Policy talk:Privacy policy: Difference between revisions
→COPPA: Reply |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Semiprotected talk}}{{User:LincolnBot/archiveconfig |
|||
{{autotranslate|base=Privacy policy talk header}} |
|||
|archive = Policy talk:Privacy policy/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|algo = old(180d) |
|||
|archiveheader = {{archive-header}} |
|||
| |
|counter = 1 |
||
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|||
|archiveheader = {{talk archive}} |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
||
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|||
|algo = old(180d) |
|||
}}{{Archives |
|||
|archive = Talk:Privacy policy/Archives/%(year)d |
|||
|link1=m:Talk:Privacy policy/Archives/2013 |
|||
|link2=m:Talk:Privacy policy/Archives/2014 |
|||
|link3=m:Talk:Privacy policy/Archives/2015 |
|||
|link4=m:Talk:Privacy policy/Archives/2016 |
|||
|link5=m:Talk:Privacy policy/Archives/2017 |
|||
|link6=m:Talk:Privacy policy/Archives/2018 |
|||
|link7=m:Talk:Privacy policy/Archives/2019 |
|||
|link8=m:Talk:Privacy policy/Archives/2020 |
|||
|link9=m:Talk:Privacy policy/Archives/2021 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{autotranslate|base=PrivacyPolicy-Invitation}} |
|||
{{shortcut|[[T:P]]}} |
|||
<br /> |
|||
{{anchor|ChangeSummary}} |
|||
{| style="border: 2px solid black;" class="ombox" cellpadding="15" |
|||
|- |
|||
| '''What is changing?''' |
|||
Several comments below ask about what’s new in this draft as compared to the current privacy policy. To help new folks just joining the conversation, we have outlined the main changes in this box. But feel free to join the discussion about these changes [[#What_is_changing.3F|here]]. |
|||
As a general matter, because the current privacy policy was written in 2008, it did not anticipate many technologies that we are using today. Where the current policy is silent, the new draft spells out to users how their data is collected and used. Here are some specific examples: |
|||
# '''Cookies''': The current policy mentions the use of temporary session cookies and broadly states some differences in the use of cookies between mere reading and logged-in reading or editing. The FAQ in the new draft lists specific cookies that we use and specifies what they are used for and when they expire. The draft policy further clarifies that we will never use third-party cookies without permission from users. It also outlines other technologies that we may consider using to collect data like tracking pixels or local storage. |
|||
# '''Location data''': Whereas the current policy does not address collection and use of location data, the draft policy spells out how you may be communicating the location of your device through GPS and similar technologies, meta data from uploaded images, and IP addresses. It also explains how we may use that data. |
|||
# '''Information we receive automatically''': The current policy does not clearly explain that we can receive certain data automatically. The new draft explains that when you make requests to our servers you submit certain information automatically. It also specifies how we use this information to administer the sites, provide greater security, fight vandalism, optimize mobile applications, and otherwise make it easier for you to use the sites. |
|||
# '''Limited data sharing''': The current policy narrowly states that user passwords and cookies shouldn’t be disclosed except as required by law, but doesn’t specify how other data may be shared. The new draft expressly lists how all data may be shared, not just passwords and cookies. This includes discussing how we share some data with volunteer developers, whose work is essential for our open source projects. It also includes providing non-personal data to researchers who can share [[Research:Index|their findings]] with our community so that we can understand the projects and make them better. |
|||
# '''Never selling user data''': The current policy doesn’t mention this. While long-term editors and community members understand that selling data is against our ethos, newcomers have no way of knowing how our projects are different from most other websites unless we expressly tell them. The new draft spells out that we would never sell or rent their data or use it to sell them anything. |
|||
# '''Notifications''': We introduced notifications after the current policy was drafted. So, unsurprisingly, it doesn’t mention them. The new draft explains how notifications are used, that they can sometimes collect data through tracking pixels, and how you can opt out. |
|||
# '''Scope of the policy''': The current policy states its scope in general terms, and we want to be clearer about when the policy applies. The new draft includes [[Privacy_policy#What_This_Privacy_Policy_Does_.26_Doesn.27t_Cover|a section]] explaining what the policy does and doesn’t cover in more detail. |
|||
# '''Surveys and feedback''': The current policy doesn’t specifically address surveys and feedback forms. The new draft explains when we may use surveys and how we will notify you what information we collect. |
|||
# '''Procedures for updating the policy''': The new draft specifically indicates how we will notify you if the policy needs to be changed. This is consistent with our current practice, but we want to make our commitment clear: we will provide advance notice for substantial changes to the privacy policy, allow community comment, and provide those changes in multiple languages. |
|||
This is of course not a comprehensive list of changes. If you see other changes that you are curious about, feel free to raise them and we will clarify the intent. |
|||
The purpose of a privacy policy is to inform users about what information is collected, how it is used, and whom it is shared with. The current policy did this well back when it was written, but it is simply outdated. We hope that with your help the new policy will address all the relevant information about use of personal data on the projects. [[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]] ([[User talk:YWelinder (WMF)|talk]]) 01:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
|||
<br /> |
|||
__TOC__ |
|||
<div style="float:right">{{autotranslate|base=Privacy policy navbox}}</div> |
|||
== A Little Background == |
|||
{{closed|text= |
|||
Maybe hide it as default or move to the bottom? There is nothing here that would be surprising or interesting for normal person and on encountering it half people will stop reading this document [[User:Bulwersator|Bulwersator]] ([[User talk:Bulwersator|talk]]) 07:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: Hi Bulwersator! Thank you for your suggestion! Hiding this section as a default is certainly an option if it seems that the majority of people already know this information, but moving it to the bottom probably wouldn't make organizational sense. What do other people think? Did the "A Little Background" section provide you with information you didn't already know? Should it remain as is or be changed to default hidden? [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 18:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Agree with Bulwersator. As it is "Privacy policy", it should deal directly with the standing privacy policy. Additional information is additional information. Nuts and bolts, please. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 03:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Hi Iryna Harpy! Thank you for your input. I will continue to monitor this thread to see if there is a lot of support to change this section's default to hidden. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 20:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
Closing off, stale. Will archive in 24-48 hours. [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]]--[[:w:Wikimedia Foundation|WMF]] 22:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
==NSA, FISC, NSL, FISAAA, PRISM...== |
|||
{{closed|text= |
|||
The WMF and many people with access to nonpublic information (like (for users with accounts) their IP addresses and possibly their email addresses) are subject to the contradictory laws of the USA. The WMF and many people with access to nonpublic information may be required to make such information available to unaccountable agencies while being legally restrained from telling them that the information was shared. Admitting new information sharing mechanisms, or even just the requests may result in imprisonment without trails, without access to the laws leading to imprisonment, or even transcripts of the decisions, evidence, or who their accusers were. |
|||
Until the WMF and people with access to nonpublic information remove themselves from such jurisdictions, the guarantees in the WMF's privacy policy, the access to nonpublic information policy, the data retention guidelines, the transparency report, and the requests for user information procedure, are untrue. |
|||
To service campaign contributors, your information may be given to third parties for marketing purposes. |
|||
Your data may be secretly retained by the WMF for as long as required by US agencies, and/or by those agencies themselves for as long as they want. |
|||
The WMF may be prevented from revealing their actual policies but forced to claim that they protect users' privacy per their public policies. -- [[User:Jeandré du Toit|Jeandré]], 2013-09-04[[User talk:Jeandré du Toit|t]]12:47z |
|||
See also [[Talk:Privacy policy/Call for input (2013)#Technical and legal coercion aspects]]. |
|||
:Hi Jeandré, while I'm someone who knows for a fact that we would strongly rebel against secret requests and unreasonable demands from the government (any government) I'm certainly sympathetic to these concerns (I think much of what the US government has done is illegal and immoral). That said I have yet to see where we could 'go' to remove everyone from jurisdictions where this (or other equally bad issues) would be a problem. Europe, for example, is generally not better, it has significant issues as well. [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]] ([[User talk:Jalexander|talk]]) 20:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::As far as I know, the voters in New Zealand and Iceland care about doing the right thing, and don't have the same kinds of laws as the USA and UK. -- [[User:Jeandré du Toit|Jeandré]], 2013-09-05[[User talk:Jeandré du Toit|t]]09:27z |
|||
::Les lois européennes sont infiniment plus protectrices que les lois américaines. Pourquoi croyez-vous que les grosses sociétés informatique (Google, Micro$oft, Apple, etc.) essaient d'imposer, heureusement sans trop de succès (voir les quelques affaires récentes, par exemple entre Google et les CNIL européennes) , que ce soit le droit américain qui s'applique au détriment du droit européen ? [[Special:Contributions/78.251.243.204|78.251.243.204]] 20:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Et de toutes façons ce n'est pas seulement une question de quelle loi est plus protectrice ou pas, c'est une question de que les lois des différents pays doivent être respectées. Chaque pays est souverain et établit ses lois de manière démocratique, on n'a pas à lui imposer des lois qui n'ont aucune légitimité. Seuls les Américains votent pour élire leur congrès. Les lois américaines ne s'appliquent donc qu'à eux [[Special:Contributions/78.251.243.204|78.251.243.204]] 20:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
===PRISM etc=== |
|||
Not sure if this is completely on topic, please point me towards the discussion if not, this is not my area of knowledge. |
|||
#Is the Wikimedia Foundation subject to the same FISA laws that Microsoft, Google etc have had to comply with and give over information? |
|||
#If so does the Wikimedia Foundation record anything they may want? |
|||
#If so this privacy policy will need to reflect this. |
|||
--[[User:Mrjohncummings|Mrjohncummings]] ([[User talk:Mrjohncummings|talk]]) 16:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*Note that it may illegal for Foundation to admit that they give over information to USA government. [[Special:Contributions/89.74.119.184|89.74.119.184]] 19:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::The WMF has been very clear that we have not been contacted in relation to that. General Counsel Geoff Brigham said [[wmfblog:2013/06/14/prism-surveillance-wikimedia/|in a blog post]] that "The Wikimedia Foundation has not received requests or legal orders to participate in PRISM, to comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), or to participate in or facilitate any secret intelligence surveillance program. We also have not “changed” our systems to make government surveillance easier, as the New York Times has claimed is the case for some service providers." [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Philippe (WMF)|talk]]) 20:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Just to add to what Philippe has said, it is our understanding of the law that we can not be forced to 'Lie' (though they can force us to not comment/confirm including while we fight for it to be released), while I can certainly understand people's concerns about "them not even being able to tell us if it's true" I really do stress that we haven't received anything and would fight like crazy if we did. Also, we're really really bad liars, we are an incredibly leaky organization. [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]] ([[User talk:Jalexander|talk]]) 08:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::This may be a crackpot idea, but given that you cannot be forced to lie, but can be forced to keep quiet, would it be possible for somebody - perhaps in the legal department - to report on a regular basis in a regular spot that "We haven't been contacted by the US Gov't this week to provide any information on users"? [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]] ([[User talk:Smallbones|talk]]) 01:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::''"Also, we're really really bad liars, we are an incredibly leaky organization."'' I assume that you're joking, but if you're not, why have a privacy policy at all? (Not joking.) -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog ]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 03:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::Given the choice between believing Microsoft/[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/07/google-facebook-prism-surveillance-program Google/Facebook]/US.gov or [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-prism-server-collection-facebook-google Snowden], I'd go with Snowden every time. I think the current evidence shows that the people at Google are lying by '''c'''ommision because they're being forced to. While I have orders of maginitude more trust in the people at the WMF than those at Google, I think Ladar Levison's [http://lavabit.com/ decision to shut down Lavabit and his strong recommendation against trusting organizations "with physical ties to the United States"] indicates that he didn't want to lie by '''c'''ommision. -- [[User:Jeandré du Toit|Jeandré]], 2013-09-05[[User talk:Jeandré du Toit|t]]09:27z |
|||
:::::Appreciate the discussion. {{User|Smallbones}}' suggestion is that we implement what is actually the well-known [[w:warrant canary|Warrant canary]] scheme. Part of {{User|Jeandré du Toit}}'s excellent point is that it seems like either Google or Snowden are lying, and that if Google is lying, warrant canaries don't seem to work against the full might of the US Government. Was lavabit publishing a warrant canary? More importantly, should the WMF be doing so on a more regular basis? (the comments from Philippe & Jalexander are great for today, but not regularly made.) --[[User:Elvey|Elvey]] ([[User talk:Elvey|talk]]) 22:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Even if the [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-prism-server-collection-facebook-google 2013-06-08 released slide] is wrong, and organizations are not currently forced to lie by commission, but only by omision; then a [[w:warrant canary|warrant canary]] still wouldn't help if a WMF developer is asked to contravene the privacy policy (and/or the access to nonpublic information policy, the data retention guidelines, the transparency report, the requests for user information procedure) and forced not to tell the people who provide the warrant. |
|||
::::::Every possible person with the ability to contravene these policies and who is subject to US law, would then have to provide daily warranties. I'm not actually suggesting this, because I think the 2013-06-08 released slide is correct, and organizations [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/07/google-facebook-prism-surveillance-program like Google] are being forced to lie by commission. |
|||
::::::Until this is clarified, I don't think any privacy policy from any organization "[http://lavabit.com/ with physical ties to the United States]" can be truthful unless it clearly states that it can't currently protect anyone's privacy if the powers that be come knocking. -- [[User:Jeandré du Toit|Jeandré]], 2013-09-23[[User talk:Jeandré du Toit|t]]10:09z |
|||
:::::Is it possible for anyone to verify exactly what software the WMF's servers are running and how the software is configured? It is trivial to download Mediawiki and various extensions, but is it possible for anyone to verify that the version of Mediawiki as run by the WMF isn't modified to provide information to the NSA? --[[User:Stefan2|Stefan2]] ([[User talk:Stefan2|talk]]) 12:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: We are very transparent about our servers, how they are configured, and what they run. For example, you can see our production code and deployment recipes on [https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Gerrit] and piles of additional information on [https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikitech]. So I don’t think we object to transparency like that in principle. But [https://blog.torproject.org/blog/deterministic-builds-part-one-cyberwar-and-global-compromise verification that source code matches specific binaries is an extremely difficult challenge], even under relatively small and controlled circumstances where you can control every part of the build, and where you’re simply asking about a binary at one point in time, rather than on a live, running system. To do the same thing for an entire network infrastructure (not just Mediawiki, but the web server, operating system, network switches, etc.) would be effectively impossible, both in terms of difficulty and in terms of making it secure (since it would require trusted access to the live system in order to perform monitoring). Even if it were achievable, it would also make management difficult in practice: for example, we sometimes have security patches deployed that are not yet public (for legitimate, genuine security reasons), and we also have to be able to change configurations quickly and fluidly in response to changes in traffic, performance, etc., and doing this would be difficult if configurations and binaries had to be checksummed, compared, verified, etc. - [[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 02:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Given everything that's happened, I'm not so sure I trust anyone anymore about what is and isn't watched/kept. I now assume everything is being watched/recorded/analyzed online. You can only hide in the bushes for so long, eventually you'll want to come out and play (online), so I guess you suck it up and move on. Government never tells you about it, one guys leaks it, then they move to make it more transparent and do the about face. Makes you wonder what else they're hiding, and it's sad that they have to hide it from us... [[Special:Contributions/99.251.24.168|99.251.24.168]] 02:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: I understand why you are finding it hard to trust anyone, and I am glad that [[User:Stefan2|Stefan2]] was trying to be creative about ways to increase trust. I just don't think this particular idea solves the problem. If it helps, we're trying to work on this issue; most notably right now by [[wmfblog:2013/07/18/wikimedia-foundation-letter-transparency-nsa-prism/|pushing the US government to allow more transparency from targets of national security letters]]. Suggestions on how else we can do that are welcome. - [[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 17:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: Of course it would be a bad idea to give anyone unlimited read access to the live servers. For example, it would allow anyone to extract any information from any database table, including information normally only available to checkusers and oversighters. Thanks, your reply sounds reassuring. --[[User:Stefan2|Stefan2]] ([[User talk:Stefan2|talk]]) 19:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Although I do not have any questions at this time concerning this, I wanted to thank you for addressing it in advance as it would have come to mind as I do live in the United States. [[User:Koi Sekirei|Koi Sekirei]] ([[User talk:Koi Sekirei|talk]]) 00:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Prisms may still be used for disco parties. {{unsigned|180.216.68.185|14:29, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)}} |
|||
I'm probably about to be dismissed as a nut case, but I would favor simply havin g Wikipedia programmed to automatically post any government requests in an appropriately titled article. [[Special:Contributions/24.168.74.11|24.168.74.11]] 19:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: It's not nutty to want more transparency on this issue, but it's impossible to do this in an actual, automated fashion, and not clear that a semi-automated process is legal. We will be pushing shortly an overall transparency report, and we plan to do that regularly in the future. Hopefully that resolves some of the concerns. -[[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 16:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
===Subject to US law=== |
|||
I think we should expand the section on the data being kept in the USA, and therefore subject to American laws. The PATRIOT Act comes to mind, where they can and will use any data you store in the US at any point in time against you at a later date. Doesn't matter where you live. So you might not want to post that nasty anti-American rant on a talk page, it might come back to bite you in the choo-choo later... Or the DMCA. I think of a certain Russian computer scientist who could have been arrested had he came to the US to give a speach as he posted information on anti-circumvention measures (Dmitry Sklyarov) ... [[User:Oaktree b|Oaktree b]] ([[User talk:Oaktree b|talk]]) 22:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:While some of this may be true (though there are lots of laws in Europe and other countries which can be problematic with what you post too and the US allows) I'm not sure I understand your example. There is very little (if any) added risk to posting your anti-american rant on the talk page on an American server. There are certainly risks, but the PATRIOT act does not necessarily make it more risky (especially given the legal system and our desire to fight against demands) then many other location options. [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]] ([[User talk:Jalexander|talk]]) 00:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
This section concerns me as well as worries me. "to comply with the law, or to protect you and others" I think most of us are aware that our freedom in all areas is slowly but steadily eroding. In many countries, there is not even a pretense at giving freedom priority over other values, while in many others it is only a pretense. I wonder if there is a country left in the world that has not put that value at the bottom of a list of many other values like security and equality. Politicians and lawyers can and will find a way to abuse that which they can abuse for their own purposes. Laws were made to facilitate the sending of millions of people into concentration camps, why should they stop at keeping knowledge sacred? "to comply with the law, or to protect you and others" That is a mightily large back door. |
|||
:Well I live in Canada, and even if I do my edits in Canada, should I do something distasteful to the Americans, they can hold me at the border for some stupid reason. We also have data privacy laws here in Canada (PIPEDA), but those don't apply to Canadian data stored on American servers. My point is you're essentially at their mercy, whether you like it or not. Just so people are made to understand that. You live in country XYZ, but American law applies to your edits and any data you divulge, so beware. [[Special:Contributions/99.251.24.168|99.251.24.168]] 02:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::C'est partiellement mais pas complètement vrai, je pense. Une légende court depuis longtemps qui voudrait que c'est la loi du pays où se trouve les serveurs qui s'applique. La jurisprudence n'est pas encore établie, mais pour l'instant c'est faux. Les serveurs étant situés aux EU, les lois américaines s'appliquent en partie. Mais les producteurs et les consommateurs de contenu étant dans d'autres pays, d'autres lois peuvent s'appliquer. Par exemple, pour la Wikipédia francophone, une grosse partie des producteurs et les consommateurs de contenu se trouvant dans d'autres pays comme la France, le Canada, la Belgique, etc., il est très probable que certaines des lois de ces pays s'appliquent. Par exemple, une société dont le siège et les serveurs sont localisés au Luxembourg ont été condamné à appliquer le droit français ; Twitter a été poursuivi pour ne pas appliquer les lois françaises relatives à la liberté d'expression, mais l'affaire n'est pas allée jusqu'au procès car Twitter a préféré passer un accord avec les parties civiles ; Google est attaquée par les différentes CNIL européennes pour non respect des lois européennes de protection des données personnelles, plus contraignantes que les lois américaines ; dans ces deux cas, Twitter et Google prétendent qu'ils ne doivent appliquer que les lois américaines, mais cela est fortement contesté, et on peut douter que la justice leur donne raison. Ce serait très commode pour les entreprises multinationnales, mais quelle perte de souveraineté pour les citoyens et les pays concernés ! Je n'y crois pas du tout [[Special:Contributions/78.251.253.2|78.251.253.2]] 11:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::: Thanks for your comment. Please see my response to a related discussion [[Talk:Privacy_policy#Localisation_des_serveurs_aux_Etats-Unis_et_loi_applicable|here]]. [[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]] ([[User talk:YWelinder (WMF)|talk]]) 19:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
===Legal response === |
|||
Thanks for raising this question. I’ll tackle it in two parts: |
|||
First, generally: as we say in more detail in the policy’s [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#For_Legal_Reasons section on our legal obligations], we must comply with applicable law, but we will fight government requests when that is possible and appropriate. For example, unlike some websites, we already are pretty aggressive about not complying with subpoenas that are not legally enforceable. (We’ll have precise numbers on that in a transparency report soon.) We’d love to hear specific feedback on how we can improve that section, such as additional grounds that we should consider when fighting subpoenas. |
|||
In addition, we are currently working on a document that will explain our policy and procedure for subpoenas and other court orders concerning private data. We will publish the document publicly, follow it when responding to requests, and also provide it to law enforcement so that they know about our unusually strict policy on protecting user data. |
|||
Second, with regards to surveillance programs like PRISM and FISA court orders: We are subject to US law, including FISA. However, [[wmfblog:2013/06/14/prism-surveillance-wikimedia/|as we have previously publicly stated]], we have not received any FISA orders, and we have not participated in or facilitated any government surveillance programs. In the unlikely instance that we ever receive an order, we are making plans to oppose it. |
|||
Beyond the legal realm, we continue to evaluate and pursue appropriate public advocacy options to oppose government surveillance when it is inconsistent with our mission. For example, the [[wmfblog:2013/07/18/wikimedia-foundation-letter-transparency-nsa-prism/|Wikimedia Foundation signed a letter with the Center for Democracy and Technology requesting transparency and accountability for PRISM]]. If you are interested in proposing or engaging in advocacy on this issue, please consider joining the [https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors advocacy advisory group]. We also continue to implement technical measures that improve user privacy and make surveillance more difficult. For example, we [[wmfblog:2013/08/28/https-default-logged-in-users-wikimedia-sites/|enabled HTTPS on Wikimedia sites by default for logged in users]]. For more information, see our [[wmfblog:2013/08/01/future-https-wikimedia-projects/|HTTPS roadmap]]. |
|||
As always, we greatly appreciate your input on this complex issue. Please note that if you have questions that are specific to surveillance, and not tied to the privacy policy itself, the best place to discuss those is on the Meta page on the [[Talk:PRISM|PRISM talk page]], not here. |
|||
Best, [[User:Slaporte (WMF)|Stephen LaPorte (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Slaporte (WMF)|talk]]) 00:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:La question n'est pas de résister du mieux possible à l'application de lois avec lesquelles nous ne sommes pas d'accord : les lois sont là, elles ont été votées démocratiquement, nous devons les appliquer, point barre. Nous ne devons pas faire de politique ! Occupons-nous plutôt d'écrire l'encyclopédie, et appliquons les lois quand elles s'appliquent, de quelque pays qu'elles soient [[Special:Contributions/78.251.253.2|78.251.253.2]] 11:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Nous ne devons pas faire de politique? C'est une position que j'ai du mal à comprendre, pour la raison suivante: à quoi bon contribuer à une encyclopédie si elle aussi devient un instrument de répression? Au contraire, je suis persuadé que l'histoire nous apprend que nous devons résister aux lois injustes le mieux possible ... bien qu'on puisse parler de votes démocratiques dans le cas des lois en question, je conteste cette interprétation (à la surface, c'en étaient -- modulo la désinformation, la corruption/le lobbyisme, la pression venant des services secrets ...), elles ont été promulguées par un électorat en majorité analphabète en matière de technologie, donc sujet à toute sorte de manipulation -- les avis d'experts indépendants ne comptent plus pour des nèfles. C'est la peur qui gouverne la société pré-(techno)fasciste, pas la raison. |
|||
