The silly WMF lawsuit against the NSA gets a boost

[ericbarbour]

I notice that a WMF posting on the subject repeats the lie that "Privacy is one of our core values".

Privacy for THEM. You and I can go to hell.

[Graaf Statler]

I notice that a WMF posting on the subject repeats the lie that "Privacy is one of our core values".

Privacy for THEM. You and I can go to hell.

The Wiki system is not suitable for a privacy policy because of it's good faith system. Every spammer can send a false copy of a passport and become a trusted member, and send a straw man to a few meetings. Who cares! And there is so much privet date exchanged between people who are only know by there nick, no privacy is just a illusion on Wikipedia.

[AndrewForson]

I think Graaf raises a good point here. There's a lot of work underway to establish what it is that people think they people mean by "privacy", and what sort of things they want to happen under that name (ordinary people, that is, as opposed to techno-libertarian fanatics, or corporate moguls). Yet surely most people would think that it implied some sort of knowledge of which other people had access to information about them, and some sort of accountability by those other people for the way they used that information. But as Graaf points out neither of these factors are present in what the WMF falsely call this "core value".

For the benefit of our newer readers, it may help them to know what "identified to the WMF" means. It means that a pseudonymous account holder once sent the WMF a document that looked as if it might be some sort of copy of some sort of identification. The staff member responsible looked at it, decided to accept it and then destroyed it. That's it: oh no, sorry, there's one more step: that staff member then left the WMF. As an exercise, think of six things wrong with this protocol before breakfast.

This "identification" is so far from being useful that it must be considered wilfully inadequate -- that is, the WMF consciously and deliberately chooses not to identify volunteers with access to personal, private or confidential data, and then lies about it.

[Graaf Statler]

I think Graaf raises a good point here. There's a lot of work underway to establish what it is that people think they people mean by "privacy", and what sort of things they want to happen under that name (ordinary people, that is, as opposed to techno-libertarian fanatics, or corporate moguls). Yet surely most people would think that it implied some sort of knowledge of which other people had access to information about them, and some sort of accountability by those other people for the way they used that information. But as Graaf points out neither of these factors are present in what the WMF falsely call this "core value".

For the benefit of our newer readers, it may help them to know what "identified to the WMF" means. It means that a pseudonymous account holder once sent the WMF a document that looked as if it might be some sort of copy of some sort of identification. The staff member responsible looked at it, decided to accept it and then destroyed it. That's it: oh no, sorry, there's one more step: that staff member then left the WMF. As an exercise, think of six things wrong with this protocol before breakfast.

This "identification" is so far from being useful that it must be considered wilfully inadequate -- that is, the WMF consciously and deliberately chooses not to identify volunteers with access to personal, private or confidential data, and then lies about it.

Not long ago I was hospitalized (I am fine now, thanks) and I had the feeling I had entered a dependance of the Securitate. The came to check my ID in person what had given my girl at the counter, and I had sign I don't know how much papers connect to privacy and data. And when I left a other one, to share everything with my regular doctor. And I went not long ago to my dentist who I have for years, same story, ID, and papers to sign. The new EU privacy regulation, sir.
WMF has not even a clou about the privacy regulation in Europe! Still wondering where they found there "excellent legal team".