Robert Rohde writes:
> You may not be aware, but the relaying of page view data to third
> party analysis platforms has been tried on a number of occasions in
> the past and consistently shutdown. (I think this even includes cases
> before the Privacy Policy was adopted.)
>
> However, to my rec
I don't think that "any random admin on one of the projects should be able
to insert a web bug into
Common.js" is what he suggests. The Hungarian situation seems to have been
in place with support of the hungarian community, at least at start.
Frankly, I'd rather see private sensitive data on an
bug18898 (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18898) is relevant,
both in the technical response proposed, which is more appropriate for the
parallel wikitech-l thread, and in that the wiki in question is frwiki. The
external URL linked (http://pacli.appspot.com/posterstats/tick) see
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Tisza Gergő wrote:
> Aryeh Gregor writes:
>
> > I believe the major problems with the script are
> >
> > 1) It sent data to a server not directly controlled by the Wikimedia
> > Foundation. No personally identifiable information should be sent in
> > bulk to any
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Peter Gervai wrote:
> Just a few sidenotes now.
>
> 2009/6/5 Mark (Markie) :
>
> > There are a few issues with this. Devs have access to logs on WMF
> servers,
> > not random external servers.
>
> This is a good suggestion, basically you say that I should request
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Peter Gervai wrote:
>
> >> The community cannot decide that Random_user1
> >> and Random_user2 etc will agree with the communities view on the stats
> being
> >> passed to an external server.
> >
> > As you are
I would say this is exactly the same issue and it is still present. I would
like to see this removed and the context explained as to whether this was
deliberate tracking or as to whether it is a side affect of the method used.
Either way it is my belief that it shouldn't happen.
Regards
Mark
On
It might be worth seeing if we can get the EFF to add our privacy policy to
http://www.tosback.org/timeline.php
In order to raise the profile of any changes.
--
geni
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://li
This is another e-mail on this subject that just strikes me as flawed. These
are not vague privacy fears - they are real privacy fears. I see a
fundamental failure by those involved in this controversy to understand this
point.
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Tisza Gergő wrote:
> Robert Rohde w
I also have not seen a clear explanation of what those who would like to
generate statistics using web bugs plan to do with that data. How do they
plan to use the data, and why aren't the plethora of statistics now made
officially available by the WMF not satisfactory?
You have bypassed the correc
* clap - clap *
John
Peter Gervai skrev:
> Hello,
>
> I wasn't subscribed to this list, since I usually try to avoid the
> politics around.
>
> I was notified, however, that some interesting claims were made and
> some steps taken (again) without any discussion whatsoever.
>
> First, let me tel
The strange thingh is, some such servers seems to be outside discussion
while others are not. ;)
John
Tisza Gergő skrev:
> Nathan writes:
>
>> Others have since discussed more centralised and secure methods for
>> providing these statistics via the WMF - this is the ideal outcome, and one
>> th
You can make claims about what you yourself wants or believe, but do
*not* claim that your personal beliefs reflects legal issues for
Foundation. If Foundation needs to make claims about what is and whats
not a legal issue, then such claims should be made by Mike.
John
Brian skrev:
> I also have
Or by one of the WMF developers removing the web bug.
2009/6/6 John at Darkstar
> You can make claims about what you yourself wants or believe, but do
> *not* claim that your personal beliefs reflects legal issues for
> Foundation. If Foundation needs to make claims about what is and whats
> not
Are the developers lawyers? A developer claiming something has an
unwanted privacy issue is very different from making claims about
something being a legal issue on the behalf of Foundation. Simply don't
do it.
John
Brian skrev:
> Or by one of the WMF developers removing the web bug.
>
> 2009/6/6
John at Darkstar wrote:
> Are the developers lawyers? A developer claiming something has an
> unwanted privacy issue is very different from making claims about
> something being a legal issue on the behalf of Foundation. Simply don't
> do it.
>
Privacy is not simply a legal issue, it's a general
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 12:58 AM, geni wrote:
> It might be worth seeing if we can get the EFF to add our privacy policy to
> http://www.tosback.org/timeline.php
> In order to raise the profile of any changes.
>
> --
> geni
On their TOSBACK about page [1], it gives a email address where you
can req
The key phrase here is basic policy applicable here is
"that anybody can edit"
Naturally, we can & do interpret it as meaning anybody who is willing
to cooperate with the rules and customs of the site. We also by
necessity must interpret it as anyone is able to have access to the
internet.
Regar
18 matches
Mail list logo