::Summary: I strongly oppose unquestioning compliance with unjust laws, passed democratically or not. We can not abstain from being political in this matter because otherwise what we do becomes part of the unjust system. [[User:Ɯ|Ɯ]] ([[User talk:Ɯ|talk]]) 10:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== Localisation des serveurs aux Etats-Unis et loi applicable === |
|||
Les explications indiquent que les serveurs sont situés aux Etats-Unis et que nous devons accepter que ce soit la loi américaine de protection des données personnelles qui s'applique, même si elle est moins protectrice que la nôtre, et que dans le cas contraire nous ne devons pas utiliser Wikipédia. Ca veut dire que nous devons nous barrer tout de suite ? De toutes façons, je ne crois pas que ce soit légal. La Wikipédia francophone concernant en grande partie des Français (ainsi que des Québécois, Belges, Africains, Suisses, etc.), je pense que les juridictions des publics concernés ont leur mot à dire, et que leurs lois doivent d'appliquer. La jurisprudence n'est pas encore bien établie, mais d'ores et déjà certains décisions judiciaires sont allées dans ce sens. En tous cas, personnellement, je ne suis pas du tout d'accord pour donner mon consentement à ce que ce soit la loi américaine qui s'applique. Bien trop dangereux ! La loi américaine n'est pas assez protectrice ! Sans parler de toutes ces lois liberticides prises à la suite des attentats du 11 septembre, sans grand contre-pouvoir pour contrôler leur mise en oeuvre ! [[Special:Contributions/78.251.246.17|78.251.246.17]] 22:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Pourquoi parles-tu uniquement de la Wikipédia francophone ? Il existe plusieurs centaines de projets dans plein de langues, dont les pays pourraient également avoir leur mot à dire. En clair, la fondation ne peut pas suivre toutes les lois du monde et s'arrête donc à celle de son pays. [[User:Elfix|Elfix]] 07:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Le problème est qu'on a plusieurs centaines de projets dans plein de langues, mais aussi plusieurs centaines de pays qui, que vous le vouliez ou non, sont souverains, ont leurs propres lois, et ont le droit d'avoir leurs propres lois. C'est un fait. Qu'on le veuille ou non. Et la question n'est pas de savoir si la fondation peut suivre toutes les lois du monde, la question est qu'elle DOIT suivre les lois du monde, car ses activités ne s'arrêtent pas aux frontières de son pays mais s'étendent dans le monde entier. Non seulement elle DOIT suivre les lois des pays auxquels ses activités s'étendent, mais pour un pays comme la France ou n'importe quel pays européen, dont les lois sont beaucoup plus protectrices vis-à-vis de la vie privée des citoyens que la loi américaine, c'est même hautement souhaitable. C'est la raison pour laquelle cette clause est mauvaise. Si l'excuse pour laquelle la Fondation explique qu'il faut adopter la loi américaine, même si elle est moins protectrice que celle de notre pays, est que les serveurs sont aux Etats-Unis, dans ce cas rapatrions les serveurs en Europe. Dans tous les cas ce sont les lois les plus protectrices que nous devons respecter, car si nous respectons les lois les plus protectrices, alors nous respectons toutes les lois, y compris les lois américaines ou de tous les pays [[Special:Contributions/78.251.243.204|78.251.243.204]] 18:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:J'ai fait le point en anglais plus haut, mais c'est la même: toute information que vous soumettez au Wikipedia anglais/françcais/allemand etc. est gardée aux ''USA'', donc votre loi locale ne s'applique probablement pas. Au Canada par exemple, nous avons LPRPDE (PIPEDA en anglais) pour la protection des données et des documents électroniques; toute information qui n'est pas sur un ordinateur canadien n'est pas protégée. Donc, si pour une raison ou un autre, Obama ou le gouvernement américain décide de fouiller dans votre information, tant pis! Toute protection locale s'arrête à la frontière. Vous n'avez qu'à regarder le cas d'Edward Snowden ou de Julien Assange; on peut très facilement vous rendre la vie très difficile s'ils décident que vous êtes l'ennemi des ''USA''... Gare à vous. Caveat emptor. [[Special:Contributions/99.251.24.168|99.251.24.168]] 02:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Bonjour 99.251.24.168 et merci de votre réponse :-) J'ai moi aussi répondu plus haut. Je pense au contraire que les lois des pays souverains ont toute chance de s'appliquer. Mais dans le cas que vous décrivez de données canadiennes conservées sur des serveurs américains, les lois américaines s'appliquent AUSSI, et c'est bien normal, les EU sont un pays souverain, comme le Canada. Dans les affaires de ce type, qui concernent plusieurs pays, le droit applicable est toujours un compromis entre les différents droits concernés. Ne croyez pas que seules les lois du pays hébergeant les serveurs s'appliquent. Cave canem ! ;-) [[Special:Contributions/78.251.253.2|78.251.253.2]] 11:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Thank you for your comments and my apologies for responding in English. Jurisdiction is a complex issue that is determined based on a case-by-case analysis. Generally, we apply U.S. law, but we are sensitive to European data protection laws. For example, a version of this privacy policy was reviewed by a privacy counsel in Europe to ensure consistency with general principles of data protection. |
|||
The important issue for our users' data is our commitment to privacy rather than the general privacy law in the country where the Wikimedia Foundation is based. Our privacy policy generally limits the data collection and use to what is necessary to provide and improve the Wikimedia projects. For example, we commit to never selling user data or using it to sell them products. In other words, the commitments we make in this policy go beyond commitments made by many online sites, including those based in Europe. And we encourage users to focus on and provide feedback about those commitments because the commitments are ultimately what matters for their privacy on the Wikimedia sites.[[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]] ([[User talk:YWelinder (WMF)|talk]]) 19:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Certes, plus que de savoir si c'est la législation de tel ou tel pays qui s'applique, c'est plutôt les détails des Règles ou Charte de protection des données personnelles de Wikimédia qui nous importent. Cependant, les législations (américaines, européennes) sont des références communes et pratiques offrant une base rassurante, parce qu'elles ne nous sont pas complètement inconnues. Dans cette logique, et pour nous aider à mieux appréhender la Charte, serait-il possible qu'une personne compétente nous fasse un résumé de ce qui diffère entre cette Charte et les législations américaine ou européennes ? Comment la Charte se situe-t-elle par rapport à ces législations ? [[Special:Contributions/85.170.120.230|85.170.120.230]] 10:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== Localisation des serveurs aux Etats-Unis et loi applicable bis === |
|||
Je demande le retrait du paragraphe ''Où se trouve la Fondation et qu’est-ce que ceci implique pour moi ?'' [[Special:Contributions/78.251.243.204|78.251.243.204]] 19:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: My apologies for the response in English. If someone would be so kind as to translate this into French, I would be much obliged. Are there any particular reasons that you are requesting removal of that section? Is there any specific language that concerns you? If so, please specify. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 22:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: |
|||
:Traduction / translation : « ''Excusez-moi de répondre en anglais. Si quelqu'un avait la gentillesse de tranduire mon message en français, je lui en serai reconnaissant. Y a-t-il des raisons particulières pour que vous demandiez le retrait de cette section ? Y a-t-il une langue spécifique qui vous concerne ? Si tel est le cas, veuillez le préciser.'' » [[User:Jules78120|Jules78120]] ([[User talk:Jules78120|talk]]) 22:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Merci Mpaulson de votre réponse (et merci à Jules78120 pour sa sympathique traduction :-) ). Les raisons particulières qui me poussent à demander le retrait de cette section sont les mêmes que celle déjà développées plus haut dans la section [[Talk:Privacy_policy/fr#Localisation_des_serveurs_aux_Etats-Unis_et_loi_applicable|Localisation des serveurs aux Etats-Unis et loi applicable]] et dans plusieurs autres sections telles par exemple que [[Talk:Privacy_policy/fr#NSA.2C_FISC.2C_NSL.2C_FISAAA.2C_PRISM...|NSA, FISC, NSL, FISAAA, PRISM...]] Je me permets juste d'être un peu plus insistant dans ma demande, avec votre permission :-) [[Special:Contributions/78.251.243.204|78.251.243.204]] 00:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::So, while we as an organization and I personally have some sizable objections to PRISM and many of the actions taken by the US government recently with regards to privacy, removing this section will not actually change the applicability of US law. The Foundation is located in the US, meaning that using our sites leads to the transfer of data to the US, and thus is subject to US law. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 01:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::Bien sûr que les serveurs sont situés aux EU et que les lois américaines s'appliquent (à ce propos, on devrait peut-être songer à redéménager les serveurs en dehors des EU !). Par contre, je ne suis pas d'accord avec la phrase « Vous consentez également au transfert de vos informations par nous depuis les États-Unis vers d’autres pays qui sont susceptibles d’avoir des lois sur la protection des données différentes ou moins contraignantes que dans votre pays, en lien avec les services qui vous sont fournis. » Je ne suis pas d'accord pour que mes données soient transmises n'importe où, y compris à des entreprises situées dans des pays où les lois autoriseraient n'importe qui à faire n'importe quoi avec. Si nos données sont transmises, elles ne doivent l'être qu'avec la garantie que nos données seront protégées au moins autant que dans notre pays, ou en tous cas au moins autant qu'aux EU. Quelque soit l'entreprise ou le pays vers lesquels sont transmises nos données, on doit s'assurer que la Charte de confidentialité soit garantie. Sinon, on ne transmet pas. La Charte n'établit, je trouve, pas ce point assez clairement (par exemple les paragraphes ''Si l’organisation est cédée (très peu probable !)'' et ''À nos prestataires de services'' manquent à mon avis de précision) [[Special:Contributions/78.251.253.2|78.251.253.2]] 12:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::P.S. : EU en français = Etats-Unis = United States = US en anglais ; je m'excuse, j'aurais dû écrire Etats-Unis en toutes lettres :-) [[Special:Contributions/85.170.120.230|85.170.120.230]] 01:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Unfortunately, US privacy law is still very much developing and the EU considers the US to have less stringent data protection laws than the US. So using a Wikimedia Site means that, if you are a resident of Europe, your data is being transferred to a country with less stringent data protection laws that your country. There isn't really a way for you to use the Wikimedia Sites without consenting to that kind of transfer unfortunately. But differences in privacy regimes aside, the Wikimedia Foundation seeks to put into place contractual and technological protections with third parties (no matter what country they may be located in) if they are to receive nonpublic user information, to help ensure that their practices meet the standards of the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 18:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::This is not quite correct. If I visit google.com from Italy, I'm asked whether I want to accept a cookie or not, though in USA you are not. Moreover, Google managers were held criminally liable for privacy violation in a [[w:Criticism_of_Google#Italy|meritless case]] which however ruled that «the jurisdiction of the Italian Courts applies [...] regardless of where the Google servers with the uploaded content are located».[http://www.medialaws.eu/the-italian-google-vividown-case-isps-liability-for-user-generated-content/] --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 19:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::What does this mean: "the EU considers the US to have less stringent data protection laws than the US"? [[User:PiRSquared17|PiRSquared17]] ([[User talk:PiRSquared17|talk]]) 19:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::«'''Special precautions''' need to be taken when personal data is transferred to countries outside the EEA that do not provide EU-standard data protection.»[http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/data-collection/data-transfer/index_en.htm] «The Commission has so far recognized [...] the US Department of Commerce's Safe harbor Privacy Principles, and the transfer of Air Passenger Name Record to the United States' Bureau of Customs and Border Protection as providing adequate protection.»[http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/international-transfers/adequacy/index_en.htm#h2-14] «In many respects, the US is a data haven in comparison to international standards. Increasing globalization of US business, evidenced by the Safe Harbor agreement, is driving more thinking about data protection in other countries. Still, political and economic forces make a European style data protection law of general applicability highly unlikely in the near future».[http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/studies/new_privacy_challenges/final_report_country_report_B1_usa.pdf] WMF is also not in [https://safeharbor.export.gov/list.aspx], FWIW. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 19:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: Note that we cannot be in the Safe Harbor program, because the Federal Trade Commission does not have jurisdiction over non-profit organizations. (See [http://export.gov/safeharbor/ "Eligibility for Self-Certification" on the Safe Harbor page].) We would likely join if we could. -[[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 22:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::: Interesting. I was merely answering PiRSquared17's question, but if the WMF would like to join the self-certification program if only it was possible, why not adhere to those obligations in the policy? It won't trigger the law obligations (and advantages), but WMF is free to voluntarily stick itself to higher standards. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 14:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Indeed. This is another example of a response we have seen elsewhere on this page, where WMF has argues that as a non-profit it is not required to adhere to certain privacy-related standards. It would of course be possible to adhere to those standards voluntarily, and I think there should be an explicit statement of what consideration if any has been given to such voluntary adherence. [[User:Spectral sequence|Spectral sequence]] ([[User talk:Spectral sequence|talk]]) 17:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::@Mpaulson : J'ai l'impression que vous avez mal compris mon abréviation EU, qui signifiait Etats-Unis (d'Amérique). Pardon. Ceci dit, même si les lois américaines sont en effet souvent considérées moins protectrices des données personnelles que les lois européennes, les Règles de protection des données personnelles (Privacy Policy) de Wikimédia peuvent tout à fait garantir un niveau de protection supérieur aux lois américaines. Garantir un niveau de protection inférieur aux lois américaines ne serait pas légal, mais garantir un niveau de protection supérieur aux lois américaines, et même supérieur aux lois européennes ou à d'autres lois, est tout à fait possible et compatible avec le droit américain. Il suffit d'adopter des Règles au moins aussi protectrices que les différentes législations nationales (un plus grand commun dénominateur des différentes législations, donc). Je ne vois pas ce qui nous en empêche. Et il faut bien entendu que tous les prestataires de services s'engagent ensuite à respecter ce niveau de protection (comme déjà stipulé dans le paragraphe ''À nos prestataires de services'') [[Special:Contributions/85.170.120.230|85.170.120.230]] 02:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Dans un but de meilleure compréhension, serait-il possible que quelqu'un de compétent nous explique en quoi ces Règles de Confidentialités diffèrent du droit européen ? En quoi elles seraient moins protectrices que celui-ci ? Une explication du genre de celle donnée ci-dessus dans la section ''What is changing?'' serait très intéressante ! [[Special:Contributions/85.170.120.230|85.170.120.230]] 02:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::En particulier, comme évoqué par Nemo, comment se situe la WMF par rapport au cadre juridique Safe Harbor ? [[Special:Contributions/85.170.120.230|85.170.120.230]] 12:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Hi Anonymous. Without going into exhaustive detail, the United States as a whole largely has no explicit privacy framework. The Safe Harbor framework is not so much a United States privacy framework as a system where organizations in the United States can agree to maintain minimum levels of protection similar to that provided in the European Union. This is a particularly helpful system for large companies that tend to have a big physical presence in Europe (and therefore are definitely subject to European laws) and have the need to send massive amounts of personal information between the United States and the European Union. As LVilla mentioned earlier, even if we had the resources available to meet the exact standards required to participate in the Safe Harbor program, we are not eligible because the FTC (who enforces the program) does not have jurisdiction over WMF because it's a non-profit. In the United States, there are federal (i.e. national) laws that may touch on privacy, such as those protecting children, but even those may not apply to every organization or every situation. There are also state laws that address specific aspects of privacy, but those vary from state-to-state and also tend to only address specific scenarios. California is amongst the most protective, but still does not come anywhere the regulatory framework that the European Union has. |
|||
:::::::One way organizations in the United States have attempted to provide higher standards is through their commitments to do so in their privacy policies. This is what we are doing here with our privacy policy. This draft is meant to explain the minimum levels of protections we can guarantee at this point in the organization's evolution. We are striving to provide greater protections as we learn and grow (and it should be noted that nothing in this or any privacy policy draft we will ever have will prevent us from providing greater protections than outlined in the policy). [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 18:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
Closing off, stale. Will archive in 24-48 hours, a new section is probably best if further questions. [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]]--[[:w:Wikimedia Foundation|WMF]] 22:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== The language tends to be condescending == |
|||
Really! Truly! I know you don't mean to sound like you are talking down to us, but gosh, I feel like everyone at the Foundation just wants to give us happy smiles & hugs & wishes us all unicorn farts. Not only does it sounds creepy, yo ulose all credibility. |
|||
First, I want to know if this warm-&-fuzzy language accurately reflects what the policy is. And some passages don't give me a warm & fuzzy feeling that it does. |
|||
Second, it is possible to explain things in plain English without sounding like a demented variant of a Cub Scout Den Leader. Take, for example the section "Account Information & registration". (Was the person who wrote that high on antidepressants?) Everything in that section could be explained quite simply & maturely as follows: |
|||
: You are not required to create an account to read or contribute to a Wikimedia Site. However, if you contribute without signing in, your contribution will be publicly attributed to the IP address associated with your device. If you want to create a standard account, we do not require you to submit any personal information to do so. All that is required is a username and a password. We do not ask for a legal name or date of birth, nor an email address, and definitely not for credit card information; we consider that information unnecessary to contribute to Wikipedia. There are rules and considerations regarding a username, so please think carefully before you use your real name as your username. Your password is only used to verify that the account is yours. |
|||
Notice how more mature this paragraph reads? Yet most of the language is what currently appears on the front page; all I did was take out the fluff. And there is a lot more fluff in this policy statement that needs to come out before the final draft. -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 18:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Really agree with this approach. Wikipedia has a varied usership. We need to communicate clearly for the benefit of everyone. Without the unnecessary fluff. Although some readers may like it, others will find it a distraction. It is unsuited to the serious character of the subject matter. To some people it could appear alienating. [[User:MistyMorn|MistyMorn]] ([[User talk:MistyMorn|talk]]) 15:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== A bit painful === |
|||
With due respect, some of the phrasing is pretty cringe-worthy. |
|||
"Some features we offer are way cooler to use if we know what area you are in." |
|||
"If you choose to help us make the Wikimedia Sites better by participating in an optional survey or providing feedback, we think you are awesome." |
|||
"We also recognize that some of you know the ins and outs of tracking pixels while others associate the term “cookie” exclusively with the chocolate variety." |
|||
Such attempts to be chatty have no place in such a document, in my opinion. [[Special:Contributions/86.169.185.183|86.169.185.183]] 21:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Mostly, I'd be interested in tasting a cookie which is a chocolate variety (in Italian, saying that "cioccolato" is "biscotto" is a lexical and etymological absurd). Do such things really exist in USA? We may need a food culture table conversion for such weirdnesses in the text. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 21:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile... We are Wikiborg.[[User:Oaktree b|Oaktree b]] ([[User talk:Oaktree b|talk]]) 22:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
* Please remove (Introduction): "As important as eating your greens."<sup><nowiki>{{cringe}}</nowiki></sup> |
|||
::''tl;dr version:'' While appreciating the aims of this work, and especially the need for a plain-English guide (as prefigured in the summary box), I wish I could be more positive about the style in which the main body of the page is currently couched. Sorry to have to say this, but I find the "cuddly" tone both unfunny and patronizing—a disincentive to reading, and therefore ultimately to my understanding of the content. Unlike with [[en:Orecchiette|orechiette ai broccoli]] [http://www.italianfoodnet.com/eng/recipe/pasta-with-broccoli-rabe-orecchiette-alle-cime-di-rapa], I find the many privacy policies we're all dutifully expected to ingest across the internet a nerve-jangling annoyance. As others have observed, a "cuddly" style of writing does not sweeten the pill here, or help readers scan the page efficiently to assimilate pertinent information. In brief, I feel the document could usefully be redrafted without the cuddly bits. [[User:MistyMorn|MistyMorn]] ([[User talk:MistyMorn|talk]]) 19:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== Informal tone === |
|||
I'm wondering why the WMF has decided to use a very informal tone in this new draft. Is it intended to make the policy appeal to a younger audience? I have nothing against the occasional use of "cool", "awesome", or similar words, but I don't understand why they should be in what is essentially a legal document. {{ping|Jalexander}} any comment? [[User:PiRSquared17|PiRSquared17]] ([[User talk:PiRSquared17|talk]]) 21:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:I also think it's okay to have a bit of fun and have some in-jokes in internal Wikimedia pages, but it might hurt the WMF's reputation if added to such an important, highly visible document. However, I trust the authors of the document. [[User:PiRSquared17|PiRSquared17]] ([[User talk:PiRSquared17|talk]]) 22:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Also informal text can have official character. ;) The intention was obviously to make the text comprehensible also for non-Legalese native speakers. ^^ --[[User:Thogo|თოგო]] <sup><small>([[User talk:Thogo|D]])</small></sup> 22:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm happy that it is more comprehensible and written in Simple/Plain English, but that does not mean we should have text like "[...]we think you are awesome". I'm not explicitly against this kind of informal tone, but I'm afraid that readers may get a bad impression of Wikimedia. It might make WP seem like a website run by "cool kids". ;) [[User:PiRSquared17|PiRSquared17]] ([[User talk:PiRSquared17|talk]]) 22:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::I obviously appreciate your feedback on this and will make sure the lawyers know too (we're keeping track of what people say on both a spreadsheet and I sit very close to Michelle who is the main one in charge of coordinating it) and I think it's something to hear about from others as well to gauge how it comes across. From a personal opinion side though I disagree, I think simple/plain english is one thing (and for legal document incredibly tough) it can't be the only piece. The formal 'voice' and tone are one of the big things that turns people away from reading long documents like this and absorbing the information given. I think the informal tone keeps it flowing and makes it much easier to completely read. In the end I would prefer for people to think we're a bit of a 'silly bunch of people' (which, let's be fair, they already think since we write an online encyclopedia for fun) then for them not to read what is quite a lot of text but is very important in this internet day and age when they give up large amounts of information without even knowing it. [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]] ([[User talk:Jalexander|talk]]) 23:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::I disagree with this, as I mentioned above. The insertion of inappropriate words such as "cool" and "awesome" does not make the document more readable, it just makes it look self-conscious and a bit ridiculous. [[Special:Contributions/86.169.185.183|86.169.185.183]] 00:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::'''Sigh'''. Did you bother to read my revision of one paragraph of this document? It is informal but dignified. No one will respect a document that is written by a bunch of airhead PR flacks who sound as if they are giggling as they writing--which is the voice this document currently has. And I hope & assume no one working at the Foundation wants to be thought of as an airhead PR flack.--[[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 02:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Honestly, at the time not yet, but I did later and have it on a list for people to look at. I was answering here because {{ping|PiRSquared17}} specifically pinged me and I wanted to respond to him directly. I actually think I misread initially though and came across as harsher then I felt (too many things at once I guess). I want to find the right balance, and am not completely sure where it is yet. I didn't write the policy and I have my own thoughts but I'm not yet sure exactly what is ''best''. I just wanted to characterize the thought process and some of my own thoughts (about trying to find ways to keep them reading and help them understand). [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]] ([[User talk:Jalexander|talk]]) 08:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
I thought the exact same thing as PirSquared17 and I disagree with "The formal 'voice' and tone are one of the big things that turns people away from reading long documents like this and absorbing the information given. I think the informal tone keeps it flowing and makes it much easier to completely read." In fact the informal tone distracts from the information given and let the reader thinks that the information is not important since it's presented in a "funny" way, we "unconsciously" think that it must be a joke or something alike. I don't mean the text should be full of legalese stuff and I agree that it should be written in plain/simple English, but the "informal tone" does the same as the "legalese and complicated tone" for non-Native English speakers, it makes the text harder to understand (and let be honest such text won't be translated in all languages so, yes, a lot of non-Native English speakers will have to read it in English). [[User:Amqui|Amqui]] ([[User talk:Amqui|talk]]) 02:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:The informal tone doesn't bother me much. The document is still pure egregious legalese (i.e. designed to give headaches), see all the instances of "A, BUT! X, Y, W, Z, ..." so that in the end you read three times as much and don't remember what you are agreeing to, being more exceptions than rules, and the WMF is fully protected from users. |
|||
:You make a good point, however, that the draft text is three times as long as the current [[wmf:Privacy policy]] (49 KB vs. 16 KB counting only the text included in the page directly) and it's full of long digressions. Perhaps, per TTO in [[#Some notes]], the digressions and other accessory text may be moved to speech bubbles coming out of Rory, so that both translators and readers can more easily prioritise how they consume the document. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 06:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
