could be provided with the ability themselves to erase their > personal details from the site, This is not necessarily under control of Mailman. > including all archived posts, without administrative > intervention or incurring the delays inherent with moderation. I don't think the existing authentication features are sufficiently reliable for this. Specifically, I would imagine that the rights embodied in GDPR inhere in *human persons*, not in email mailboxes. Yet in fact in all current authentication done by Mailman only mailboxes are identified, not persons. > GDPR doesn't provide for selective erasure, for example in the case > of a non-factual, inflamatory or libelous post that a subscriber > wishes to have removed; all-or-nothing will suffice for compliance > with GDPR. Erasure is required to uphold a right so is a > Should-Have requirement. > > 5. GDPR enshrines 7 principles and 8, legally-enforceable, rights. > While "Privacy by Design and by Default" is not actually one of the > principles it is a mandatory approach. The default for list > settings should be to > > i) to close lists, making posting to lists restricted to members; This is something we should do anyway, since restricting posting to members is generally a regrettable but necessary spam-control practice. > ii) to hide or disguise identities in automatically-added elements > of list members' posts (e.g. in "From:"); That's not reasonable. The list does not "own" or add From (or To or Cc, for that matter); the author does. In the general case, identity can be concealed by the poster if they want to by acquiring an additional mailbox. Some effort to prevent address harvesting from archives by spammers is reasonable, but hi
[Mailman-Developers] GDPR
GDPR is nearing the last 7 months of its 2 year transitional implementation before becoming part of the law in EU countries (inc., despite Brexit, the UK), affecting 0.5bn citizens together with US enterprises in under Privacy Shield (replacing Safe Harbour) as well as enterprises in EEA member countries and, outside of the EEA, countries whose privacy laws have been assessed for adequacy. Operators of lists such as MM are as much called-to-account as are the vast corporations behind popular social media that currently absolve themselves as being mere publishers. Below is an initial impact assessment (vs. MM 2.1.14) of high priority impacts in bullet-point form for immediate consideration based on my current understanding. Where changes are required, they are required for continued use of MM in EU countries and in adequate countries (inc. EU-US Privacy Shield) where one or more list members is an identifiable EU citizen. 1. The term consent has a specific meaning within GDPR (i.e. one of a number of lawful bases on which personal data may be processed). The subscribe web flow and subscribe/confirm email exchanges should be edited to use the term "consent" rather than "confirm" where appropriate to make that consent explicit. 2. The term restriction has a specific meaning within GDPR (in general it means suspending any use (processing) or disclosure of personal data. Nomail could usefully be renamed as "Restriction" and the Nomail functionality extended made to operate both ways, i.e. restricting members from posting and restricting (suppresing) retrieval of a restricted member's details in a list of [subscribed] members. 3. GDPR places strong record-keeping obligations on data controllers. It implies that audit trails of consent be maintained. A per-subscriber report that shows how they were subscribed, keeping details of ip addresses of browser used if by web etc., log of all preference changes made etc. is a Should-Have requirement. A per-list-report perhaps showing less detail (e.g. method of subscription and time and date of consent) is a a Could-Have requirement. 4. GDPR provides that the right of erasure (that has coloquially become known as the "right to be forgotten) be provided upon request. In addition ot unsubscribing from a list, a list subscriber Should be able to initiate automated erasure from the site archive of all posts of and from a given subscriber. There seems no reason for erasure to be moderated. Using the existing password authentication or a confirm string, subscribers could be provided with the ability themselves to erase their personal details from the site, including all archived posts, without administrative intervention or incurring the delays inherent with moderation. GDPR doesn't provide for selective erasure, for example in the case of a non-factual, inflamatory or libelous post that a subscriber wishes to have removed; all-or-nothing will suffice for compliance with GDPR. Erasure is required to uphold a right so is a Should-Have requirement. 5. GDPR enshrines 7 principles and 8, legally-enforceable, rights. While "Privacy by Design and by Default" is not actually one of the principles it is a mandatory approach. The default for list settings should be to i) to close lists, making posting to lists restricted to members; ii) to hide or disguise identities in automatically-added elements of list members' posts (e.g. in "From:"); iii) to hide or disguise identities inadvertently disclosed in list members' posts e.g.from quoting others etc. (My interpretation is that no risk arises to the operator of the list where member 2 quoting text of member 1 where member 1 intentionally included their contact details in a post, for example as a phone number or as "me -at- here"; meaning that it is sufficient to suppres/disguise headers and email addresses entered un-disguised by posters) iv) either to disallow retrieval of list members to [even] subscribed members, or to hide/disguise addresses in retrieved lists; v) to archive privately, requiring authentication and and keeping records (logging) of to whom information on the archive was disclosed; vi) on closed lists (the default), disallow the posting of HTML by which otherwise members might seek to obtain the identity of others through inclusion of web bugs/beacons. ___ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.o
