I propose we run a study. We will survey random editors and ask them if
they realize that there is a chance they are leaking enough information for
their identity to be revealed. *Even if they are logged in.*
Regarding comparisons - institutions have structure, and if there is a
structure mapping, then it's a matter of fact. A given mapping will have
strengths and weaknesses. You may prefer one mapping to another. If you
have reasons for preferring one mapping (other than that it offends you),
I'm all ears. But be aware: simply changing the vocabulary that you use to
describe the space doesn't mean that two different descriptions of
institutions aren't in fact describing a construct that is more similar
than different, or that is similar in important ways.
This is all to say, there are often reasons that institutions like the NSA
and WMF are structured the way they are. Given the investment in the topic,
it's probably worth exploring how the institutional structures emerged. But
given the investment, confirmation bias may prevail in this case: even if
there are important similarities, nobody wants to look like a hypocrite.
That's OK, though. Much as I am invested in Wikipedia and appreciate the
WMF, if I turn out to be a hypocrite, *I* will call myself one. Just as I
will do it to others.
Best,
Brian
*Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends.* -
Diogenes the Cynic
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Or perhaps you're reading far too much into it, and in the process,
being incredibly rude to the WMF employees reading this thread, who
are people too, and don't particularly appreciate being compared to
the NSA. If you're trying to have a constructive discussion, you
should pick a better format and attitude.
On 29 March 2015 at 19:02, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu
wrote:
The notice just says that the IP is public. Most people have no idea what
that means.
It will absolutely make those problems harder. Perhaps it is the
Foundation's trusted role to hide that information from the public and be
trusted with it on the backend. This institutional design sounds similar
to
another institution in certain ways..
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Dustin Muniz dah...@bsugmail.net
wrote:
People are made aware with each edit as an I am that their information
is
publicly available. What concerns me about removing IP information is
that
it'll remove our ability to fight spam, detect socks, and respond to
emergency@ issues, unless I've missed something?
Sent from Samsung Mobile
Original message
From: Brian J Mingus
Date:03-29-2015 4:36 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: David Carson
Cc: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Privacy Study Looking for Volunteers
Wikipedia is set up such that if you don't take the measures mentioned
in
the OP, you are dox'ing yourself. Users are not aware of this.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 4:33 PM, David Carson carson63...@gmail.com
wrote:
Wikipedia:Free speech (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_speech) is probably
worth a
read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_speech
It's not directly about privacy but I think it clearly covers the
ground
that Wikipedia is a project to create an online encyclopedia, not an
experiment in radical free speech. The system is set up to facilitate
that
goal.
If you think that recording IP addresses is invasive, then you should
probably be publishing your content on your own website, not
Wikipedia.
Cheers,
David...
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:10 AM, Brian J Mingus
brian.min...@colorado.edu
wrote:
In general people do not read privacy policies, nor do they
understand
what
IP addresses are or what you can do with them.
But if you recall, I simply stated that recording IP addresses is
invasive.
And it is.
This is especially true when you know that your recordings are
faciliating
the active de-anonymization of people who are editing Wikipedia. Not
just
de-anonymization, but often public shaming.
For WMF, the principle of neutrality clearly trumps the principles of
privacy and free speech. For the NSA, substitute security for
neutrality.
It's hypocritical.
Luckily, it's easy to fix. Just stuff the ip fields with random
numbers
and
deal with the fallout. Stop tracking people.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
In order:
1. Yes, the WMF is suing the NSA. There are a few threads/blog
posts
about this people here can point you to.
2. Brian: The NSA needs to store data without the permission or
consent of the people generating it, sometimes through forcible
interception, decryption and the introduction and maintenance of
software exploits that allow them to do this but