I've changed my mind about this. Maybe it is better for people to think we're silly than to avoid reading the policy, as James said. If it actually gets people to read through it, and it doesn't detract attention from the actual content, then it's fine. [[User:PiRSquared17|PiRSquared17]] ([[User talk:PiRSquared17|talk]]) 01:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Most people will still not read it just because of the length, no matter if you put smiling tigers beside each section or not. So why bother the actual people who will read it with fluff that they don't care about, because, let be honest, the vast majority of the people who will take the time to read the Privacy policy are not the casual readers. [[User:Amqui|Amqui]] ([[User talk:Amqui|talk]]) 03:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Agreed. Let the document's organization, flow and use of examples carry the day. Informality works for fiction, but this document is characterless nonfiction by design. Overall, I'm impressed with the draft. The informal asides are well-intentioned clutter. Even proficient English speakers may pause when reading "coolness." Did they miss something? Was there a redesign? What's being communicated? That said, these are issues that can be hammered out in later drafts after the substantive issues have been deliberated.--[[User:Knowlengr|Knowlengr]] ([[User talk:Knowlengr|talk]]) 03:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Good point about the translator, informal tone like that is also harder to translate easily and directly than direct and plain formal English, and since we rely on volunteer translators, that's a point to keep in mind. [[User:Amqui|Amqui]] ([[User talk:Amqui|talk]]) 03:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
I do not understand what the informal child friendly tone of the policy is seeking. When I read the proposed policy I'm reading a tutorial of treatment of data, not really a policy. A privacy policy is a document that establishes clauses of what the web site will do or will not do with the data that can identify the user. Privacy terms are released not with the purpose to teach to the visitor what is the purpose of the Wikimedia Foundation, or what is a cookie or why the web site collects data (although, sometimes is necessary explain it), these terms are a declaration of the host about what it will do or not with your data, I mean, because the host '''decides''' treat the data as he want. If WMF establishes that will be public the IP and location of the visitor then, the IP and location will be public (for example). Each web site could treat the data in different ways, and it is the reason because each web site have to give to you it's own privacy policy. I see that is a tendency in websites to make the privacy policy more "friendly", but actually, a list of bullets about what the site will do or will not do is the easiest and simplest form to do that. For example "WMF will recollect cookies with the purpose…", "WMF will not give your data to third parties…" and so on. Moreover, privacy policy is the kind of document in that I do not want to expend much time to read, in that sense, proposed policy is a whole treaty. And, in addition, is not the kind of document that needs a mascot (seriously, what the policy writers were thinking when decided that to include Rory in the policy was a good idea?). In other hand, the policy terms should not treat you as if you were ignorant of everything. For example that line "Because everyone (not just lawyers) should be able to easily understand how and why their information is collected and used, we use common language instead of more formal terms" can be changed to this "Some terms that will be used in this policy must be understood with the following meanings". Finally, I expect a simple, short and formal text about privacy policy, if you want to keep the current text as a tutorial named ''WMF privacy policy for dummies'', I agree with that, but I think an informal redaction should be an auxiliary, not the main document. --[[User:SirWalter|SirWalter]] ([[User talk:SirWalter|talk]]) 05:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: The issues at hand here, even though I may sound harsh, are as such: |
|||
:* There appears to be a substantive and justifiable dislike for this cuddly, overly verbose presentation of the 'Privacy policy'. To be honest, I've never read the privacy policy prior this as I haven't had cause to concern myself with it, only having drawn on various supplementary material available here for Wikipedia & having cleaned up some conflicting and confusing information surrounding relevant media. I was completely taken aback by what I saw when I finally found a moment to respond to the call for comment on the 'new' policy entry. In as much as it may seem desirable to be welcoming & reconstructing the 'legalese', it <em>is</em> a legal document and should aim to be as succinct as possible. |
|||
:* That which may be deemed to be a sweet & welcoming page by the administrators/editors here in actuality presents as being the antithesis. It is duplicitous to make serious policy appear so innocuous and cutesy that it may as well say, "What the heck, you don't need to read this because it's obviously all about goodness and niceness." Condescension is not valuable as the Privacy policy is serious matter. Even if there are young contributors here, the deployment of 'plain speak' requires serious deconstruction & explanation in concrete terms. If this presentation is considered to be a clever method of avoiding scaring younger users/contributors away, it is abundantly clear that those who chose the methodology have no grounding in behavioural psychology and are making uninformed assumptions in feeding people swathes of reconstituted pap. |
|||
:* Note, also, that at some point, younger users/contributors are going to have to familiarise themselves with 'legalese'. For their sake, it is preferable that they become acquainted with it before they turn 30. By all means, present the salient points of the policy informally as collapsible 'plain speak' auxiliary information, but most of us probably don't want to wade through 'cute'. At a glance is undoubtedly far more useful and desirable. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 05:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== Oatmeal vs. Dora the explorer === |
|||
I saw feedback to the whole illustration and mascot theme is solicited above. I wanted to point out the subtle difference being lost here. Illustrations don't necessarily have to be dumbed down, or be intended for an immature audience. The whole mascot theme, terminology and tone being employed doesn't fit well together. I'm not commenting on the quality of the artwork or the character work for the record, both of which seem fine and probably took a lot of time and effort. It's really hard to cater to an adult audience through this medium but it's not new either - twitter fail whale, firefox fox, google's android etc. all have used their mascots and used them well - I think this could be done better (if this route is going to be taken). But to do that - start by aiming for oatmeal, not Dora or Disney. Regards. [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] ([[User talk:Theo10011|talk]]) 22:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: Unfortunately, Wikimedia wikis don't have a mascot. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 14:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks for the feedback. We have retired Rory, as explained [[Talk:Privacy_policy#Images_and_Rory|below]]. Cheers. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 12:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== Why a tiger? === |
|||
Why does the banner for the new privacy policy include a drawing of a tiger? We're not children. --[[User:Cryptic C62|Cryptic C62]] ([[User talk:Cryptic C62|talk]]) 02:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't work for the WMF, so I can't explain ''why'' they chose to use the tiger, but here's some sort of explanation: The WMF has a stuffed animal tiger in their offices called [[wmf:Rory]]. The usage of Rory illustrations has been discussed above, in other sections. [[User:PiRSquared17|PiRSquared17]] ([[User talk:PiRSquared17|talk]]) 02:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:As someone who believes that tigers are the work of Satan, I'd add that we're not Satanists. –[[Special:Contributions/76.108.183.43|76.108.183.43]] 03:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:: Was this [[w:en:Poe's law|sarcastic]]? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 14:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Please see [[Talk:Privacy_policy#Images_and_Rory|below discussion]] where we have retired Rory. For the record, it was not because I found Rory satanic. :) [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 12:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
===Offputting for adult readers=== |
|||
The policy reads as if aimed at schoolchildren, with the cuddly tiger, "way cooler", "eat your greens", "evil wizard", "You're still awesome" (or "... brilliant" in GB english version). It is possible to write clear English in a neutral, adult, way: see [http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/ The Plain English Campaign] and its guides if you need help. The Privacy Policy is an important document and should be written in a clear and serious tone, not as if it's written by teenagers for children. We are trying to recruit new subject-expert editors, with the introduction of Visual Editor: if a high-power professor reads this proposed text, offered as the Privacy Policy, they are unlikely to take Wikipedia seriously enough to want to contribute their time and expertise. [[User:PamD|PamD]] ([[User talk:PamD|talk]]) 07:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for the link, I'm adding it to [[Writing clearly]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 11:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks for all the above comments. To be honest, from my personal viewpoint, I'm actually OK with this, and I'm known as a pretty stuffy and formal lawyer. :) Our challenge is to explain a complicated topic to everyone, including casual readers of our projects. As I note above, we are repeatedly told that few ever read privacy policies, those who start often don't finish, and when they do, they often misunderstand them. For that reason, we have tried a few ideas, like the user-friendly summary at the beginning of the policy, plainer English (with no doubt a few exceptions), more transparent and hopefully easier-to-understand explanations in the text, and, yes, humor. In my humble opinion, I like it. To my ear, it is not condescending but is respectful, underscoring that we expect the reader to read the policy and we are making efforts to help them enjoy it. For me, humor helps get through dry material. My take on the proposed rewrite above it that it is fine, but I honestly like the version in the draft privacy policy better: it helps explain better in plain terms where we are going, and it may actually help people remember themes in the document. We did have non lawyers read through various drafts. Their ongoing feedback pointed us in this direction. I definitely respect the opinion of those who disagree with me, and, of course, during the 4-month consultation period, we will be listening closely on this issue. In any case, I really appreciate all of you reading and responding ... quite helpful in thinking through this topic. Many thanks. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 14:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::"'''We are repeatedly told that few ever read privacy policies, those who start often don't finish, and when they do, they often misunderstand them. For that reason, we have tried a few ideas, like the user-friendly summary at the beginning of the policy, plainer English (with no doubt a few exceptions), more transparent and hopefully easier-to-understand explanations in the text, and, yes, humor.'''": +1 [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]] ([[User talk:Ocaasi|talk]]) 18:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::That's not humor, that's an embarrassment. You should target the common average of users(german: Schnittmenge), and not only a specific group. But I'm used to such nonesense in wikipedia. Most of the editors suffer from brain damage or mental retardation I think, so no suprise. Whatever, good luck. Greets--[[Special:Contributions/82.113.121.77|82.113.121.77]] 22:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Don't you guys just love it when someone pops in, offers no help, is a jerk, and then promptly leaves? Unfortunately, he forgot to create an account which means his IP address is open for everyone to see! ; ) As for this new policy, I actually like the cuddly tiger (though some of the words are a tad cringe-worthy) and seriously wonder why some people worry about wikipedia "not being taken seriously" when it is already leagues above everything else on the web. [[User:BallroomBlitzkriegBebop|BallroomBlitzkriegBebop]] ([[User talk:BallroomBlitzkriegBebop|talk]]) 17:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::The policy in itself my read as if it is aimed at schoolchildren at first glance but it seems as though it is a combination of something everyone can deal with. The "adult readers" who visit Wikipedia and contribute should know that Wikipedia may be edited by anyone and thus, teenagers and even children may contribute. Wikipedia already has made a name for itself being the project that it is. I do not know anyone who doesn't take Wikipedia as a site seriously. I know of a few examples where when writing essays for a project, a teacher may have desired better references or more references than just Wikipedia but that was on the basis that Wikipedia may be edited by anyone. Everyone has to compromise and as [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] brought out, it is because the challenge is to explain a complicated topic to everyone. Even the suggestion of "you should target the common average of users" brought out by [[Special:Contributions/82.113.121.77|82.113.121.77]] is in itself, targeting a specific group. From what I've seen of the Privacy Policy (which is very little), I like how it is presented. [[User:Koi Sekirei|Koi Sekirei]] ([[User talk:Koi Sekirei|talk]]) 17:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: I have read the policy, in part indeed to test its readability, and I have to say that some of the language used '''led me to misunderstand it'''. Being fairly experienced with most things internet and a bit with legalese, I later realized that I still missed many of the points later brought on by editors on this talk page. If anything, the reason for these misunderstandings was the '''overly narrative''', embellished and long-winded style of writing. It glosses over important points, handwaves issues away, and buries the points it does address between explanations of completely non-privacy-related wiki elements and entire paragraphs of filler delivering no information at all. |
|||
::::::::: This document spends a lot more words and does a much better job of convincing a casual reader that it's an awesome policy than of telling him what the policy actually is. I understand that you've tested it for ease of reading and positive reaction. But did these tests include "reading comprehension" question checks - whether most readers actually got an understanding of various aspects of the policy in the end? [[User:CP\M|CP\M]] ([[User talk:CP\M|talk]]) 08:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::: An excellent point, [[User:CP\M|CP\M]]. If this were being treated as a serious pedagogical issue (which it purports to be), the most important part of the process of adopting it would be to test whether it meets its objective, being that of genuine comprehension. Has there been a component for testing comprehension of the policy built into the feedback? --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 22:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::I agree with all exposed by [[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] at this point. Basically, if the objective of the new draft is not purely legalistic, not only the legal counsel team of the WMF had to write the draft. Some experts or professionals in translate legal documents in simple terms and, considering the worldwide scope of Wikimedia projects, professionals in languages had to participate in the writing of the draft, (see the exposed by [[User:Sir48|Sir48]] below). At this point, counselors sustain that the tone and language of the proposed policy is amazing because they proposed it, they not give reasons neither arguments that sustain how the draft becomes in a master piece. Moreover, [[Talk:Privacy_policy/2008/Call_for_input_(2013)|nobody proposed]] the change to informal tone, by contrast, [[Talk:Privacy_policy/2008/Call_for_input_(2013)#Wikimedia_UK.27s_Website_Privacy_Policy|is a legal counselor whom states]] that they want "to avoid legalese as much as possible" (at all, could add). That looks like a whim from the legal council, not a request from the community. Impose the not well known mascot for the legal office may be a proof of this.--[[User:SirWalter|SirWalter]] ([[User talk:SirWalter|talk]]) 01:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}I believe that [[User:SirWalter|SirWalter]] has driven home some excellent points regarding how [https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy this] has evolved (or devolved) into [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy this proposal]. The proposal, as I understand it, was that the 2008 privacy policy was in need of updating to reflect changes in technology and that, somehow, it was identified as being desirable to present the legalese using more 'user friendly' terminology. |
|||
The structure of the current policy document doesn't seem to have come into the equation until (I can only assume) the legal department, in collaboration with other unknown parties(?), identified some sort of problems with what appears to be a perfectly serviceable model for presentation which they deemed could be redressed by inserting cuddly mascots and a desperate lack of concise information. Updating the contents of the policy and aiming to make it more accessible by the use of simplified/lay English is something I can understand. What I fail to be able to comprehend is how, when, where, who, what and why was simplified English and 'user-friendly' transmogrified into cuddly mascots? |
|||
It's difficult not to come to the conclusion that the legal office are completely stumped and have intentionally thrown a cutesy mess at the community for comment in order to conceal a lack of imagination or desire to put some serious work into a genuinely well thought out proposal & are simply waiting for the blanks to be filled in by the community who are promptly picking up on areas that need to be expanded, elaborated on, qualified and clarified. |
|||
I'd suggest that there are enough queries about the proposed new 'structure' to merit a reasonable explanation as to why we should accept that mascots are 'user-friendly' and how this will assist in the reading of the document. For all the noises about how certain individuals have felt it to be less intimidating and having encouraged them to read the policy (which of the condensed one-liners in particular were found to be 'friendlier'?), how familiar were they with the complex issues deciphered(?) by the end of their cheerful read. I'm sceptical about being being herded into taking a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_of_faith leap of faith] because a few people have claimed the matter to be so, therefore propose that some empirical data be presented to back up claims that it is a genuinely effective strategy, i.e. a little background into, "We did have non lawyers read through various drafts. Their ongoing feedback pointed us in this direction." Who were the 'non lawyers' and what were the qualifications of those interpreting this 'ongoing feedback'?. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 05:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Sry I've(of course) meant: The average human, and not the average wikipedia user(who are nerds and geeks anyway). Of course you have to target some groups of people, and that should be the group of attributes of groups which all groups have in common(or something, you know what I mean). Does the language have to be childish to explain it better? Hell no ! Will the probality increase that some serious person are scared off of it? Maybe. Will it attract more younger people? If you look how many "children"(not the adult ones who behave like ones here) wikipedia use then I think, no. Greets--[[Special:Contributions/82.113.122.164|82.113.122.164]] 21:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
===Some thoughts for consideration from legal=== |
|||
Thanks to everyone for their comments (under this section and others). I really appreciate people taking the time to read the document and giving us your frank feedback. |
|||
[[Talk:Privacy_policy#Offputting_for_adult_readers|Just above]] I shared some thoughts on this topic for consideration. To state it a little differently here, in the legal department, we have reflected quite a bit about tone as we took this draft through multiple versions, testing them out informally. What we heard was that non-lawyers (who were adults and well educated) preferred this less legalistic tone, including some limited insertions of humor. IMHO, this approach shows an effort to help the reader understand the document and demonstrates our expectation (and respect) that the reader will read it. As I say elsewhere, most Wikimedians are fine with formal language expressing complicated concepts. Indeed, I love the fact that our community is made up of wiki-lawyers who have a strong interest in legal issues and the formalities that naturally follow that interest. That said, many of our users to whom this policy applies are readers from different backgrounds. I feel we need to use tools to encourage all types of people to read the policy throughout and to the end – like the user-friendly summary; like plainer, less formal English; like icons and maybe other visuals; and like humor. |
|||
And, to be honest, it also works for me. I enjoy reading the draft privacy policy more because of the tone and humor. I also like what it says: we think it is unreasonable to put dense legal documents before readers without helping them understand the document and enjoy the experience. As I noted above, I think the above rewrite of one paragraph by Llywrch is fine, but, in my personal opinion, I frankly like the version in the draft privacy policy more: the first line of text helps the reader understand where the discussion is going in a simple non-legalistic way. I do appreciate Llywrch’s efforts in illustrating his point, however. |
|||
We talk about the use of [[Talk:Privacy_policy/Archives/2013#Illustrations|illustrations]] elsewhere, but one idea I like out of this conversation is the concept of using bullet points, maybe in the margins to summarize certain critical themes. The community will decide on the mascot idea, but simplified bullet points - such as [[Talk:Privacy_policy/Archives/2013#Illustrations|proposed]] by Theo above - may be another way of addressing this. I know that is not exactly what [[Talk:Privacy_policy#Informal_tone|you are proposing]] SirWalter, but the idea is related. I think both of you have good arguments there. |
|||
Now I say all this with the understanding that we are in a 4-month consultation period, and we are listening to your views on this. So far, there are some who have commented positively on the language and approach, but I definitely respect the contrary point of view. I’m seeing some points more clearly based on our exchange. For example, it resonates with me when people say some humor doesn't translate well into other languages. And there are no doubt some sentences that we will want to rewrite based on community feedback. Overall, I’m fine with the tone; I even like it, and, personally, I would like to keep it. But, if some specific language really strikes the community as wrong, we will change it, obviously. |
|||
Thanks again for taking the time to read this draft and to share your comments. We know people are busy and have other priorities, so we really appreciate it. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 07:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:I have three comments about this: |
|||
*Guys, fun is ok, but the Wikimedia projects are not the place to it. Wikimedia is a serious web site, not serious in the sense of a drill instructor, but in the meaning of trusty and accurate information. I think everybody, regardless of age, nationality or educational level can understand that the legal issues are serious issues. If you want to get fun, go to the ''Encyclopedia Dramatica'', paradoxically, [https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:Privacy_policy their privacy policy] is better than the draft that you are proposing. |
|||
*Wikimedia projects are not the sort of websites that intensively recollect personal information or get profit with it. Most of the data recollected is result of the way in that internet servers work. I do not understand why a simple upgrade in the policy becomes in a complete senseless renovation. |
|||
*Privacy policy is a legal text with legal consequences. With your "cool" way to redact it, you are introducing ambiguity in the terms. And ''the ambiguity in a written contract will be construed against the drafter''. If you want to fight in a trial in that somebody felt offended because thinks that he/she looks great in his eight year old picture or, because somebody interprets the "evil wizard" in an inconvenient sense, you are in the right way. By the way, I find, more than 40 paragraphs since the beginning of the policy text, the statement that "if you do not agree with this Privacy Policy, you may not use the Wikimedia Sites"; of course, is well known that you have to put the ''Important Info'' at the end of a legal text. |
|||
:At the end, you are more involved in the project, and you will carry with the consequences of all this. --[[User:SirWalter|SirWalter]] ([[User talk:SirWalter|talk]]) 19:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::I take your point quick seriously, SirWalker. I thought about this lots before the rollout. I came to the Wikimedia Foundation from a for-profit major internet company. I think many saw me as quite formalistic as a lawyer. :) So I get what you are saying. Yet, after seeing similar examples elsewhere, I have come around to the position that a less legalistic style and humor can be helpful in facilitating understanding, especially when you are addressing a diverse community. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the quality of others’ privacy policies, but I will say that our site has unusual and complicated issues in a collaborative community that need to be addressed in an understandable way in our privacy policy - a need that is not really satisfied with a policy made up of short bullet points. (That said, I do like the idea of using bullet points in the margins to summarize major themes, if the community wants that format.) Also I firmly believe in honest transparency with our community. This means we need to explain in plain English how we collect and employ user information, and I think this draft does a better job in that respect, though it takes words to do that. I think you are right to be concerned about ambiguity in any contract, but I would respectfully disagree that this causes any real legal risk; to be frank, if I thought it did, I would strike it. I hear your point about changing the placement of the highlighted sentence ("if you do not agree with this Privacy Policy, you may not use the Wikimedia Sites"); I have no objection moving it towards the front of the document (like the Introduction) or putting the concept in as a bullet point in the user-friendly summary if the community supports that view. Other detailed reasons for the rewrite are set out above under the opening template on this talk page, explaining the need for this new draft. I say we watch the community feedback. I’m seeing support for our approach, but I am also hearing the words of caution. During the course of the consultation, we may well make modifications that address some of your concerns. I know that we may disagree on some points, but I want to reemphasize how much I appreciate your reading the document and raising these points. It does help everyone as we work towards the right final draft for the community. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 07:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::: There is a difference between plain English and childishness. At this moment, the draft reads as if it's trying to ''appeal'' to the reader, ''explain itself'' to him, and at times almost butter him up, rather than to ''inform'' him. I agree with others in thinking it should neither trivialize serious privacy matters nor put its own appeal ahead of its informative value. |
|||
::: For instance, this entire paragraph - ''Wikimedia Sites are collaborative, with users writing most of the policies and selecting from amongst themselves people to hold certain administrative rights. These rights may include access to limited amounts of otherwise nonpublic information about recent contributions and activity by other users. They use this access to help protect against vandalism and abuse, fight harassment of other users, and generally try to minimize disruptive behavior on the Wikimedia Sites.'' - has almost nothing to do with privacy and engages instead in broad overview and advertisement of Wikimedia's self-management policies. |
|||
::: I don't believe that such long-winded digressions are consistent with the first stated principle: ''Be clear and concise in language''. [[User:CP\M|CP\M]] ([[User talk:CP\M|talk]]) 13:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
* The issue is the difference between the expression of the policy and the presentation of the policy. The policy is what drives, guides or constrains the behaviour of the WMF and as such will have formal expression in a working business document written in a formal style suitable for use in decision-making. In a real sense that document ''is'' the policy. The presentation of the policy is how the policy as enshrined in the formal expression is communicated to audiences who need to understand it: those audiences might be, for example, junior WMF staff, new contributors to WMF projects, experienced contributors, technically-expert readers of WMF material, or editors with enhanced rights. Those presentations might, and probably do, need to be different for the different audiences. What we have here is a one-size-fits-all version which is attempting to be all of those things at once. |
|||
:I believe that the formal policy should be exposed for discussion by and the use of all the stakeholder groups. We can take it. There is no need to patronise us with cute furry animals and little pats on the head. The more cutesy version can be published as well and it may indeed be helpful for some readers, or not. I really find it hard to believe that round the WMF boardroom table, when trying to decide on whether a proposed strategic direction is consistent with the privacy policy, the assembled trustees, director or senior executives will be helped by wading through wording that tells them that their users are "great", or that their use of the site is "cool", or that the policy is "as important as eating their greens", or that a picture of Tony the Tiger will help them take the right decision. If they don't need that stuff, we don;t need it either. [[User:Spectral sequence|Spectral sequence]] ([[User talk:Spectral sequence|talk]]) 16:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks for the feedback. As an update, we are retiring the image of Rory from the privacy policy, per [[Talk:Privacy_policy#Images_and_Rory|this discussion]]. Cheers. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 11:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::So is removing the image sufficient to resolve the difference between the formal policy -- which we now understand is intended to be legally binding on both WMF and users -- and its explanation? I think that it does not. |
|||
::::I remain genuinely concerned about what I (and, I believe, others) perceive as a patronizing ("condescending") tone in some of the content ("fluff"). It's not just a question of formality. To me, the sentence about "eating your greens" is emblematic of this issue about how Wikipedia presents both itself and its privacy policy. I may have missed something, but I have yet to see a response to this live concern. [[User:MistyMorn|MistyMorn]] ([[User talk:MistyMorn|talk]]) 20:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::In my opinion, the tone of the document is fine. I think the biggest pushback from the community is Rory (who we are retiring with tears in his eyes) and the jokes. If people don't like specific jokes, we can take those out. However, I'm seeing a mixed response in the feedback to be honest. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 22:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Collection of "unique device identification numbers" == |
|||
'''''MOVED FROM WIKIPEDIA VILLAGE PUMP''''' |
|||
Hi, at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy/BannerTestA, it says: |
|||
:Because of how browsers work and similar to other major websites, we receive some information automatically when you visit the Wikimedia Sites. This information includes the type of device you are using (possibly including unique device identification numbers), the type and version of your browser, your browser’s language preference, the type and version of your device’s operating system, in some cases the name of your internet service provider or mobile carrier, the website that referred you to the Wikimedia Sites and the website you exited the Wikimedia Sites from, which pages you request and visit, and the date and time of each request you make to the Wikimedia Sites. |
|||
What sort of "unique device identification numbers" is it referring to? I thought browsers ''didn't'' provide that information. [[Special:Contributions/86.169.185.183|86.169.185.183]] ([[User talk:86.169.185.183|talk]]) 17:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Looking at similar privacy policies, it looks like this may refer to mobile devices: "AFID, Android ID, IMEI, UDID". --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 17:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::You mean that when you access a website through a browser on an Android device the website can collect a unique device ID? Is that really correct? (I can believe it for general apps, where, presumably the app can do "anything" within permissions, but I didn't think there was any such browser-website mechanism). [[Special:Contributions/86.169.185.183|86.169.185.183]] ([[User talk:86.169.185.183|talk]]) 18:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think this question is more appropriate for the [[:m:Talk:Privacy Policy|Talk page discussion]] on the privacy policy draft. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 20:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
I see that this information is "receive[d] [...] automatically". That doesn't necessarily mean this information needs to be collected and stored. Personally I am fine with this information being temporarily handled in a volatile location in order to cater to the display needs of each individual device. I do not however, believe that this information should be stored or used for any other means. Participation in this data-mining should be off by default. WMF would of course be free to nag users into opting in. Because this is a _free_ encyclopedia, users should be _free_ to at least view it in the way they want, without having all their habits and device details harvested non-consensually. Contributions? Edits? Sure, take all you want. There's an implicit agreement to such data-mining when a user submits an edit. But there isn't one from just viewing a page. --[[Special:Contributions/129.107.225.212|129.107.225.212]] 16:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks, but that is not really relevant to my question (not sure if it was supposed to be), My question is whether it is <u>technically possible</u> for a website to obtain "unique device identification numbers" from a web browser. The text implies that it is; previously I believed it wasn't. I am hoping that someone will be able to answer the question. [[Special:Contributions/86.167.19.217|86.167.19.217]] 17:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:: You are correct in stating that browsers are sandboxed from retrieving this type of information. However, our mobile apps and our mobile app deployment infrastructure may utilize "unique device identification numbers" to identify mobile devices (such as a device tokens, device unique user agents, or potentially UDIDs). Our mobile apps may need this ID for certain functionality, such as sending push notifications or delivering test deployments. Thanks, [[User:Slaporte (WMF)|Stephen LaPorte (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Slaporte (WMF)|talk]]) 17:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think we have no intention of accessing or recording device UDID, IMEI number, or anything else like that. (It's also getting increasingly hard for apps to get access to those, as the OS vendors don't like creepy apps either.) In the cases where we do usage tracking and need identifiers, they'll be either based on something already in the system -- like your username/ID -- or a randomly-generated token. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 17:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::In that case, I think the wording needs adjusting since it currently says "<u>Because of how browsers work</u> [...] we receive some information automatically when you visit the Wikimedia Sites [...] possibly including unique device identification numbers". Mobile apps are not "browsers". [[Special:Contributions/86.160.215.210|86.160.215.210]] 20:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks to the long term foundation policy of enabling widespread vandalism from IP addresses (because who cares how much time dedicated users spend reverting vandalism when they could be productively editing.. far more important not scare off someone who wants to add 'is a dick' to a biography), and the genius decision to enable vandalism from IPv6 addresses, Wikimedia is now actively enabling access to unique identifying data not just by Wikimedia admins, but by absolutely anyone in the world. Unless a Wikipedia user forced onto an IPv6 network takes [http://superuser.com/questions/243669/how-to-avoid-exposing-my-mac-address-when-using-ipv6 extraordinary steps]- steps which they are highly unlikely to be aware of unless they are reasonably technically savvy and thus have a Wikipedia account anyway- they will now be trackable to the household, if not the *device* level. Genius! [[User:John Nevard|John Nevard]] ([[User talk:John Nevard|talk]]) 14:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
==Terminology== |
|||
=== "Wikimedia Sites" === |
|||
Why this terminology? I'd appreciate consistency. [[Terms of use]] talks of Projects and Wikimedia Projects. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 21:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:+1. [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] ([[User talk:Theo10011|talk]]) 21:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Isn't is the case that WMF runs sites that are subject to the privacy policy but aren't projects? If so (the blog springs to mind), the current broader language seems me the better fit, best regards --[[User:JEissfeldt (WMF)|Jan (WMF)]] ([[User talk:JEissfeldt (WMF)|talk]]) 08:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Actually that might be a distinction worth noting. Does this policy cover things like the blog or labs? I seem to recall the blog using third party software, instead of mediawiki, and labs having similar issues with deployed analytic, and users having access to other user's info. I assumed those 2 things meant this privacy policy probably won't cover those and only the projects. Anyway, it just sounds clunky, a better terminology must exist for this. [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] ([[User talk:Theo10011|talk]]) 10:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::I appreciate this discussion. The definition of "Wikimedia Sites" is probably a bit broader than the projects. Specifically in the Introduction of the policy we have a list of definitions. "Wikimedia Sites" is defined as: |
|||
:::::Wikimedia Sites and services (regardless of language), including our main projects, such as Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, as well as mobile applications, APIs, emails, and notifications; excluding, however, sites and services listed in the “What This Privacy Policy Doesn’t Cover” section below. |
|||
::::My thinking is that a casual reader of Wikipedia - to whom this privacy policy applies - may not understand what a "project" is naturally, but will understand what a "site" is. I can see good arguments either way, however, on correct wording. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 14:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I don't care much about the name you choose but I don't like inconsistency with the terms of use, so whatever choice you make please be consistent. |
|||
:::::On the definition proposed and the casual reader, using common words doesn't necessarily make something more understandable, especially if you use them in uncommon ways. Applications are not sites. The WebAPI lives on the projects' domains. "Emails and notifications" is too broad and might mean anything; the important ones are those generated by MediaWiki i.e. included in the "Wikimedia projects" category. Finally, which of the [https://git.wikimedia.org/blob/operations%2Fdns.git/def7b5fb8be5b606482a60ae98f117b0f28983ef/templates%2Fwikimedia.org#L564 hundreds of non-project domains] (and this is only the wikimedia.org subdomains) fall under the definition of "Wikimedia Site" per the privacy policy? It's probably easier to use a specific, narrow term and definition to then ''add'' instances to it on a case by case basis, rather than use super-broad language and then be forced to endless lists of exceptions. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 10:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: This is intended to be broader than "Projects" in the ToU. We want the default to be that everything is covered, because that is a common legal standard for privacy policies, and because we want the things that are not covered to be deliberate and thoughtful choices, rather than "someone forgot to add this to the list". |
|||
:::::: That said, "Wikimedia Sites" should not be used in its own definition - we'll switch to "Wikimedia websites" within the definition. - [[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 23:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Yes, I got that you want to be broader. You still failed to answer my question about which websites fall under the definition. Opting in to the privacy policy is not hard for a new domain, a link or a one line "the general privacy policy applies to this X" is enough. What's more risky is forgetting to add one of the hundreds of domains to the list of exceptions. Or, even worse, adding KB and KB of text to list exceptions as you currently do (with a questionable comprehensiveness anyway). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 06:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: I said that everything is covered. If you mean to ask what sites fall ''outside'' of the policy, that's a case-by-case thing, depending on the purpose of the specific site. |
|||
:::::::: With regards to the risk of forgetting to add things to the list of exceptions, it is important to be clear: there is no risk if we forget to add something to the list of exceptions. If the site is supposed to be exception, it will have its own privacy policy, which will clearly state that it is covered by the alternate policy. In contrast, if we make the list an "opt-in" list, sites that forget to be opted in will not specifically be covered by any policy - which will be confusing and potentially problematic. -[[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 21:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: Ok. So, e.g. status.wikimedia.org is supposed to be covered by this proposed policy. Can you explain what this means, if and how it is or can be put in compliance? Also, if having a separate privacy policy is enough to opt-out, can you please remove the walls of text relating to exclusions e.g. for Wikimedia Labs? It would be a first step in reducing the explosion in size of the text. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 22:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::: This puts the onus on the team that setup status.wikimedia.org to figure out compliance. It might be opting out (by writing a new privacy policy), it might be negotiating with the provider to comply with our terms, it might be shutting down the service. Obviously LCA will work with those teams to make all this happen, of course. And yes, there are a number of WMF-hosted sites that might be affected. This will result in some work, but it is better to begin making those consistent than simply leaving them not covered. |
|||
:::::::::: We'll think about how to better contextualize (and maybe shorten if we can) the list of exceptions, since obviously it is creating some confusion. -[[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 00:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::With regard to the inconsistency between use of the term "projects" in the TOU and the term "sites" in the privacy policy draft, we will change the TOU the next time we update it such that it also uses the broader term of "sites". [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 22:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::I've looked at this some more, and I don't see a good way to reorganize or shorten the exception list. If someone wants propose specific edits, though, feel free, and we'll take a look. Otherwise, I think this topic can be closed.-[[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 22:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== “the Wikimedia Foundation” / “the Foundation” / “WMF” / “we” / “us” / “our” === |
|||
{{closed|text= |
|||
Instead of providing glossaries, can't you just use a single term? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 21:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: Hi Nemo! There are different reasons for using these various terms to describe the Wikimedia Foundation. We say "the Wikimedia Foundation" because it's our official name and depending on the sentence, formality or use of the full name is appropriate. However, we recognize that it's a rather long name and something that we frequently have to reference. Saying "the Wikimedia Foundation" every time we refer to the Wikimedia Foundation would have made the policy even longer...something we wanted to avoid, so we sometimes used "WMF" or simply "the Foundation" instead. As for "we", "us", and "our", we believed that informal terms would help improve readability and flow. For the avoidance of doubt, we added it to the Glossary to make it clear that these terms all refer to the Wikimedia Foundation. Hope that helps explain why we drafted as we did. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 00:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Hello. Thanks for caring about the length of the document! A nice aim would be to reduce it by about 66 %, to stay more or less at the same level as the current one. |
|||
::As for the specific case, avoiding the use of "WMF" and "the Foundation" would increase the byte count of the document by 0.10 %, if my math is correct. On "we", "us" and "our", either the definition is wrong or there is something wrong in what you said at [[#Exclusion of on-wiki actions from privacy policy]], because in your interpretation "we" seems to include something more than the incorporated entity called the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. <small>(If that's the case, you may want to distinguish between the normal English "we" and the "WE" referring to the definition in question. That's one of the rare occasions where capitals serve some useful purpose, unlike the Title Case invading the text. If used in stead of “the Wikimedia Foundation” / “the Foundation” / “WMF”, it would also reduce byte length by 0.73 %!)</small> --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 19:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm a little unclear about what you mean when you say that "we" seems to include more than WMF at [[#Exclusion of on-wiki actions from privacy policy]]. Could you specify? I think I only used "we" in "so we can investigate further" and in that instance, I did mean WMF only. Emailing privacy@ would trigger an investigation of the reported situation by WMF, not community members. But alerting WMF is only one way to handle a third-party data collection tool that violates the terms of the privacy policy. Community members can also remove the tool in question themselves if they believe the tool violates the privacy policy. |
|||
:::That said, I'd like to have "we" always mean WMF, without having to capitalize it as "We" as that tends to impact readability negatively, so if there is a place where I have used "we" incorrectly, I'd like to change it. Hopefully, the edited language I proposed in that discussion cleared that discrepancy up. But if it doesn't, let me know. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 01:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::Sorry for being unclear. I'll try to explain myself better but it would be easier if you first replied to my proposal in the section below, otherwise I have to multiply explanations/hypotheses. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 15:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Ok, in that case, I will have James close this subsection out and continue this discussion below as you suggested. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 00:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
=== "update your account profile", "information in your user profile" === |
|||
{{closed|text= |
|||
What is this thing or things the text talks about? Never heard of profiles on our wikis. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 21:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Nemo! This refers to information on your user page. We used the terms like "user profile" to be more accessible to casual users who may not be as familiar with the term "user page". However, I do believe that this phrase should be consistent within this document. Thank you for pointing out that it's called "account profile" in one place. We will get that changed. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 23:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Actually, +1 on all 3. Consistency is very important in vetted documents like these that will be around for a long while. [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] ([[User talk:Theo10011|talk]]) 21:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Closing this up since no more responses in the past week or so. Will archive in 24-48 hours unless reopened with additional questions/responses. [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]] ([[User talk:Jalexander|talk]]) 00:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC) . |
|||
:This isn't anywhere near being closed, we're waiting for the answers/redrafts per above. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 14:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::My reading of this is that everything has been answered (I know that you don't agree with it all but that a decision had been made)... the only change I see that was to be done was the change to a consistent 'user profile' which I think has been done. Are there any unanswered proposals for changes that I'm missing? [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]]--[[:w:Wikimedia Foundation|WMF]] 19:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
Closing off bottom two sections as stale. Top still open given recent response. [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]]--[[:w:Wikimedia Foundation|WMF]] 22:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Exclusion of on-wiki actions from privacy policy == |
|||
Can someone explain what purpose it serves to have a two-tiers privacy protection in which WMF doesn't guarantee much, or anything, about what in the end might happen with private data on the wikis? In particular the exclusion of "data-collecting tools that are placed on Wikimedia Sites by users, volunteer administrators, or other third parties" means that we (WMF and community) could no longer just remove any tracking script from the wikis on sight as being against the privacy policy. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 21:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: Hi Nemo! I am a little confused by your question, to be honest. The policy draft does not change rules regarding the removal of tracking scripts from wikis that contravene the privacy policy. Community members are still free to remove tracking scripts from the wikis on sight if they believe they violate the privacy policy. However, if you are not sure whether a particular tracking script is in violation of the privacy policy or you happen to be a casual user who doesn't know how to or doesn't want to remove the script themselves, they can report it directly to the Foundation and we will look into the matter. Does that help address your concerns or did I misunderstand your question? [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 23:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:: Have you read the sentence I quoted? It's in the "More On What This Privacy Policy Doesn’t Cover" section, which by the way is so broad that I have no idea what the privacy policy actually ''is'' about (perhaps it would be easier to start with a narrower definition which requires less exceptions). |
|||
:: Let me quote more extensively: «This Privacy Policy only covers the way we collect and handle information [''note: "we" means the Wikimedia Foundation, according to the definitions provided; as in its staff, but not its sites as a whole, apparently]. [...] With that in mind, the following are not covered by this Privacy Policy: [...] Third-party scripts, gadgets, cookies, tracking pixels, share buttons, or other data-collecting tools that are placed on Wikimedia Sites by users, volunteer administrators [...]». |
|||
:: Consequently, a script e.g. including Google Analytics on all pages of a wiki, added by a volunteer sysop, is ''not'' covered by the privacy policy as proposed, hence is obviously not against the privacy policy and can't just be removed straight away as such (e.g. by stewards as usual so far), though the WMF reserves the right to decide (at whim) that it's better to remove it, or more specifically to "investigate" it, whatever this means: «please report it to privacy[at]wikimedia.org so we can investigate further.» --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 17:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think we may just be interpreting the language differently. When we say that third-party data-collecting tools are not covered by the privacy policy, we mean that they are not covered to the extent that they are third-party tools that we do not control and therefore cannot regulate how the information collected by those tools is used by the third parties who receive them. The placement of such tools on Wikimedia Sites, particularly if they do not get the users implied or express consent before collecting information, is not permitted under the privacy policy draft because such tools may not meet the privacy standards set out in the privacy policy draft. But we also understand that despite the prohibition, some placement may occur due to the open nature of the projects. It is in those situations that community members (or WMF if specific instances are reported to us) can remove them on-sight if the community member or WMF believes the tool violates the privacy policy. Does that make more sense? [[Special:Contributions/216.38.130.164|216.38.130.164]] 18:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::That last response was me. Didn't realize that I had been logged out. Sorry about that! [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 18:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Thanks for the explanation but no, it doesn't make more sense. First, it's not what the draft says: it doesn't say that what happens outside our cluster is outside our control, it says that "data-collecting tools" without further specifications (hence ''including'' their being placed on our wikis) are not covered by this policy. Second, it makes no sense to state properties about the [[w:Empty set|empty set]] (which must be empty). Third, if your aim was to state the obvious, this particular "More On What This Privacy Policy Doesn’t Cover" "clarification" makes more damage than benefit. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 18:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Hi Nemo. If that doesn't make sense, do you have suggestions on how to improve the current language? I've taken a stab at making this clearer below. Let me know what you think about this phrasing or if you have proposed language that you think might be better. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 23:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Third-party scripts, gadgets, cookies, tracking pixels, share buttons, or other data-collection tools that are placed on Wikimedia Sites by users, volunteer administrators, or other third parties. The Wikimedia Sites are built and collaboratively developed over time by a global community of users and volunteer developers. Sometimes, a user or volunteer developer may place a third party’s data-collecting tool on a particular Wikimedia Site without our knowledge. The collection, storage, use, and transfer of information by these third-party data-collection tools and the third parties the tools are associated with are not covered by this Privacy Policy because we cannot control the actions of third parties or their tools. However, placement of these third-party data-collection tools on Wikimedia Sites may be in violation of this Privacy Policy if the data-collection tool in question does not meet the standards of this Privacy Policy. If you come across such a third-party tool, you may remove it yourself if you believe it violates this Privacy Policy or you can report it to privacy[at]wikimedia.org so we can investigate further. |
|||
:::::::Yes, I have a suggestion. Remove this whole paragraph from "More On What This Privacy Policy Doesn’t Cover". Add a line somewhere else explaining how privacy policy can sometimes temporarily be breached by mistake and how we deal with such mistakes (wherever they originate from). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 06:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Registration and "demographic information about yourself" == |
|||
{{closed|text= |
|||
Makes no sense, please kill. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 21:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:What about that makes no sense? It seems straightforward to me. Registration data, and demographic data about yourself. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Philippe (WMF)|talk]]) 21:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::So you're saying that the users can delete registration data? Please tell me how. Is it a new feature that will be developed? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 21:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm actually curious what demographic data is and where it is extracted from. There is no demographic data as far as I know besides gender info in the preference options, and even that isn't disclosed half the times. Also, did we add an option to disclose age at some point or is there more analytic data being extracted from elsewhere besides the preference option? Maybe I missed something. [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] ([[User talk:Theo10011|talk]]) 21:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Gender preference is not demographic data, it's grammatical information. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 21:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::I thought so too. But "we may ask you for more demographic information about yourself, such as gender or age." - seems to imply not. What exactly is the demographic data here then? [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] ([[User talk:Theo10011|talk]]) 21:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Gender preference certainly is grammatical information as well but there is no getting away from the fact that it is also demographic data (and that people don't always like it being known for varied reasons). [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]] ([[User talk:Jalexander|talk]]) 21:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::James, is that all the demographic data is that is being referred to? I actually would like a clearer explanation if that kind of info is only pulled from the preference options or somewhere else and what other kind of info is there? Thanks. [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] ([[User talk:Theo10011|talk]]) 22:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Thanks Theo, I'll find someone who can give a more through answer. [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]] ([[User talk:Jalexander|talk]]) 07:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Currently, we collect information about gender for grammatical purposes, but it is still demographic information, even if we don’t use it that way. Language is another example of something that we collect right now for technical purposes, but is sometimes considered demographic information. |
|||
::::::: Gender and language aside, we don’t generally collect demographic information (though see Jeremyb's comment below for an example of specific, non-general demographic information collection). But we’re trying to build a policy that can grow with us in the future and allows us to better understand who contributes to our community and our mission. That’s why we put this in - not to cover something we do now, but to cover things we might do in the future. - [[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] 02:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Yes. This is not something we might ever want to do. Registration must require only necessary data, not demographic information. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 08:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Research:Gender micro-survey]] seems relevant, and is definitely demographic and not related to grammar. --[[User:Jeremyb|Jeremyb]] ([[User talk:Jeremyb|talk]]) 20:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::That's not about registration. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::: The policy doesn't say anything about demographic information being tied to or required for registration, other than the section heading. Can you point me to what language you find confusing/problematic? -[[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 21:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Yeah, the header and the two preceding paragraphs... If the demographic information you are talking about is not related to accounts and registration (which would be good, because there is no reason to associate demographic information as such to accounts, nor to ask it on registration), then you definitely need to move it elsewhere or to clarify it's unrelated to what said a sentence before. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 22:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Accounts and registration are related, but separate, concepts. You can have information tied to an account without requiring it at registration, like we do with the current gender field. -[[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 00:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: Sure. And what I'm saying is that we don't need to associate to accounts information of demographics nature in itself in general, so in particular we don't need to request it on registration. The gender option is not mainly of demographic nature, though one can infer information of demographic nature from it (just like I can infer the country of residence from the timezone options... but they are not demographics information). So this section is unnecessary and counterproductive. Remove it or replace it with something saying we never ask for demographics information per se, but at most options required by specific software features which might happen to have demographics correlations. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 07:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: The policy quite specifically says: |
|||
::::::::"If you want to create a standard account, we do not require you to submit any personal information to do so. Really. No name, no email address, no date of birth, no credit card information, nothing. Just a username that you make up and a password." |
|||
::::::: Nothing in the section we are discussing contradicts that, or implies a contradiction. So, as the policy already says, we will not require demographic information on registration. There is no need to repeat that in this section. |
|||
::::::: We may, of course, still request demographic information, in a variety of manners and for a variety of reasons. If we collect it to help software function, it is '''still demographic information'''. The purpose it is collected for does not change that. We may also collect it for other purposes. That is why this section is necessary and informative. |
|||
::::::: I understand you disagree, but at this point I see no reason to change the section. -[[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 01:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: You're right. So it's enough to remove it entirely. The only added value which would then be missing is "We will tell you if such information is intended to be public or private", a sentence which can easily follow "we do not require you to submit any personal information" with some minor adjustment, anticipating the following 5 wrap-up sentences of that first paragraph. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 14:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: We want to make it explicit that we can optionally request demographic information. If you have a better proposal for how to do that, great, but you have not made it yet. We will not simply remove it unless it is replaced elsewhere. -[[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 16:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
Closing off because of lack of response, will archive in 24-48 hours. [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]]--[[:w:Wikimedia Foundation|WMF]] 22:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== So, what is the purpose of all this? == |
|||
I've read the draft from beginning to end, and I have no idea what you wanted me as a user to get from it. What's the purpose, what does it improve compared to the much shorter and more concise current policy which provides very clear and straightforward protections such as the four (4) magic words «'''Sampled''' raw log data» (see also [[#Data retention]] above)? Is the purpose just adding tracking pixels and cookies for everyone, handwashing (see section above) and generally reducing privacy commitments for whatever reason? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 21:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Nemo, Thanks for your comment. I outlined some specific reasons for why we needed an update [[Talk:Privacy_policy#What_is_changing.3F|above]]. [[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]] ([[User talk:YWelinder (WMF)|talk]]) 01:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::See [[Talk:Privacy_policy#What_is_changing.3F|here]] for Yana's summary. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 02:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::The summary only says things I already knew, because I read the text. What's missing is the ''rationale'' for such changes, or why the changes are supposed to be an improvement. One hint: are there good things that we are not or will not be able to do due to the current policy and what changes are proposed in consequence? |
|||
:::Additionally, the summary doesn't even summarise that well IMHO, e.g. the language about cookies is not very clear and you didn't write anything about making request logs unsampled (which means having logs of all requests a user makes). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 06:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::I've forwarded your question to our tech team. Relevant members of the tech team are out for a conference and will respond to this shortly.[[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]] ([[User talk:YWelinder (WMF)|talk]]) 01:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::===Unsampled request logs/tracking=== |
|||
:::::Hey Nemo! |
|||
:::::You have raised the question why we want the ability to store unsampled data and that’s a great question! |
|||
:::::Two important use-cases come to mind. The first use case is funnel analysis for fundraising. As you know, we are 100% dependent on the donations by people like you -- people who care about the mission of the Wikimedia movement and who believe in a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. |
|||
:::::We want to run the fundraiser as short as possible without annoying people with banners. So it’s crucial to understand the donation funnel, when are people dropping out and why. We can only answer those kind of questions if we store unsampled webrequest traffic. |
|||
:::::The second use case is measuring the impact of [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero Wikipedia Zero]. Wikipedia Zero’s mission is to increase the number of people who can visit Wikipedia on their mobile phone without having to pay for the data charges: this is an important program that embodies our mission. Measuring the impact means knowing how many people (unique visitors) are benefiting from this program. If we can measure this then we can also be transparent to our donors in explaining how their money is used and how much impact their donations are making. |
|||
:::::I hope this gives you a better understanding of why we need to store unsampled webrequest data. It is important to note that we will not build long historic reader profiles: the Data Retention Guidelines (soon to be released) will have clear limits on how long we will store this type of data. |
|||
:::::Best regards, |
|||
:::::(in my role as Product Manager Analytics @ WMF) |
|||
:::::Drdee [[User:Drdee|Drdee]] ([[User talk:Drdee|talk]]) 23:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Thank you for your answer. Note that this is only one of the unexplained points of the policy, though probably the most controversial one (and for some reason very well hidden), so I'm making a subsection. I'll wait for answers on the rest; at some point we should add at the top a notice of the expected improvements users should like this policy for (this is the only one mentioned so far apart from longer login duration, if I remember correctly). |
|||
:::::: Frankly, your answer is worse than anything I could have expected: are you seriously going to tell our half billion users that you want them to allow you to track every visit to our websites in order to target them better for donations and for the sake of some visitors of ''other'' domains (the mobile and zero ones)? This just doesn't work. I'm however interested in knowing more. |
|||
::::::* Why does fundraising require unconditional tracking of ''all'' visits to Wikimedia projects? If the aim is understanding the "donation funnel" (note: the vast majority of readers of this talk doesn't understand you when you talk like this), why can't they just use something like the ClickTracking done in 2009-2010 for the usability initiative, or the EventLogging which stores or should store only aggregate data (counts) of events like clicks of specific things? |
|||
::::::* I know that Wikipedia Zero has [[Metrics and activities meetings/Quarterly reviews/Wikipedia Zero, 2013-02-20|struggled]] to find metrics for impact measure, but from what I understood we do have some metrics and they were used to confirm that [[Metrics and activities meetings/Quarterly reviews/Wikipedia Zero/June 2013|"we need some patience"]]. If we need more statistics so desperately as to desire tracking all our visitors, I assume other less dramatic options have been considered as well? For instance, surely the mobile operators need how much traffic they're giving out for free that they would otherwise charge; how hard can it be for them to provide this number? (Of course I know it's not easy to negotiate with them; but we need to consider the alternatives.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 06:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Hi Nemo, |
|||
:::::::I think you are switching your arguments: first you ask why we would need to store unsampled webrequest data. You specifically asked "are there good things that we are not or will not be able to do due to the current policy and what changes are proposed in consequence?". I give you two use cases both being a type of funnel analysis that require unsampled data (the two use cases are btw not an exhaustive list). Then you switch gears by setting up a [[en:Straw Man|Straw man argument]] and saying that we will use it for better targeting of visitors. That's not what I said, if you read my response then I said we want to know when and why people drop out of a funnel. |
|||
:::::::The fact that you quote our half billion users indicates that we need unsampled data: we don't know for sure how many unique visitors we have :) We have to rely on third-party estimates. You see even you know of use-cases for unsampled data :) |
|||
:::::::Regarding Wikipedia Zero: the .zero. domain will soon be deprecated so that will leave us with only the .m. domain so we cannot restrict unsampled storage to .zero. In addition, most Wikipedia Zero carriers do not charge for .m. domains as well. |
|||
:::::::Regarding the Fundraising: I am answering your question and I am sure you know what a donation funnel is; I was not addressing the general public. EventLogging does not store aggregate data but raw unsampled data. |
|||
:::::::I am not sure how I can counter your argument 'This just doesn't work'. |
|||
:::::::[[User:Drdee|Drdee]] ([[User talk:Drdee|talk]]) 19:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I'm sorry that you feel that way, I didn't intend to switch arguments. What does "We want to run the fundraiser as short as possible" mean if not that you want to extract more money out of the banners? That's the argument usually used by the fundraiding team, that the higher the "ROI" is the shorter the campaign will be. If you meant something else I'm sorry, but then could you please explain what you meant? |
|||
::::::::I'm also sorry for my unclear "This just doesn't work"; I meant that in this section I'm asking why the users, with whom we have a contract, should agree to revise it: what do they gain ("what is the purpose")? I still don't see an answer. For instance, knowing for sure how many unique users we have is not a gain for them; it's just the satisfaction of a curiosity the WMF or wikimedians like me can have. |
|||
::::::::As for Zero, I don't understand your reply. Are you saying that yes, other ways to get usage stats were considered but only unsampled tracking works? And that I'm wrong when I assume that operators would know how much traffic they're giving for free? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 14:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
==Not mobile-friendly== |
|||
{{closed|text= |
|||
The "user-friendly summary" is not readable on my mobile because it is in a fixed width box; I can read the rest of the draft policy OK. [[User:PamD|PamD]] ([[User talk:PamD|talk]]) 06:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks Pam, we noticed the same thing yesterday (and while you can read the rest it isn't great on many phones as well) we're talking to some of our mobile team on some good ways to make it work better. [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]] ([[User talk:Jalexander|talk]]) 07:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
Closing, archiving in 24-48 hours. A bunch of changes have been made that should make this better (though more can be done as we go forward and once we're done). [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]]--[[:w:Wikimedia Foundation|WMF]] 22:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== What about hiding the IP addresses of the users? == |
|||
{{closed|text= |
|||
Last time I wrote a program which gathered all the IP addresses of the "recent changes" page and fed them to nmap with one click, that was fun, but not cool. So what about that? Greets--[[Special:Contributions/82.113.121.77|82.113.121.77]] 21:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Vous avez peut-être raison. Est-ce que l'affichage des IPs est vraiment utile ? Ne pourrait-on pas le remplacer par un autre système plus respectueux de nos données personnelles ? On peut de plus se poser la question de la légalité d'un tel affichage public [[Special:Contributions/78.251.243.204|78.251.243.204]] 22:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::<small>Attempt to translate 78.251.243.204 message : « ''You may be right. Is IP adresses' display really useful? Couldn't we replace it by an other system more respectful of our personal data? Moreover, we can ask the issue of the public display's legality.'' » [[User:Jules78120|Jules78120]] ([[User talk:Jules78120|talk]]) 22:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)</small> |
|||
::Was soll der Mist? Du kannst nicht erwarten das jeder französisch spricht. Schreib am besten auf englisch, dann ist wenigstens die change höher das jemand was zurück schreibt. Gruss--[[Special:Contributions/82.113.121.77|82.113.121.77]] 22:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Na ja, ich schreibe einfach in meiner besten Sprache, Sie können aber auch nicht erwarten, dass jeder Englisch spricht (in der Schule habe ich Deutsch gelernt, kein Englisch, tut mir leid!)! Jeder kann vielleicht dennoch, so wie ich, ein Übersetzungsprogramm benutzen, es ist doch nicht so schwer zu finden, oder? Solch ein Programm können Sie einfach auf Internet kostenlos finden... Wir sind ja im ein-und-zwanzigsten Jahrhundert! Und ich lese lieber Ihr gutes Deutsch als Ihr schlechtes Englisch :-) Am besten schreibt jeder in seiner eigenen Sprache, und dann ist Ihr Liebingsübersetzungsprogramm auch Ihr Lieblingsfreund [[Special:Contributions/78.251.243.204|78.251.243.204]] 01:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm opposed to the idea of hiding editors' IP addresses, as they're necessary to identify and expose shills, astroturfers, propagandists and vandals in general. A typical example is the recent case of a member of the US Senate being caught red-handed vandalising the [[w:Edward Snowden|Edward Snowden]] page, [http://mashable.com/2013/08/06/snowden-wikipedia-page changing the description of Snowden] from "dissident" to "traitor". [[User:Slatedorg|Slatedorg]] ([[User talk:Slatedorg|talk]]) 16:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::: It's interesting that you would use Snowden's name in an argument advocating more data collection. Do you genuinely believe that these rare instances of catching a fool who didn't think to create an account outweigh the loss to privacy from mass-scale data collection? [[User:CP\M|CP\M]] ([[User talk:CP\M|talk]]) 17:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::It can hardly be described as "more data collection" if that is in fact the current amount of data that's already collected. I'm merely proposing no change to the existing policy in that regard. And yes, I do think the advantages greatly outweigh the disadvantages, given the number of times such high-profile acts of vandalism have been exposed - something that's very much in the public interest. Moreover, Wikipedia is a public space, not private communications, so I don't see this as any particular threat to anyone ... except the vandals, of course. [[User:Slatedorg|Slatedorg]] ([[User talk:Slatedorg|talk]]) 07:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: Hi All. Thank you for participating in this consultation period. We appreciate questions and comments in all languages. =) I just wanted to let you know that I have passed your questions along to members of our Tech team, who may be able to better address your questions. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 22:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: The attribution of edits by logged-out users to IP addresses, and all the mechanics that go along with that (mechanisms for blocking users, tracking edits etc.) are pretty fundamental to how MediaWiki and most wiki software that allows logged-out user editing works, and how the community responds to edits by those users. So I consider this issue out of scope for a privacy policy discussion; rather, it is a larger technical conversation that should be influenced and guided by community input. A policy change does not magically create a workable alternative. |
|||
: That said, I do agree that this is an area where we can do better -- the incontinent fashion in which wikis treat IP addresses is inconsistent with user expectations. The community recognizes this and has generally created pretty prominent warnings about this software behavior. Further technical improvements in this area range from easy to difficult, and significant payoff could be achieved with some of the easier improvements, so our intent in the near term is to focus on those. |
|||
: For instance, right now it is possible to look for IP addresses of logged-in (!) users by trying to find edits that the user made while being accidentally logged-out. The software could reduce the incidence rate of accidental disclosures by doing a better job at helping users see that they are logged out, and making it possible to log in without leaving the edit page (tricky to do securely unless/until we switch over to HTTPS for all editing, though). Similarly, prompts to create accounts could be tested and optimized for effectiveness.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 06:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:: More importantly, any editor that first tries Wikipedia out as an anonymous editor and then creates an account - ''a path encouraged by Wikipedia policies'' - has, in all likelihood, permanently published his IP address for everyone to see. Come across a bad article you can easily improve, do it, register, keep improving it... gotcha. I tried this myself once and successfully so. |
|||
:: We shouldn't have such easy access to private information. And whether an editor takes a Checkuser request to dig out his IP or merely an attentive user shouldn't depend on the dice roll of which article they started their editing with. This isn't accident or carelessness, we actually hope to recruit editors through allowing them start "anonymously" - and this is what they get slapped with if they do. Warnings just aren't sufficient because most internet users care nothing for their privacy until it bites them. |
|||
:: While, understandably, IP addresses still have to be logged, I've made a minimalistic suggestion on how to reduce this leak [[Talk:Privacy_policy#Still_lacking_IP_privacy_protection.|here]]. In short, run the IP through an encryption function before doing anything else with it. Logging, block checks, signatures, anything that is done, keep doing it, only the value is different. It should allow legacy routines to run with minimal if any changes (as long as old block lists are updated), while decryption to actual IPs can be restricted to sysop+ users. |
|||
:: It's not an overnight change, but, other than the burden of converting legacy tables, it should still lie somewhere on the easy side of the spectrum. [[User:CP\M|CP\M]] ([[User talk:CP\M|talk]]) 08:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
Closing off as stale discussion for now. I think this is a discussion that is going to have to happen outside of the privacy policy discussion with tech, legal and the community if we want to go forward with it. [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]]--[[:w:Wikimedia Foundation|WMF]] 22:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== "Information We Collect" too vague == |
|||
This section is a lot too vague and opens the door for all kinds of intrusive techniques well known from commercial search engines and social networks. Consider item 3: |
|||
* Understand how you use the Wikimedia Sites, so that we know what works and what is useful. For example, we might use tracking pixels in our notifications to make sure that you don’t miss important information from us just because our notification accidentally end up in your spam folder; or we might use cookies to learn about the list of articles you are following on your watchlist so that we can recommend similar articles that you may be interested in. |
|||
If tracking pixels are used to track whether notifications have been viewed, this should be stated explicitely instead of suggesting Wikemedia is going to hijack the users' spam folders. The statement about learning "about the list of articles you are following" sounds like personal profiling. |
|||
In my opinion, usage information should only be stored if this is strictly necessary for a very specific purpose; and, in addition, all information stored should be transparently visible to the users at all times. Using locally stored data that "can be anything" to "make your experience with the Wikimedia Sites safer and better", or to "generally improve our services" is just the opposite. --[[Special:Contributions/109.45.180.100|109.45.180.100]] 04:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Thank you for your comments. I have passed them along to some pertinent members of our tech team who work these tools and may better able to address your concerns. They should be responding shortly. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 20:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Hi Anonymous! |
|||
::Thank you for your thoughtful question. I believe you are asking why is the new Privacy Policy vague regarding the information that will be collected and the technologies used and does this vagueness open us up for abusive practices. |
|||
::The reason for not giving an exhaustive list of technologies or types of information that we want to constrain ourselves by our principles rather than constraining ourselves a-priori either by the technology that we use or the information that we might need. Three out of the four the principles that guide us, as mentioned in the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy new Privacy Policy], relate directly to what type of data we collect and how long we store it. |
|||
::Technology changes so fast and, even though we have an Analytics team, we cannot predict the future in terms of what technologies will be available 2, 3 or 5 years from now, nor do we know what features we will be rolling out by then. But on a high level, we do know that we need to be able to: |
|||
::# measure the impact of our new features, to help guide us in prioritizing what we should continue developing and what should be shelved (e.g., testing whether more users complete an edit using Visual Editor or wikitext) |
|||
::# refine existing features based on whether or not our users are successfully able to take full advantage of their functionality |
|||
::# minimize errors and bugs that may not get surfaced by users directly reporting them to us |
|||
::# ensure that our features are helping more new users become frequent, productive contributors to our projects |
|||
::What you might not be aware of, is that we are already very transparent about the information we collect when assessing the efficacy of a new feature. We use [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:EventLogging EventLogging] to instrument our features. For example, the mobile team created a [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schema:MobileAppUploadAttempts schema] to determine the number of upload attempts using the mobile Commons app, in order to measure whether new educational UI features were helping more people make their first upload. The schema will tell you exactly what information is collected and for what purpose and if you have a question you can interact with the developers through the talk page. |
|||
::Regarding the abusive practices, I am not entirely sure which ones you had specific in mind, there are many :) A huge safeguard that we offer is that we do not allow third-parties to track our users nor do we sell your data, ever, period. Whatever we collect about you cannot be correlated to other sources, and we will keep your data for a limited time. |
|||
::I like your idea regarding making it transparent what information we have stored about an individual user, it’s definitely something we, WMF & the community, should think about. |
|||
::I hope this addresses your concerns. |
|||
::Best regards, |
|||
::(in my role as Product Manager Analytics @ WMF) |
|||
::[[User:Drdee|Drdee]] ([[User talk:Drdee|talk]]) 22:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thank you, Drdee, for the detailed reply and the explanations. Best regards, --[[Special:Contributions/109.45.141.106|109.45.141.106]] 17:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
{{tlx|resolved|Looks resolved for now and stale, archiving in 24-48 hours unless reopened. [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]] ([[User talk:Jalexander|talk]]) 00:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC) }} |
|||
::::Dearchived; I don't see an answer on being more specific about tracking pixels. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 20:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::: I'll poke them to see if we can get a better answer on that piece. [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]] ([[User talk:Jalexander|talk]]) 23:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::If I understand Drdee correctly, the reason for not giving an exhaustive list of types of information is that the WMF doesn't want to constrain itself in using the information it might need. I can understand that the WMF wants that. But what about what the user wants? I don't think you can do whatever you want with personal information. California Constitution gives each citizen the right to obtain privacy. So everyone should be able to decide for themselves if they want their personal information to be used. Privacy is not obtainable if people are not told what personal information is used and for what purpose. I think transparency is a necessity by law. I think the [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=22001-23000&file=22575-22579 Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 - California Business and Professions Code sections 22575-22579] is an implementation of this. And a privacy policy is not enough to inform people. For example, mentioning in the privacy policy how the email address is used is not enough. It should also be mentioned when the email address is retrieved from the user. When a user enters an email address in his user profile, he is not properly informed about the use of this email adress. A privacy policy is a bad way to inform people, because it is after the fact and privacy policies are not flexible. Privacy policies are particularly useful to inform people about the use of personal information when this cannot be told while the information is retrieved from the user. --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 23:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Hi [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]], thanks for raising the issue of tracking pixels. Speaking on behalf of the editor engagement team responsible for the Notifications project (code-named Echo), I am happy to confirm that we are not tracking any invisible pixels in HTML emails sent by our notification tools (unlike other top sites that do this routinely). We considered that option in early stages of this project and ruled it out, due to privacy concerns expressed by community members. We have no intention to use this method in future releases, unless the community asks us for it (please note that we now have very limited data on HTML email usage as a result of this policy). I hope this addresses any concerns you might have about this particular issue, as it relates to notifications. I defer to our legal team to address any other issues not covered by this statement. Regards as ever, [[User:Fabrice Florin (WMF)|Fabrice Florin (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Fabrice Florin (WMF)|talk]]) 00:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: Thanks Fabrice, very good news. Legals, can you then please adjust the wording of the policy to exclude such invasive practices that techies have already ruled out? In addition to tracking pixels, also [[#Collection of "unique device identification numbers"]]; and probably any other information which is able or potentially able to identify/fingerprint a user uniquely. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 15:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Commets, Suggestions and Questions == |
|||
{{closed|text= |
|||
The following view/questions/comments are based on [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Privacy_policy&oldid=5788377 revision 5788377] of the draft. I've used tags to differentiate my comments according to importance: |
|||
*FIXME : Very important. Should really be fixed/changed. |
|||
*SUGGESTION : May be technical/legal/humourous. |
|||
*QUESTION : Stuff that needs clarification (either here or in the draft) |
|||
Feel free to reply between this report (just maintain indentation for the replies, wrong indentation gives me headache in reading).--[[User:Siddhartha Ghai|Siddhartha Ghai]] ([[User talk:Siddhartha Ghai|talk]]) 12:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Siddhartha - thank you for your comments. I look forward to reviewing with the legal team over the next couple of days and getting back to you. Have a good weekend. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 08:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:: Hello {{ping|Siddhartha Ghai}}, thank you for providing such detailed comments. I have responded to some your points below, and reformatted the comments using subheadings so that they can be addressed specifically. Best, [[User:Slaporte (WMF)|Stephen LaPorte (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Slaporte (WMF)|talk]]) 22:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== Summary === |
|||
Text: If you add content or make a change to a Wikimedia Site without logging in, that content or change will be publicly and permanently attributed to your IP address rather than a username. |
|||
SUGGESTION: |
|||
Many users may not have a permanent IP address and hence may find this slightly confusing. How about this: |
|||
If you add content or make a change to a Wikimedia Site without logging in, that content or change will be publicly and permanently attributed to the IP address you were using at the time, rather than a username. |
|||
or simply: |
|||
If you add content or make a change to a Wikimedia Site without logging in, that content or change will be publicly and permanently attributed to the IP address you were using at the time. |
|||
--[[User:Siddhartha Ghai|Siddhartha Ghai]] ([[User talk:Siddhartha Ghai|talk]]) 12:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: Yes, you are correct that unregistered users are attributed via their IP address used at the time, and the attribution will remain the same if a user’s IP address changes. I [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Privacy_policy&diff=5803987&oldid=5803975 updated] the policy based on your suggestion. [[User:Slaporte (WMF)|Stephen LaPorte (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Slaporte (WMF)|talk]]) 22:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== Welcome! === |
|||
Text: |
|||
We do not sell or rent your information, nor do we use it to sell you anything. |
|||
QUESTION: |
|||
This sounds great, but can't this be construed to mean that "your information" (your username) won't be used on any CD/DVD versions of wikipedia. I don't know if the versions are brought out by the WMF itself, or if its through volunteers/chapters/other organisations, but if it's the WMF, the BY of CC-BY-SA would require use of the username (which would take place even if the user states on his/her userpage that he/she releases all contributions under PD.) |
|||
Perhaps clarify on this? |
|||
--[[User:Siddhartha Ghai|Siddhartha Ghai]] ([[User talk:Siddhartha Ghai|talk]]) 12:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: This is a good question. The Wikimedia Foundation is a nonprofit organization, so it does not sell or rent user nonpublic personal information. Usually, if we were to make CD/DVD versions of Wikipedia available, it will be noncommercial and free of charge. You are correct that other organizations may use public Wikipedia data commercially, but under this policy, we will not sell access to our nonpublic data. I [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Privacy_policy&diff=5803975&oldid=5801394 updated] the policy based on your suggestion. [[User:Slaporte (WMF)|Stephen LaPorte (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Slaporte (WMF)|talk]]) 22:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== Account Information and Registration === |
|||
Text: |
|||
However, if you contribute without signing in, your contribution will be publicly attributed to the IP address associated with your device. |
|||
SUGGESTION: |
|||
However, if you contribute without signing in, your contribution will be publicly attributed to the IP address which was associated with your device at the time the contribution was made. |
|||
or |
|||
However, if you contribute without signing in, your contribution will be publicly attributed to the IP address which was associated with your device at the time of making the contribution. |
|||
--[[User:Siddhartha Ghai|Siddhartha Ghai]] ([[User talk:Siddhartha Ghai|talk]]) 12:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: This is updated as well. [[User:Slaporte (WMF)|Stephen LaPorte (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Slaporte (WMF)|talk]]) 22:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== Information We Receive Automatically === |
|||
Text: |
|||
This information includes the type of device you are using (possibly including unique device identification numbers), the type and version of your browser, |
|||
SUGGESTION: |
|||
Shouldn't this be clarified that information about versions of all browsers on the device are sent? I saw a http GET request sent to a wikipedia and its query urls seemed to contain names and version numbers of all the browsers on my computer. |
|||
QUESTION: |
|||
Also, don't the requests specify the timezone? I'm wondering how the time-related magic words function on a per-user basis if they don't know which timezone the user is in. (Or do they treat all IPs as being UTC?) |
|||
--[[User:Siddhartha Ghai|Siddhartha Ghai]] ([[User talk:Siddhartha Ghai|talk]]) 12:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: Wikipedia has a [[WIkipedia:List_of_HTTP_header_fields|list of HTTP header fields]], which is standard data that may be delivered whenever you visit any site on the Internet. This may depend on your browser’s privacy settings, so your browser’s documentation may explain more about what is sent automatically. [[User:Slaporte (WMF)|Stephen LaPorte (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Slaporte (WMF)|talk]]) 22:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== Information We Collect === |
|||
Text: |
|||
Similarly, tracking pixels and JavaScript can be used to help us understand whether a page has been visited, and may be associated with personal information like your IP address. |
|||
QUESTION: |
|||
What other personal information ''like'' IP address may be associated with visited pages? Are usernames associated with visited pages? If yes, how is this information utilized? Is this used only aggregately for a large number of users, or is it possible that individual cases may be analyzed for specific purposes of improving the site? |
|||
Text: |
|||
by using cookies, we can learn about the topics searched so that we can optimize the search results we deliver to you. |
|||
QUESTION: |
|||
Is this applicable for computers (laptop/desktop/ultrabook) or only for mobile devices (smartphones/feature phones/tablets/phablets). Basically what I want to know is whether search results for a logged in user are optimized on the basis of his/her past searches (I think google does something similar). If they are, how is the data for past searches stored, and how is it used? |
|||
Text: |
|||
we might use cookies to learn about the list of articles you are following on your watchlist so that we can recommend similar articles that you may be interested in. |
|||
FIXME |
|||
This seems to suggest (to me atleast) that there is going to be some backend program/software analysing people's watchlist and wikipedia category structure or something to find and recomment related articles. Though I haven't actually seen this feature on wp yet, it sorta gives me the creeps. Any internal program accessing user watchlists means that access to watchlists is more open than I anticipated. It also means that anyone who can find a loophole in the program which does the suggesting, can theoretically view users' watchlist. If what I'm saying about there being a software (current or future) is correct, I'd like to know the level of security surrounding it (what level of encryption is being used, etc). I know it may be difficult to explain the security measures in detail without the security risk of making technical details public (and hence availaible to potential hackers), but any information will be appreciated. |
|||
Text: |
|||
Understand how you use the Wikimedia Sites across different devices, so that we can make our varied Wikimedia Sites more efficient and effective for you. |
|||
QUESTION: |
|||
Again, is this data used in aggregated form or is it possible that it may be used per user for feature improvement? |
|||
--[[User:Siddhartha Ghai|Siddhartha Ghai]] ([[User talk:Siddhartha Ghai|talk]]) 12:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: The term “personal information” is defined in the [[Privacy_policy#A_Little_Background|introduction of the policy]], and the section on "[[Privacy_policy#Information_We_Collect|Information we collect]]" explains how this information is used. Diederik, from the Analytics team, [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Privacy_policy&diff=5790948&oldid=5790835 provided more detail how use this information]. As he explains, the technical details may change from time to time (as technology always does), but the policy includes specific principles and restrictions about how the data may be used. We make a general commitment to keep data as short as necessary (see “[[Privacy_policy#How_Long_Do_We_Keep_Your_Data.3F|How long do we keep your data?]]”). Additionally, the ’’data retention policy’’ -- which will be shared with the community for comment -- includes more detail about the length that data will be retained. [[User:Slaporte (WMF)|Stephen LaPorte (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Slaporte (WMF)|talk]]) 22:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:: {{Ping|Slaporte (WMF)}}: I've looked at Diederik's response, and understand that the WMF doesn't wish to limit itself by technology, but rather by principles. |
|||
:: I can see that providing an exhaustive list in this document wouldn't be possible. I'd recommend that technology-specific stuff be added to a sub-page (like the FAQ, glossary etc.) But I would like the WMF to give a list of the technology usage in the current scenario. This list may be updated from time-to-time as new features are added to the sites. |
|||
:: The questions I asked above are specifically for handling of data in the current technological scenario. And none of those has been answered as far as I can see. So awaiting a response :) --[[User:Siddhartha Ghai|Siddhartha Ghai]] ([[User talk:Siddhartha Ghai|talk]]) 16:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::: I hope this has been helpful so far -- [[User:Drdee]] is more familiar with these specific points, so I will share your questions with him. [[User:Slaporte (WMF)|Stephen LaPorte (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Slaporte (WMF)|talk]]) 01:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Hi Siddhartha Ghai, |
|||
:::: Let me try to answer your three questions: |
|||
:::: 1) do we store usernames associated with page visits? |
|||
:::: 2) are we customizing/optimizing search results based on past searches? |
|||
:::: 3) how do we analyze watchlists? |
|||
:::: I believe your questions refer to current practise (September 2013) so these answers might change over time. |
|||
:::: 1) At this moment, we are not associating usernames with page visits. |
|||
:::: 2) Right now we are not customizing / optimizing search resutls based on past searches. |
|||
:::: 3) Currently we are not analyzing watchlists and this example is probably not the best in this policy as we already could do such an analysis because there is a 'watchlist' table in Mediawiki. |
|||
:::: Hope this answers your questions. |
|||
::::(in my role as Product Manager Analytics @ WMF) [[User:Drdee|Drdee]] ([[User talk:Drdee|talk]]) 20:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== Emails === |
|||
Text: |
|||
so we can pursue the evil wizard who is impersonating us. |
|||
SUGGESTION: |
|||
Sounds too much Harry Potter/Dungeons and Dragons. More Star Wars please :D |
|||
so we can pursue the Sith lord who is impersonating us. |
|||
--[[User:Siddhartha Ghai|Siddhartha Ghai]] ([[User talk:Siddhartha Ghai|talk]]) 12:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: Now that you mention it, Darth Vader's [http://starwars.com/watch/encyclo_only_you_could_be_so_bold.html catch phrase] does [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Be Bold|sound familiar]] ... [[User:Slaporte (WMF)|Stephen LaPorte (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Slaporte (WMF)|talk]]) 01:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== IP Addresses === |
|||
Text: |
|||
Finally, when you visit any of Wikimedia Sites, we automatically receive the IP address of your device (or your proxy server) you are using to access the Internet, |
|||
SUGGESTION: |
|||
Grammatically incorrect maybe? Possibly this: |
|||
Finally, when you visit any of Wikimedia Sites, we automatically receive the IP address of your device (or ''the'' proxy server) you are using to access the Internet, |
|||
Text: |
|||
If you are visiting Wikimedia Sites with your mobile device, we may use your IP address to provide anonymized or aggregated information to service providers regarding the volume of usage in certain areas. |
|||
FIXME |
|||
Who are these "service providers"? The cellphone company whose network the user is using? Also, if the info is either anonymized or aggregated, in case anonymized info is given, how does that really help in determining volume? (This needs fixing.) |
|||
--[[User:Siddhartha Ghai|Siddhartha Ghai]] ([[User talk:Siddhartha Ghai|talk]]) 12:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: Hello {{ping|Siddhartha Ghai}}, yes this refers to cellphone service providers, which is related to [[Foundation:Wikipedia Zero|Wikipedia Zero]] programs. Service providers are interested in evaluating how much these programs are used, and so anonymized data can be totaled to show the volume of traffic to Wikipedia Zero. Best, [[User:Slaporte (WMF)|Stephen LaPorte (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Slaporte (WMF)|talk]]) 01:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== If the Organization is Transferred (Really Unlikely!)''' and '''Changes to This Privacy Policy === |
|||
FIXME: |
|||
In case this apocalypse does happen, I would like that the WMF offer atleast a month's notice, and not only on the mailing list, but highly visibly, possibly using CentralNotice (the thingy used to announce this discussion), and notifications on village pumps (may be coordinated through meta). Also, since any transfer of information would mean the possibility of the data coming under a new privacy policy, I would like that the WMF offer the option of users not accepting the new policy and requesting deletion of their data (this may not be possible for IPs, but should definitely be there for logged in users). And I would like this to be specified in this version and all future versions of the privacy policy. |
|||
--[[User:Siddhartha Ghai|Siddhartha Ghai]] ([[User talk:Siddhartha Ghai|talk]]) 12:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: Based on your suggestion, I [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Privacy_policy&diff=5820688&oldid=5817867 added a 30 day notice period]. We would provide notice via CentralNotice (or another prominent place on the site), as well as via the announcement mailing list. I should emphasize that this is an extremely unlikely possibility: as a nonprofit organization, there are legal limitations on how we could transfer the organization. For example, based on our [[Foundation:Bylaws#ARTICLE_VI_-_ASSETS|bylaws]], our assets are irrevocably dedicated to a charitable purpose. [[User:Slaporte (WMF)|Stephen LaPorte (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Slaporte (WMF)|talk]]) 01:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== To Protect You, Ourselves, and Others === |
|||
Text: |
|||
We may need to share your personal information if we reasonably believe it is necessary to enforce or investigate potential violations of our Terms of Use, this Privacy Policy, or any Foundation or user community-based policies. |
|||
FIXME: |
|||
If I remember correctly, there was some talk some time ago of a majority of users on a wikipedia belonging to a particular nation, with Muslim majority, thinking about implementing policies on wikipedia based on the Shar'ia. Although I really doubt I'll ever have anything to do with the wiki, it is not impossible that certain policies/guidelines on certain wikipedias are culture-specific, and someone from another wikipedia may accidentally end up offending the users and breaking those guidelines. In such cases, I won't like the WMF releasing such a users' information to the wikipedia users, only to have a fatwa issued against the said user. Possible complications in this would include users doing something which is illegal in their country, and other users (either good faith or on a vendetta spree) asking for user information from the WMF in order to file legal complaints against the user. Potential examples: The map of India used on WMF sites, for NPOV purposes, shows Pakistan-occupied Kashmir as part of Pakistan, and Askai Chin as part of China. Both these portions are claimed by India as part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. So anyone using an infobox on an India article and adding coordinates to the infobox is basically adding a map to the article. And the distribution of that map is illegal in India. So such a user can theoretically be prosecuted for aiding/abetting a criminal offence. I wouldn't like the WMF to release users' data to other users on the basis of such a complaint. |
|||
--[[User:Siddhartha Ghai|Siddhartha Ghai]] ([[User talk:Siddhartha Ghai|talk]]) 12:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: We are working to adopt best practices in [https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013 responding to legal orders]. Consistent with our current practices, this policy explains that we are committed to fighting orders that are legally invalid or an abuse of the legal system. We also provide notice to users in advance when possible, to allow a user the opportunity to oppose an improper order and obtain legal counsel. We hope to publish soon a draft document for law enforcement, which will include more detail about our strict procedures for responding to orders. [[User:Slaporte (WMF)|Stephen LaPorte (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Slaporte (WMF)|talk]]) 22:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
closing off most of this area given staleness and answered questions. Will wait to archive the whole section for a bit given new comment below. [[User:Jamesofur|Jamesofur]] ([[User talk:Jamesofur|talk]]) 01:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== How Do We Protect Your Data? === |
|||
FIXME: |
|||
Possibly add what the WMF intends to do in case the security is breached. And possibly also add that once fixed, affected users will be notified of all security breaches. This may be done via email, or publicly, through the blog, CentralNotice/Meta, or something alike. |
|||
--[[User:Siddhartha Ghai|Siddhartha Ghai]] ([[User talk:Siddhartha Ghai|talk]]) 12:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Hello {{ping|Siddhartha Ghai}} This is a good point, which we considered when preparing the draft. We plan to provide reasonable notification when we know of a breach, and we may be required to provide certain types of notifications under [[Wikipedia:Security breach notification laws|security breach notification laws]], regardless of how it is mentioned in the policy. However, if we include it in the policy it may be difficult explain these requirements in an informative and concise manner. For example, would you find this helpful: "We will provide notifications if your data is affected by a security breach, by email if you have provided it or another reasonable manner, as required by applicable law"? Are there other data protection measures that you would like more information about? [[User:Slaporte (WMF)|Stephen LaPorte (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Slaporte (WMF)|talk]]) 23:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Slaporte (WMF)}} Ok, so here's a bunch of questions: |
|||
::#Which state's security breach notification laws would apply, the state where the servers are located, the state where WMF is incorporated (Florida), or the state where it's headquartered(California)? In the last case the relevant law is probably [http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/sen/sb_1351-1400/sb_1386_bill_20020926_chaptered.html sb 1386] (correct me if I'm wrong) |
|||
::#Does the physical server location vary by project? |
|||
::#What about backup servers? Are they in the same state or a different state? |
|||
::As far as explaining the requirements goes, the policy could simply state something along the lines of: "In case your nonpublic data is affected by a security breach, we will provide notifications in accordance with foobar law of the state of baz." with foobar law being linked to the original text of the law and baz being the statename whose law applies. I'd like an explicit naming of the concerned law, so that if a change in the physical location of the servers entails a change in the applicable law, wmf has to notify users (since it has to change the wording of the privacy policy). Also, are there any federal and/or international laws applicable here? If they are, probably mention them too?--[[User:Siddhartha Ghai|Siddhartha Ghai]] ([[User talk:Siddhartha Ghai|talk]]) 02:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Considering the [[October 2013 private data security issue]], this should '''really''' be clarified in here.--[[User:Siddhartha Ghai|Siddhartha Ghai]] ([[User talk:Siddhartha Ghai|talk]]) 12:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Children under the age of 13 == |
|||
I don't think this Privacy Policy adequately provides information on how the Wikimedia Foundation collects information from children under the age of 13 (as required by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act Children's Online Privacy Protection Act]. How does the Foundation receive consent from someone who is not the age of majority (i.e. requiring parental permission before using the Sites)? Will the Foundation permit the usage of the Sites by those under 13 (i.e. some websitse on the Internet don't allow children under 13 using their site because of this law)? What will the Foundation do to ensure the safety of children on Wikimedia Sites (i.e. the disclosure of personal information of a minor or communication taking place on the Site between a child and an adult)? [[Special:Contributions/184.146.126.95|184.146.126.95]] 22:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks 184, just to let you know that the legal team is working on a response to this that should be ready tomorrow (they're doing a writing sprint to answer a bunch of questions). [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]] ([[User talk:Jalexander|talk]]) 01:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Sorry folks. We have been sidetracked on something else and will have a posting shortly. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 10:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Anonymous! Thank you for your questions. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) applies to websites and online services operated for commercial purposes. Those sites often solicit detailed personal information proactively from children for the purpose of marketing products and services for a profit. As a general matter, COPPA does not apply to nonprofit organizations like the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia projects do not proactively market commercial products and services to children - they are sites dedicated to making educational information freely available to everyone. |
|||
:As with all users, including minors (older and younger than 13 years), we do not ask for any basic personal information, like age, name, address, or telephone number. We do not market third-party commercial products or services directly to our users, including minors, or sell their data to others for advertising. Our [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities terms of use] explicitly prohibit anybody from soliciting personal information for an improper purpose from users or minors. |
|||
:While the Wikimedia sites ask for minimal information from users and our terms provide certain protections, we also encourage parents and guardians to work with their children to ensure that children use the sites in an appropriate manner. One way to do this is for parents to collaborate with their children in editing articles so that they can understand the process that their children engage in when they contribute to an article. |
|||
:Hope this helps address your concerns and if it doesn't, please let us know and we'll do our best to clarify. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 17:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::So you don't differentiate between minors and adults. You process the same personal information as for adults, they are also assumed to enter binding agreements and messages about their contract will be sent to them by e-mail or by screen. Correct? --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 19:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Hello Mpaulson, thank you for your response to my question. I have a follow-up response: |
|||
:::When you say "...we also encourage parents and guardians to work with their children to ensure that children use the sites in an appropriate manner", is this said in an official policy somewhere that is easily accessible for concerned parents and/or children to locate on the sites? If so, can you provide a link? I cannot find any context in the Privacy Policy, Terms of Use or similar policies on the Sites. |
|||
:::In addition, what processes on the Sites are available for minors to seek help when they feel uncomfortable or are experiencing harassment without posting on a public location? |
|||
:::Although the Wikimedia Foundation is not a commercial entity, I think that as an organization that provides a knowledge base to persons of all ages, including minors, that the Foundation provides important information to parents and/or children in plain text, readable language about their privacy and other issues mentioned. Yours, [[Special:Contributions/184.146.122.95|184.146.122.95]] 23:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::While WMF might not be technically bound by the provisions that COPPA impose on a commercial site, it would be reasonable to explicitly consider what those provisions are and which of them, if any, WMF decides to adopt for itself. It would also be interesting to hear which WMF will not adopt, and why. [[User:Spectral sequence|Spectral sequence]] ([[User talk:Spectral sequence|talk]]) 08:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== No changes needed == |
|||
I find the argument that changes are needed with regards to the privacy policy unconvincing. The specific modifications that were suggested would deprive Wikipedia from what it is most renowned for: a free Internet. Let me make my case. |
|||
1. The Wikimedia Foundation argues that changes are needed to "update" the privacy policy of 2008. The Wikimedia Foundation is in my eyes the wrong actor to call for these changes to the privacy policy. Such an initiative can only be taken – if it is to be legitimate – by the users of Wikipedia. If those users are not interested in a discussion, or any change to the privacy policy, i.e. if they don't care about it or if only an insignificant number of them cares about it, any change incited by the Wikimedia Foundation is illegitimate for it breaches with the idea that Wikipedia is a user-generated, bottom-up, collaborative project. If changes to the privacy policy would occur, Wikipedia would lose its status as a bottom-up, user-driven project and become one of those same old leadership-projects where some rule over others. |
|||
2. Not only is the wrong actor suggesting these changes (cf 1.). What has been suggested makes little sense. The meaning of the modifications proposed by the Wikimedia Foundation lie in their increase of data-gathering capacity. Recent (NSA; GCHQ) as well as long-term developments (decrease of social and economic human rights since 2001) suggest that the more data is gathered, the more it is used by those in power to control, surveil and repress common people. This has become clear recently as the documents leaked by Ed Snowden are evidence that Orwellian mass-surveillance and control are excessively used against what are considered to be both foreign as well as domestic enemies. This is becoming increasingly clear if we look at developments that are more long-term. Since 2001, the U.S. lead the discourse on "The War on Terror" which has led to what political philosopher Giorgio Agamben calls "The State of Exception". What does he mean? He means that sovereign power is increasingly used in blatant contradiction to ethics, i.e. written and unwritten law. In the field of international conflict, we see that happening in Guantanamo. In the field of personal liberties, we witness a state of exception as well as governments justify the invasion of the private sphere, the exploitation of all sorts of data with "national security interests". It becomes evident that the major westerns states themselves pose a threat to the security of most people. The Wikimedia Foundation's proposal to change privacy policy in a way that requires its users to give more data has to be seen in this context: it aids those who want to surveil and control populations by creating data that is not necessary to collect. If Wikipedia is to remain a symbol of a free internet, where people are not tracked down, surveiled, controled or mapped constantly, the privacy policy cannot be accepted. |
|||
If Wikipedia is to continue to be a symbol for a free internet, for one that makes knowledge accessible and negotiable across the world, if Wikipedia is to embody the single most impressive collective effort of humanity to understand the world, it cannot chose a path that leads us towards an old principle of leadership that has caused too much trouble already, and it cannot lead us astray from humanity's everlasting task of emancipation: |
|||
that we become more fully human, more fully free, and less controlled, less surveilled and less mapped. {{unsigned|78.53.120.152|11:25, 7 September 2013}} |
|||
:Why "should" we apply a heavily Schmittian basic design? Derrida, for example, developed a quite coherent alternative route, in ''The Beast and the Sovereign'', in tackling the same issue and is heavily at odds with Agamben (granted: Derrida directly addresses Homo Sacer and not the later stages of camp logic developments spelled out by the Italian). Regards, --[[User:Jan eissfeldt|Jan eissfeldt]] ([[User talk:Jan eissfeldt|talk]]) 16:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::"We." (sic), 78.53.120.152? Hmm, [[User:Jan eissfeldt|Jan eissfeldt]], I suspect that the moral of this diatribe is that one should never put all one's signifiers in one basket lest they turn one's cortex into an omelette. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 00:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Perhaps, but I think you are right this section should be put to rest for the time being based on the insufficient state of the argument the IP outlined. Best, --[[User:Jan eissfeldt|Jan eissfeldt]] ([[User talk:Jan eissfeldt|talk]]) 11:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::I've only just now read ''Homo sacer'', but I seriously doubt it's "heavily Schmittian"; it ''sounds'' like Schmitt but mainly is a bridge between Arendt and Foucault, I suspect one could say? Anyway, the point of the IP is obviously that the nuda vita/zoḗ needs not further exposure, simplistically said; we may be bored by the argument but at least it was brought up in a more original way than usual ;-) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 21:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Addition to the user-friendly summary == |
|||
I believe that it has to be clear in the user-friendly summary that "Wikimedia will give any user-related data if it receives a sub-poena from the authorities" (or a slightly longer text giving a more accurate description). --[[User:FocalPoint|FocalPoint]] ([[User talk:FocalPoint|talk]]) 15:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:I see what you mean. How about something like this as a rough idea: |
|||
::''We may disclose information for different purposes, such as compliance with valid legal demands; protection of you, WMF, or others; or inclusion of service providers who help run or improve Wikimedia Sites.'' |
|||
:I may want to wordsmith and reduce a bit more, but this is the basic idea. Interested in your thoughts. Thanks. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 16:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Actually, if the aim is to simplify the explanation, I'd suggest that it would be desirable to elaborate a little more as your rewrite is still tending towards being overly abstract. At least qualify "valid legal demands" with a couple of instances, i.e. subpoena from the authorities (what constitutes an 'authority'? US local laws? US federal laws? Laws you need to be aware of in your own country if you live outside of the US?). It still smacks of legalese vagueness which, I gather, is what you're trying to avoid. Cheers! --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 01:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
I fully understand that the text has to have legal terms in order to embrace all circumstances, but I agree with Iryna Harpy: Give a couple of examples: |
|||
''We may disclose information for different purposes, such as compliance with valid legal demands '''(i.e. subpoena from US authorities)'''; protection of you, WMF, or others; or inclusion of service providers who help run or improve Wikimedia Sites.'' |
|||
::::Thanks for the proposal. One thought ... We don't comply with all subpoenas from U.S. authorities. Indeed, we will push back aggressively if we find the subpoena too broad, not legally compliant with U.S. warrant laws, or issued from the wrong authority within the U.S. How about something like this: "such as compliance with valid legal demands (such as enforceable civil or criminal U.S. subpoenas) . . . . "? My only possible reservation about providing examples is that it makes the bullet point a bit too long for the user-friendly summary. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 10:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I do note that the user friendly summary does link directly to the provision on subpoenas, so maybe not so much detail is necessary in that summary ("Only sharing your information in limited circumstances, such as . . . to [[Privacy_policy#For_Legal_Reasons|comply with the law]] . . . ."). [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 21:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
==Yes we sell== |
|||
"We do not sell or rent your information, nor do we use it to sell you anything." Is not fully in accord with current practice. The most expensive things I've bought through this site have been registrations at Wikimania, but we should be careful to talk to merchandising as well. One of these years I'm hoping to be able to buy some Wikimedia calenders or flip flops that leave a trail of "citation needed" down the beach. It would be a shame if this privacy policy were to be seen as precluding this. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 16:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:WereSpielChequers - I'm really happy to be hearing your voice here; your ideas are always so constructive. With respect to your present comment, I think I need a little more clarity here from you. Now, a separate privacy policy applies to our Wikimedia Store (as made clear in the draft policy), so merchandizing from the store is not at issue. We say this in the Introduction of the proposed draft: ''"This Privacy Policy does not cover some situations where we may gather or process information. For example, some uses may be covered by separate privacy policies (like those of the Wikimedia Shop or sites or services run by third parties, such as third-party developer projects on Wikimedia Labs)."'' We would happily sell you the calendars and flip-flops under the Store's privacy policy, but we would not use your registration information on Wikipedia to market it to you. :) I don't know of any examples where we take user information obtained through registration on the projects to actively sell Wikimedia registrations or other products or services, but I may not have full knowledge here. If you or others have known examples, I would be interested in them. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 16:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::The WMF run a CentralNotice campaign on en.wiki to promote the shop, IIRC targeted to registered users (possibly with some editing activity requirements), as well as some talk page promotion if I'm not mistaken. With some stretching, that could possibly be considered "targeted advertising" (even if at loss...). It's quite far fetched though! --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 17:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Hi Geoff and Nemo and thanks for the welcome, I don't think anyone would object at the "wikimedia" things that we try and sell on Wikimedia sites, so to some extent I am being pedantic. But I'm pretty sure that what we are considering would be technically breached by some current practices. Having a separate policy for the shop does reduce the practical issues - they need to process financial transactions. But I would suggest we drop the words "nor do we use it to sell you anything". [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 17:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Well, I think that here is necessary more clarity about what kind of information collects WMF for what kind of user, what WMF do with it, and if WMF could communicate to you in different way according to your user status. You should create a section for each kind of user as the follow: |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
| |
|||
'''If you are a visitor:''' |
|||
Basically here you can put the Information ''We Collect'' section. And you have to warn about if the user shares an IP direction, a box telling him that has a new message could appear (see anonymous contributor) |
|||
| |
|||
'''If you are a anonymous contributor:''' |
|||
You explain that, in addition to information collected as visitor, the anonymous contributions will be assigned to the IP. Editors could leave a message for IP contributors associated with an IP. |
|||
| |
|||
'''If you are a registered user:''' |
|||
In addition to information collected as visitor, you will be identified with your user name. Registered users have talk pages to communicate among them. E-mail could be solicited but not is not necessary to provide it. Because you are a registered user WMF assumes that you are interested in Wikimedia projects and WMF or administrator could you send a message or focuses some communications to registered users, and to do this we use your data. And…so on. |
|||
| |
|||
'''If you are a user with privileges''': (''call them as you please'') |
|||
I do not know exactly if exist a significative difference with simple registered users, but administrators have different forms to communicate, and in some cases they send or request information in name of WMF (OTRS). Is necessary to clarify the scope of the data of the users with privileges. |
|||
| |
|||
'''If you are a donor:''' |
|||
WMF is a non profit organization that is sustained with voluntary contributions. You can donate to WMF, but data required for donation is managed under the [https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donor_policy/en donor policy], and privacy policy of third parties involved in the process of donation, if any. |
|||
| |
|||
|} |
|||
Text above is only a stub, but I think more structured document can be helpful.--[[User:SirWalter|SirWalter]] ([[User talk:SirWalter|talk]]) 20:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for these thoughts and ideas. I want to monitor the community discussion on this and think about it some. Quite helpful. Appreciated. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 06:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::I like the text and outline you provided [[User:SirWalter|SirWalter]]. While I have perceived the information collected as outlined by your stub in the anonymous contributor and registered user from previous discussions and pages, I hadn't thought of the donor category to which I could be part of as I contributed last time it was out as a banner. [[User:Koi Sekirei|Koi Sekirei]] ([[User talk:Koi Sekirei|talk]]) 18:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
==Personal information== |
|||
The section: |
|||
Information you provide us or information we collect from you that could be used to personally identify you. |
|||
To be clear, while we do not necessarily collect all of the following types of information, we consider the |
|||
following to be personal information if it can be used to identify you: |
|||
your real name, date of birth, gender, sexual orientation, racial or ethnic origins, medical conditions or disabilities; |
|||
address, phone number, email address, password, identification number on government-issued ID, IP address, credit card number; |
|||
political affiliation, religion; and |
|||
Conflates two very different issues, data that could be used to identify people, and data that most people would consider should be kept private - "sensitive" data in European parlance. I suggest that this needs rethinking and separating out. We also need to differentiate between information disclosed, disclosed and redacted, imputed or alleged. The community has longstanding policies that impinge on this, and people have been banned for breaches of it. I would suggest that you need a section on information that could be used to identify, and that section needs to also include info on school or place of work. We also need to link to our child protection policies here, we allow adults to supply contact information but for obvious reasons oversight it when supplied by children. For example a University Professor is very welcome to link their userpage to the academic bio and vice versa, but we would not allow a minor to do that. |
|||
The section on "sensitive" data needs to say something along the lines of: |
|||
We understand that certain types of data can be more "personal" than others. We will only connect these types of data and store that |
|||
with a link to identifiable people when we have a clear and pressing need, such as to supply appropriate food at an event. Where |
|||
practical we will anonymise this data. |
|||
[[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 17:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi WereSpielChequers! Thank you for this thoughtful suggestion. We are familiar with the distinction between regular PII and "sensitive" information in EU parlance, but drafted the way we did mostly because we consider both categories of information to be "personal information" if it can be used to identify you and therefore subject to greater protections under this privacy policy draft. However, your suggestion is an interesting one. We will mull over how separating these categories of information could impact the draft in the next couple of days and get back to you, probably on Wednesday. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 00:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Hi, Mpaulson, Wednesday which week? [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 12:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Hi WereSpielChequers. Please accept my sincere apologies. I didn't realize that this didn't get answered in accordance with the timeline that I had set forth. We've worked out a possible solution to address this issue in the policy draft that LVilla has come up with and will explain shortly. Again, sorry for the delay! [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 18:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: Sorry about that, WereSpielChequers! Like Michelle said, I think your question is thoughtful and useful; it took us a bit to think through it. Two parts to this answer: |
|||
:: First, after some thought, I don't think it is necessary to actually split out sensitive and personal information into different definitions. I think we can achieve the same effect more efficiently and clearly by making the following changes ('''emphasized''') to the definition of "personal information": |
|||
::: Personal information: Information you provide us or information |
|||
::: we collect from you that could be used to personally identify |
|||
::: you, '''or that may be sensitive when it is tied to personally''' |
|||
::: '''identifying information'''. To be clear, while we do not |
|||
::: necessarily collect all of the following types of information, |
|||
::: we consider the following to be personal information if it can |
|||
::: be used to identify you '''or is otherwise tied to your personal''' |
|||
::: '''identity''': |
|||
::: ... |
|||
::: '''Information like political affiliation or racial information''' |
|||
::: '''(sometimes called "sensitive information") is not personal |
|||
::: '''information when it has been anonymized or aggregated so''' |
|||
::: '''that it cannot be tied back to you.''' |
|||
:: I think once these changes are made no changes are necessary to the rest of the policy, since (without using the term) it already requires aggregating or anonymizing sensitive data in "To Understand and Experiment" and "How Long Do We Keep Your Data". Please let us know what you think. |
|||
:: On the other issues (about conflicting with other policies): we do not intend for this to prevent other policies (created by either the community or the Foundation) that are more protective than what is laid out here. This only lays out the ''minimum'' level of protection. For example, if communities wish to be more aggressive in oversighting certain types of sensitive material, this policy should not prohibit that. If there are specific community policies that you think actually would conflict with this policy, then please bring them to our attention and we will try to understand the conflict and make any necessary changes. |
|||
::Thanks again for this useful comment! -[[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 22:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks LVilla, I think that works, the scenario that I'm assuming will be most common will include things like people disclosing health and or religious info. We have had a few incidents of people disclosing health info and subsequently identifying themselves publicly. We've even had incidents where the community has required that people disclose a former account when doing so linked sensitive data to identifying data. Do you think this covers that? My preference would be that we adopt a rule that where people have multiple accounts and linking them would result in linking identifying data with sensitive data we specify that arbcom or similar bodies can require that individuals retire one or more accounts, and even that individuals can be forced to choose between not standing for positions of trust within the community and disclosing recent accounts that would link personal and sensitive data, but not that editors be required to disclose accounts that they've long discontinued. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 20:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Clarification with OTRS an upload of material with license issues == |
|||
There is one area where identity and personal data is essential. It is imposible to give anonymous license permission if the identity cannot be verified. For example if an artist gives permission for his work to published/used in the commons, or his descendants. It is not posible to upload files in the commons without registering. Some explicit clarification would be usefull.[[Special:Contributions/212.61.237.163|212.61.237.163]] 09:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Anonymous! That's a great point. We will add clarifying language to the registration section accordingly. Thank you so much! [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 00:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Still lacking IP privacy protection. == |
|||
I hoped that eventually Wikimedia would think of some way to keep user IP addresses private. Yes, they can register an account - but there's a high chance that one would accidentally make an edit while logged out. And it's very easy for that edit to reveal the editor's username. |
|||
Publicly displaying user IP addresses isn't necessary. There are other ways to accomplish what this mechanic does: for instance, the IP addresses of editing users could be replaced by a random ID assigned to each address. Same end result, but then actual IPs remain visible to admins only, for the rest it's just an ID. There is nothing at all a regular user would need to know another's IP for. |
|||
I don't know if it's difficult to do, but for any update to privacy policy, I would consider that change essential. |
|||
Not much has been improved in terms of actual privacy, so it's just more detail on the same thing. I guess there's no harm, but neither is there a gain. |
|||
[[User:CP\M|CP\M]] ([[User talk:CP\M|talk]]) 21:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:It appears to be doable from a technical perspective - the question is how desirable. I personally agree that a discussion of removing IP addresses from display from at least some folks. While it is not a worry for me personally, I have argued about privacy, outings, drones, the NSA, and other topics enough to at least respect that it is a serious concern for a growing population of people - rightly or wrongly is not necessarily applicable here. If this is about assuring people and alleviating fears - a philosophical debate about online privacy in this specific regard may be moot. I think there would obviously need to be some users with certain rights that could see that information for blocking, usercheck, etc. reasons. However, there is already an assumption that those people are trusted with some sensitive data. There are some obvious problems regarding how to handle vandalism detection - functions not just limited to certain groups. Perhaps consider with just removing it from display to readers and anon contributors? Regular users would continue to see them. I recognize that has flaws from a privacy view as well, but is a start and probably an easier "sell" to folks doing vandalism work. --[[User:Varnent|Varnent]] ([[User talk:Varnent|talk]])<sup>([[User:Varnent#Conflict of Interest (COI) Disclosure|COI]])</sup> 22:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:: I don't really see what viewing someone's IP address accomplishes, for a regular editor. So I know the vandal used 225.122.52.16. What now? I'm certainly not going to seek out his ISP and pursue legal action, not that I even have any grounds for it. We just don't have any use for the actual IP. |
|||
:: The only value it offers is spotting another edit by 225.122.52.16. But this exact utility is completely reproducible by any other form of unique ID. Just salt and hash the address to produce a unique ID for any editing IP. |
|||
:: For instance, 225.122.52.16 would transform to XC12-KT75. It's easier to remember, covers the whole range, and it would hide user IP from anyone below sysop. [[User:CP\M|CP\M]] ([[User talk:CP\M|talk]]) 00:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Tout à fait d'accord avec CP\M. Et même les administrateurs n'ont pas besoin de connaître l'adresse IP. Ils peuvent bloquer XC12-KT75, et c'est le programme derrière qui se débrouille pour que 225.122.52.16 soit bloqué. Ca ne me parait pas très difficile à mettre en oeuvre, techniquement [[Special:Contributions/85.170.120.230|85.170.120.230]] 02:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::: By posting from an IP, you partially make my point. Wikimedia has massive protections for registered editors' private data and IP addresses specifically. As easily seen from [[CheckUser policy]], only a handful of people can see them, and only for 3 months. This is quite enough. '''But all this protection is in vain if the user ever makes a single edit without logging in that can be traced to his username'''. Many users do. |
|||
:::: I actually had to destroy my whole userpage once - mark it for deletion - because I accidentally made an IP edit to it. That's all it takes. And I'm very careful in these matters, which is the only reason I ever noticed. Most people wouldn't, and someone who puts the effort into getting their IP is quite likely to succeed. Over the thousands of edits and years of activity as a Wikipedia editor, it's not unusual to slip once, and just once is enough. |
|||
:::: When I was a mediator, it led me into some very heated disputes, where my position became that of a heatsink. No, I never feared for anything in regard to it, but there are some people online who can get uncomfortable. The pressure of having your account potentially easily connectable to IP and thus real name and address is a factor. |
|||
:::: WMF tries to keep that from happening - but the public display of editing IP addresses is one very fragile weak link in this otherwise secure system. Sysops have reasons to see editor addresses - to distinguish proxies, public access points, dynamic IPs, manage IP range bans. For the rest of us it only serves as a unique ID, which purpose can be - and elsewhere usually is - served by a more secure randomized identifier or hash code. |
|||
:::: Sorry if I'm repeating anything. But I feel that, if we're bringing up the privacy policy, this should be addressed. [[User:CP\M|CP\M]] ([[User talk:CP\M|talk]]) 10:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::: I totally agree that this needs a rethink, and I've felt this way since forever. But it's not completely trivial to fix. Life would be a lot simpler if every IP address were unique as the progenitors of IPv6 fondly hoped. With a shared address, even if opaque behind a nonce, anyone sharing that nonce can spill the beans about physical location. Even behind a DSL line with a fixed IP, there can multiple users oblivious to each other (or not). Are these user agents sharing the same IP actually different people, or a sock-puppet pretending to have more children than Old Mother Hubbard? Actual IP addresses are somewhat resistant to this kind of game. Replacing the IP addresses with nonces might do harm by creating a false perception that these are necessarily less revealing (they aren't in many cases). The problem in my mind is that we let anonymous users escape from session management (logging in/out). Session management is normally tied to a fixed account, but doesn't need to be. Users could formally log in as an anonymous user to their current IP address and potentially have user preferences for the duration of that session (until they formally log out, or are logged out automatically on elapsed time). IP address pseudo-accounts (IPAPA) would not have persistent user preferences across sessions. A cookie might implement this, but that's a different story. Perhaps it should be a formal requirement on all editors to at least log at least transiently into their anonymous IPAPA. To prevent people with real accounts from logging into such an account by mistake, the IPAPA might require typing in the last decimal octet of the IP as a makeshift password. There might be a communication problem convincing faint-livered anonymous editors that they remain anonymous despite logging in under an IPIPA. Some faint-livered editors might blanch and give up. So it goes. I don't think it's possible to be strong on privacy without having to confront communication issues straight up. If it is also the case that for the most extreme anonymous editor Wikipedia is not even willing to store a cookie on the user agent (potentially identifying that the user agent was used to make an edit on Wikipedia) then you could simply require the user type the IP octet password for every edit. The "private window" feature of most user agents will burn such a cookie anyway (or so I wish to believe). In the rare case where a concerned user isn't willing or able to cover their tracks with a private window (or by manually erasing history and cookies) and they also don't want a cookie (which is technically insane if they allow their user agent's URL history to persist) IMO it's really not too much to ask them to type a last octet confirmation code with each edit. It's really not acceptable to expose long term editors with a proper account to the constant hazard of slipping up just once, if they have worked diligently to protect their identity. What such a person will '''never''' do is type the last three digits of their IP address as a confirmation code when making an edit. I think it's crazy that any identifier associated with a user is permanently displayed with no vetting process that isn't tied to what actually gets displayed (as passwords tie to user identity, or a last octet confirmation code would tie to the IP address). It can't be streamlined in '''any''' case to just slapping the enter key one more time. The hurdle needs to be consciously unique, so that in no case is it ever unconsciously or unwittingly crossed. In conclusion, '''I oppose the false obscurity of noncing the IP address displayed'''. Far more strongly, I think it's '''insane and unconscionable''' to permanently blow the cover of a conscientious editor by constant exposure to a trivial mishap in the first inattentive moment. That's my input FWIW. I doubt I'll return to engage in further debate. [[User:MaxEnt|MaxEnt]] ([[User talk:MaxEnt|talk]]) 12:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: While the proposed IPAPA does seem an interesting and useful mechanic, I would consider it part of a more serious debate and longer-term planning, since it's a more significant change. As for a confirmation code, it's on the other hand much more realistic than my suggestion. It doesn't, however, completely address the issue. For instance, if an editor begins as an anonymous contributor and then registers an account, it can be very trivial to connect their IP contributions to their account. They start a discussion as an IP, later reply from their account? You got them. ''Free checkuser for everyone'', just takes a little data mining. |
|||
:::::: While it's possible for a nonce or hash code to be traced to an IP regardless, I would consider it a very small concern. It's a factor for shared addresses, which for that very reason are decoupled from their physical user. And then, of course, there is the possibility of rogue admins. But, by an large, just this small layer of encryption before revealing IP addresses to the whole world would still significantly cut down on the overall negative impact on privacy that Wikimedia's IP collection has. [[User:CP\M|CP\M]] ([[User talk:CP\M|talk]]) 17:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Hmm. Do you really trust that no database dumps were made in the period between you making IP edits, and the deletions of your userpage (the later time which could of course be obtained from the deletion logs)? And do you trust that there are no Wikipedia admins among the 14 hundred on enwiki alone who would view the deleted page? |
|||
::::::For that modicum of false privacy, it's worth breaking the CIDR range searches that let any bloke in the street easily detect vandalism from IP users run amok? I don't think so. To protect against the particular problem you appear to have encountered, there is a very, very, very simple solution. Just use a different skin on your account from the default one (OK, doesn't always work if you're steamed while editing). And if the Wikimedia foundation was actually interested in protecting user privacy? Well, they'd just ban editing from IP addresses- particularly from IPv6 addresses that expose all sorts of uniquely identifying information to the world. [[User:John Nevard|John Nevard]] ([[User talk:John Nevard|talk]]) 14:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: I'm OK with 1.5 thousand sysops being able to find out my IP address. I'm not OK with 1.5 billion internet users having the same access. |
|||
::::::: Yes, I believe that this magnitude of user privacy improvement is well worth restricting some of the more advanced anti-vandalism tools - far from anything a casual editor ever uses - to a narrower subset than "everyone in the world". |
|||
::::::: Your comment does raise another good point: the information gathered through range searches can be displayed without disclosing the exact IP. That can be used to further improve privacy by avoiding IP display even to admins or it can be used to keep the few IP-related anti-vandalism tools currently employed available to their current users. Flagging attention-requiring IDs, subnet match checks on two specific IDs, whatever is needed, all can be handled while limiting public data exposure. |
|||
::::::: It is ''the norm'' in the internet for user IPs to be only visible to website administrators and staff. Even when you post anonymously, IPs don't get published. Mediawiki's current situation is a jarring exception. Especially with the upcoming shift to IPv6 - which, like you state correctly, represents a grave privacy concern - it will, sooner or later, have to change. |
|||
::::::: Completely disabling editing from IPs has been proposed and rejected, because we want to welcome more editors into our community. But paying them back with making their IP and potentially identity public for eternity for accepting this welcome is worse. This is a double standard, first we tell them registration is optional, feel free to edit, then they discover the staggering price. |
|||
::::::: IP encryption is a compromise that's straightforward, compatible with legacy routines and practices, and can significantly improve on this weak link without compromising usability. [[User:CP\M|CP\M]] ([[User talk:CP\M|talk]]) 20:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Yeah, we've all heard 'welcome users into the community' as a reason for anonymous and presumed-not-guilty editing from IP addresses before, and it's still nonsense, just like the idea of welcoming users into the community by giving them a confusing sub-Netscape Composer editor that screws up formatting even if you make the effort to use it right. While it is the norm for user IPs to only be visible to website admins where anonymous contributions are allowed, it is also the norm for such effectively anonymous contributions to be rubbish. |
|||
::::::::Even apart from the fact that it breaks useful anti-vandalism methods that are available to anyone who wants to contribute to the quest to stem the tide of anonymous vandalism and advocacy on Wikipedia, this is just a terrible idea. There is absolutely no forward anonymity.. there only has to be one disclosure, which would inevitably happen if such an idea was adopted, and a rainbow table for every single cloaked IP could be generated in a minute or two. In the time between the adoption of such a policy and the disclosure, non-registered users would have been editing under the utterly false perception that they were not revealing their identity to anyone, forever. [[User:John Nevard|John Nevard]] ([[User talk:John Nevard|talk]]) 22:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: Rainbow tables have been relevant a very long time ago and to standard hashing only. They have never been relevant to encrypted storage, they have never been relevant to salted inputs, and even in the few applications where they used to be relevant, OpenCL processing is outright faster than reading a rainbow table from a drive. |
|||
::::::::: As for the the methods, their labeling as "useful" is highly contestable. 99% of the time they're perfectly useless and the other 1% they're only useful for the small handful of editors that actually knows what to do with this information, how, what to make of it, and has the dedication to put the effort in. Most of them are either already admins or could easily become, at least, members of a group that would have that specific access. |
|||
::::::::: Your agenda is pretty clearly to disallow unregistered editing altogether. And it's been said a lot of times that this isn't on the table. Compromises may be available, on the other hand. [[User:CP\M|CP\M]] ([[User talk:CP\M|talk]]) 06:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::So basically, you admit that a) generating rainbow tables for every possible IP address+salt combination, once the hash was known, or b) searching through every possible IP address+salt combination once the hash was known is trivial. Actually, my only agenda is improving Wikipedia. Clearly, you seem to think that something else is more important than that. [[Special:Contributions/125.237.153.167|125.237.153.167]] 17:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Hi All! Thank you for this valuable input. I just wanted to let you know that I will be passing these thoughts and concerns on to relevant members of our tech department and they will respond to this thread directly within a few days. Thank you for patience and for participating in this process. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 17:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Considering there's a finite number of IP addresses I'm not sure how we could more than superficially hide IP addresses from the UI. Anyone with a computer and willingness to do so would be able to create a list mapping IP addresses to our new obfuscated forms. [[User:^demon|^demon]] ([[User talk:^demon|talk]]) 05:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: In the simplest implementation, a textbook cryptographic function where (Data+Salt)*Key->EncryptedData. To make a map, one would have to either crack the encryption, obtain the (private) Key, or actually edit Wikipedia from every IP address minus one; there's no other way to learn what a given address would resolve to. Either is more difficult than other ways of getting access (rogue admin). |
|||
: This is far from perfect, but it's secure from the described attack. I can think of more secure schemes as well, where the displayed IDs would differ per article, but a match between them could be checked without resolving the actual IP. User-level check even, just enough to prevent data mining. Implementation shouldn't be a problem, there are well-developed cryptographic methods for just about anything one might want. [[User:CP\M|CP\M]] ([[User talk:CP\M|talk]]) 06:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:: Yeah you're right, it's doable (it was late and I hadn't completely thought through my comments). Indeed if we salted the IP first that would probably be sufficient. My initial fear was something far more straightforward--without a salt or key then it'd be completely possible to generate such a list (since the code to do so would be part of MediaWiki and therefore public). [[User:^demon|^demon]] ([[User talk:^demon|talk]]) 15:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Information We Collect: proposed disclosure is misleadingly incomplete. == |
|||
Paragraph 1 of Information We Collect: |
|||
:"We actively collect some types of information with a variety of commonly used technologies. These may include tracking pixels, JavaScript, and a variety of “locally stored data” technologies, such as cookies and local storage. We realize that a couple of these terms do not have the best reputation in town and can be used for less-than-noble purposes. So we want to be as clear as we can about why we use these methods and the type of information we use them to collect." |
|||
I strongly object to this policy as proposed. Clear about what is collected? Not yet! No mention of screen / window resolution, plugin versions, fonts available, or lots more. Let's not set a bad example and be deceitful about what we collect and justify it (to ourselves) as necessary for security reasons. |
|||
Is it appropriate for users to edit the draft directly at this time? Is the last sentence even a sentence? The draft sure seems to be an early draft, and it's not edit-protected. I could swap in something like this: |
|||
:(Newer suggestion below.)<s>"We actively collect some types of information with a variety of commonly used technologies. These generally include [[WP:tracking pixels]], JavaScript, cookies, and a variety of other “locally stored data” technologies, such [[WP:local storage]], and may include collected information regarding screen / window resolution, plugin versions, fonts available and more. We realize that a couple of these technologies have poor reputations and can be used for less-than-noble purposes. Therefore, we want to be as clear as we can about why we use these methods and the type of information we collect using them."</s> |
|||
--[[User:Elvey|Elvey]] ([[User talk:Elvey|talk]]) 22:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Hi Elvey, thanks for your comments. We are going to check with Tech on this and get back to you. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 03:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Dear Elvey, |
|||
:::Thank you for raising this issue. I believe you are asking why we have not included a comprehensive list of the information we are collecting or may collect in the future and you mention a couple of examples including: screen / window resolution, plugin versions and fonts available. |
|||
:::My first response would be that we are already transparent about the information we collect when assessing the efficacy of a new feature. I believe that a better place to disclose that information is not within the Privacy Policy, because it’s a policy which stipulates our principles and guidelines. Those principles and guidelines are embodied when we actually run experiments and collect data. For example, currently we use [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:EventLogging EventLogging] to instrument our features. The mobile team created a schema to determine the number of upload attempts using the mobile Commons app, in order to measure whether new educational UI features were helping more people make their first upload. The [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schema:MobileAppUploadAttempts schema] will tell you exactly what information is collected and for what purpose and if you have a question you can interact with the developers through the talk page. |
|||
:::My second response is that it seems that you are alluding to the practice of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_sniffing browser sniffing] to uniquely identify a reader by collecting as much information about the browser as possible including plugins and fonts. The EFF has a website called [https://panopticlick.eff.org/ panopticlick] that shows you how unique your browser is based on this technique. |
|||
:::This technique can be used to keep tracking people even when they clear their cookies after each session. Suffice to say, we will never employ this technique because it would violate our principle of collecting as little data as possible. |
|||
:::You are right that you could edit the new Privacy Policy but it would complicate the discussion significantly as we would not refer to the same draft anymore. The Legal Team will make changes in response to feedback from the community after the discussion regarding such change has been fleshed out and they are also trying to track changes internally, both things that would not work very well if everyone was editing the draft. |
|||
:::I hope this addresses your concerns but please feel free to add a follow-up question. |
|||
:::Best regards, |
|||
:::(in my role as Product Manager Analytics @ WMF) |
|||
:::[[User:Drdee|Drdee]] ([[User talk:Drdee|talk]]) 21:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::''NOTE: what follows is a back and forth with Elvey and Drdee; indentation indicates who said what.'' |
|||
::::Thanks so much, for a thorough response! |
|||
::::I'm pleased to see that we 'are already transparent about the information we collect when assessing the efficacy of a new feature,' as your example shows. On the other hand, indeed, I strongly object to this policy as proposed, because I don't see that we 'are already transparent about the information we collect,' ''in general,'' yet. The place to disclose the latter is within the Privacy Policy, IMO. |
|||
:::::I believe we are transparent about the information we collect: we clearly identify different types of information that we collect and for what purpose. |
|||
::::Re. your second response: Indeed, that is what concerns me. We disagree; I do ''not'' see browser sniffing as ''necessarily'' incompatible with the principle of collecting as little data as is consistent with maintenance, understanding, and improvement of the Wikimedia Sites; I can think of cases where it would aid security. However, I would be happy to see language in the policy that made it clear(er) that browser sniffing is incompatible with policy. What language do you suggest we add to do so, if you are amenable? How 'bout we swap in something like this?: |
|||
::::''"We actively collect some types of information with a variety of commonly used technologies. These generally include [[EN:tracking pixels]], JavaScript, cookies, and a variety of other “locally stored data” technologies, such [[W:local storage]], and may include collected information regarding screen / window resolution. We realize that a couple of these technologies have poor reputations and can be used for less-than-noble purposes. Therefore, we want to be as clear as we can about why we use these methods and the type of information we collect using them. Extensive browser sniffing is incompatible with this policy; we will not collect plugin versions, fonts available, HTTP_ACCEPT headers, or color depth information."'' |
|||
:::::I cannot imagine how browser sniffing would ever be compatible with this Privacy Policy (see also my follow-up comment). |
|||
::::::Umm, you don't have to imagine. I've already said I can think of cases where browser sniffing would aid security. So unless I'm imagining those cases (and I'm confident that they're not imaginary), does that not mean that the policy allows browser sniffing because it allows collection to aid security, which is part of maintenance. If not, why not? |
|||
::::Any objections to s/seek to put requirements/put requirements/g ? I see no reason to be so wishy-washy. If there are to be exceptions, I feel the policy must state that any such exceptions will be specified, say, in the noted FAQ section. [Update: I see this is discussed already at [[#Seek_or_find.3F]] We already have the non-wishy-washy, "We will never use third-party cookies," so I see this ''seek to'' crud as unjustifiable.] |
|||
:::::We are looking into this to see if it's feasible but it will require a bit of thought and we also look if we should do it in combination with the Data Retention Policy. Stay tuned. |
|||
::::::As there were no objections, I did the substitution some days ago. If someone does s/put requirements/has not but plans to to put requirements/g, at least we'll have clarity - it'll be clear that we don't have the requirements in place, and if not, it'll be clear that we do, when this becomes policy. |
|||
::::A desire to 'refer to the same draft' is reasonable, but already out the window; the draft is rapidly evolving due to many recent edits by both the legal team and others. (In future, when a draft is proposed, clarity around this could be created with a statement, perhaps enforced with technical measures, or perhaps just noted with a permalink to the version as proposed.) |
|||
::::In-line reply encouraged. --[[User:Elvey|Elvey]] ([[User talk:Elvey|talk]]) 21:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::In-line replies: [[User:Drdee|Drdee]] ([[User talk:Drdee|talk]]) 20:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::In-line replies: --[[User:Elvey|Elvey]] ([[User talk:Elvey|talk]]) 17:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== if you do not agree with this Privacy Policy, you may not use the Wikimedia Sites == |
|||
You may not view? What are you thinking - how can you enforce this prohibition? The legal reasoning, "For the protection of the Wikimedia Foundation and other users," would apply to editing, where you can ban and so forth. But this is a minority of users. - [[Special:Contributions/173.28.94.175|173.28.94.175]] 00:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi 173.28 ... This is a fairly typical provision in online terms of use and privacy policies. In the unlikely case of conflict or litigation, it allows a defense that one was not free to use our site when that person was not in agreement with the privacy policy. Thanks. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 03:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Anyone who sues was not allowed to use. Has it held up in court? - [[Special:Contributions/173.28.94.175|173.28.94.175]] 13:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm not sure if I understand your question 173.28 ... Could you possibly rephrase it? Thanks. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 16:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::Or give citations to cases where it did '''not''' hold up. --[[User:Jeremyb|Jeremyb]] ([[User talk:Jeremyb|talk]]) 16:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::It reeks. How about putting it more softly, as in, for instance http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/terms - [[Special:Contributions/173.28.94.175|173.28.94.175]] 22:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::For the record, this seems to be the relevant parts of the AP policy: |
|||
{{blockquote|1=<ol><li>Use of this Web site is conditioned on the acceptance, without modification, of all terms and conditions of this agreement. By using this Web site you represent that you have read and understand the terms and conditions and that you agree to be bound by these terms and conditions as set forth below. |
|||
<li value="3">If you do not agree with the terms and conditions of this Web site and do not wish to be bound by them, please do not use this Web site or download any materials from this Web site.</ol>}} |
|||
::::--[[User:Jeremyb|Jeremyb]] ([[User talk:Jeremyb|talk]]) 19:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::OK. I think I will monitor to see if there is other community concern about the issue. I believe we basically already say what is in the AP policy (please see the second paragraph of the privacy policy and the phrase being challenged in this discussion). We can always rephrase but I sort of like how the draft privacy policy does it. That said, I think we can place the above sentence ("If you do not agree with this ...") near the beginning of the policy (and maybe even in the user-friendly summary). Thanks. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 13:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== "Important to read" == |
|||
The intro states: |
|||
: It is essential to understand that, by using any of the Wikimedia Sites, you consent to the collection, transfer, processing, storage, disclosure, and use of your information as described in this Privacy Policy. That means that reading this Policy carefully is important. As important as eating your greens. |
|||
We (communities on individual projects) try to make it easy to contribute. Few people will read the policy carefully. Rather than stating it is important to read the policy, the policy should be made such that there is no need to read it, to the largest extent possible. |
|||
There are issues on the Internet, which people should be aware of. As far as they concern all sites or all sites in USA, people should be made aware of them at home, in school, in newspapers and in Wikipedia articles. Repeating the information in the policy may be legally sound and good for completeness, but it should be old news for any concerned reader. |
|||
Where issues on Wikimedia sites differ from those on Internet in general, the special circumstances here should be pointed out as clearly and briefly as possible in the introduction, before any legalese. |
|||
* The Wikimedia sites operate under the laws of USA, which allow [NSA & al] to [get more info than the contributor may expect] |
|||
* Contributions to the wikis, including questions on discussion pages, are logged for eternity, with user name or IP address |
|||
* Visiting a page on a formerly unvisited WMF project may cause the account to be automatically registered there, thus leaving a trace in the logs without your making any contribution. |
|||
* .... |
|||
The "surprising" points should be few and short enough that anybody can read them in seconds. The details should of course be sorted out later in the policy for those interested. |
|||
--[[User:LPfi|LPfi]] ([[User talk:LPfi|talk]]) 08:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: Hi LPfi! Thank you for taking the time to comment. We agree that people should be able to get the basics of a major policy in seconds. We recognize that some users like greater detail and will read the entirety of legal policies, while others just want a basic summary. That's why we created the "user-friendly summary" that precedes this privacy policy draft (as well as one that precedes our Terms of Use). However, we are are looking for ways to make the user-friendly summary more helpful to those who read it during this community consultation period. Are there particular things that you think are missing from the summary that should be in there? Are there items that could be better phrased or elaborated on to be clearer? I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts on this. |
|||
:With regards to the three suggested bullet points you have already: (1) we could add something about the Wikimedia Sites being operated under the laws of the US if you think that is an important point to call out; (2) I think the indefinite nature of edits are already addressed in the "Be Aware" section of the user-friendly summary ("Any content you add or any change that you make to a Wikimedia Site will be publicly and permanently available."); and (3) I'm not sure what you are referring to with your third suggestion...visiting a formerly unvisited WMF project doesn't cause an account to be automatically registered there as far as I know. |
|||
:Thanks again for your suggestions! [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 18:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::It does. Actually, you [[bugzilla:16864|don't even have to visit them]], but that is/was just a bug. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 19:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:: I would say that, if the current long-winded language of the main policy is kept as is (it probably could use trimming), then it's best if at least the Summary dispenses with justifications and digressions, but instead covers everything of matter in the form of bullet points. |
|||
:: The first paragraph of the summary is a fairly good example. I'd skip the "Because..." part for brevity, perhaps, but it states what it needs to. |
|||
:: The second, on the other hand - ''Because we want to understand how Wikimedia Sites are used so we can make them better for you, we collect some information when you...'' - is not. |
|||
:: "'''Some'''" in it just acts as a teaser, "read below to find out what". Rather than explaining the why, I believe the space would be better spent briefly listing ''what exactly'' is collected in each case. |
|||
:: This is just one example. Since changing the summary has no effect on the policy's legal implications, I hope the community will work out the rest. But a good goal would be to provide a concise yet reasonably complete listing of what is collected and when. Work out any whys below. [[User:CP\M|CP\M]] ([[User talk:CP\M|talk]]) 19:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Strip Wikimedia Data Collection to the Barest Minimum - Introduction == |
|||
Two suggestions for the privacy policy: |
|||
# ''Lose'' the cutesy language and cartoons being used to make Wikimedia's disturbingly extensive user tracking seem less threatening |
|||
# Eliminate Wikimedia's disturbingly extensive user tracking. |
|||
It is fundamentally misleading to tell users that Wikimedia does not require any personal information to create an account, and then to actually collect vastly more behavioral information on each user than could ever be requested in a sign-up form, under the guise of "understanding our users better" — exactly the creepy line of every Orwellian data-vacuuming Web site today. |
|||
And ironically what is all this "understanding" producing? A site with fairly gruesome usability that's barely changed years and years later. Yet Wikimedia wants to keep track of every piece of ''content'' read by every "anonymous" user — associated with information like IP address and detailed browser info, which today in malevolent hands can often easily be associated with real name, address, Kindergarten academic record, likelihood to support an opposition candidate, and favorite desert topping. |
|||
It's just not Wikimedia's concern that someone is interested in both Pokemon and particle physics. That doesn't improve either article. That doesn't improve the interface. That doesn't improve the Byzantine and Kafkaesque bureaucracy of trying to find ''somewhere'' to report a gang of editors controlling and distorting an article. |
|||
To find the phrase "tracking pixels" here is jaw dropping. This is inherently a hacking-like technique to install a spyware file on a user's computer, to evade their express effort not to be tracked by clearing cookies. Web developers bringing these "normal" techniques used by "every other Web site" to Wikimedia, apparently don't understand, that "every other Web site" today is evil — and Wikimedia sites are supposed to be a radically different exception to this. |
|||
For readability this comment continues in "'''Strip Wikimedia Data Collection to the Barest Minimum - Privacy Specifics'''" |
|||
— [[User:Privacycomment|Privacycomment]] ([[User talk:Privacycomment|talk]])Privacycomment |
|||
:Hi Privacycomment, |
|||
:Sorry for the slow response -- I understand your concerns as follows: |
|||
:1) Why are you misleading users when saying they do not need to provide personal information to create an account but meanwhile you collect a lot of behavioral data? |
|||
:2) Can you demonstrate the benefits of understanding our users better? |
|||
:3) Why is Wikimedia interested in creating an interest graph? |
|||
:4) Why are we using tracking pixels? |
|||
:'''Question 1''': Interacting with our servers will provide us with some data: url visited, timestamp, used browser, etc. It seems that you define this as behavioral data but in fact it is not -- it is non-analyzed webrequest data that we have to store, for a minimum amount of time, to be able to monitor server performance and provide key performance indicators about usage of all the Wikimedia projects (those are two very important use cases). Without that data we would be flying in the dark -- how could we even do capacity planning? |
|||
:In theory, we could analyze data and infer behavior from that, such as you mention in your paragraph about reader behavior, but atm we are not doing such things. |
|||
:It's also very important to note that we do not buy 3rd party databases to add demographic data to our data and obviously we would never disclose webrequest data containing Personal Identifiable Information in raw form nor sell it. So I do not agree that we are misleading the users, in fact we are really trying to be as transparent and clear as possible. |
|||
:'''Question 2''': Our efforts to understand our users in the context of how they use new features have only begun quite recently. The Product team was formed in February 2012 and the E2 / E3 teams (now renamed to Core Features and Growth) started in March 2012. I do not agree that there has been no progress: for example, the E3 team worked on [[Research:Account_creation_UX|simplifying the account creation process]] and those improvements were the result of data-inspired decision-making. Other new features that we have rolled out / are rolling out like [[mw:VisualEditor]], [[mw:Echo]] and [[mw:Flow]] are all supported by data-informed decision-making. I am sure we will see the fruits of this approach soon. |
|||
:'''Question 3''': AFAICT, there are currently no plans to make an interest graph of the readers but your example is actually a great use case! It could help uncover articles that are being targeted by vandals and in that way it could alleviate the work pressure on patrollers, oversighters and admins. |
|||
:'''Question 4''': Regarding tracking pixels -- I think we need to unravel this concept a bit more clearly. There are three use cases of tracking pixels: |
|||
:1) as a very light way to push data from the browser to the server |
|||
:2) a specific technique of bypassing browser origin restrictions |
|||
:3) a method to infer whether an email message was opened / read |
|||
:I suspect that you have big concerns regarding 3) and Fabrice Florin's answer regarding the use of tracking pixels was in this context. On the other hand, [[mw:EventLogging]] uses constructing of image requests to push data to server which is 1). I am not aware of an exampe of 2) in our context but given that we have many domain names I would not be entirely surprised that we would use 2) as well. |
|||
:I hope this addresses your concerns, |
|||
:[[User:Drdee|Drdee]] ([[User talk:Drdee|talk]]) 21:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC) (in my role as Product Manager Analytics @ WMF) |
|||
:: Regarding tracking pixels, perhaps part of the problem is in terminology. The term "tracking pixels" heavily implies use case #3. I'm not sure there is a widely-recognized term for use cases #1 and #2; any such term would probably be quickly adopted as a euphemism by those using use case #3, leading to the [[:en:euphemism treadmill|euphemism treadmill]]. Regarding use case #2, things these days are more likely to use techniques such as [[:en:Cross-origin resource sharing|CORS]] as these are less restrictive. Regarding use case #3, I note that many email clients will specifically block externally-loaded images to prevent this. |
|||
:: I suppose [[mw:Extension:CentralAuth|CentralAuth]]'s use of such pixel-images might be considered an instance of use case #2: it loads a 1x1 transparent pixel from all the other domains to attempt to set the login cookies for those domains, because the current domain can't set cookies on all those other domains. This could be done (possibly better) in other ways, but it has the advantage of working even when the client has JavaScript disabled. [[User:BJorsch (WMF)|BJorsch (WMF)]] ([[User talk:BJorsch (WMF)|talk]]) 14:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Strip Wikimedia Data Collection to the Barest Minimum - Privacy Specifics == |
|||
This is what Wikimedia should know about its users — |
|||
For '''anonymous readers''', the sole data collected should be IP address, URL visited, and ''basic'' user-agent data (as specifics can be quasi-identifying): platform, browser name, major version, screen size. '''And''' this data should be immediately split into three separate log files, each separately randomized in half-hour time blocks, with the default Web server log disabled or immediately obliterated. So that, that secret governmental order to hand over every Wikipedia article read by a particular IP address simply can't be complied with. And so that that great new Wikimedia employee, who no one would suspect is working for a supragovernmental/governmental/corporate/mafia espionage operation, can't get at it either. |
|||
For '''anonymous editors''' the sole data collected should be that of anonymous readers, plus: |
|||
* the data of the actual edit of course |
|||
* the IP address of the edit, stored for one week (without data backups) and then obliterated, and viewable only by administrators investigating potential spam, vandalism, or other violations of Wikimedia rules during that week. |
|||
Public-facing edit records, and administrator-facing edit records after one week, should associate only the phrase "Anonymous Edit" or "One-Time Edit by [ad hoc nickname]". Wikimedia should use automated systems to detect any administrator accessing the IP address data associated with edits which are not likely to be spam, vandalism, or other violations of Wikimedia rules. |
|||
For '''logged-in users''' the sole data collected should be that of anonymous editors, plus: |
|||
* their username at sign-up and log-in |
|||
* their email address at sign-up if given |
|||
* a public-facing list of their edits (of all types) on their user page |
|||
* the contents of a Wikimedia browser cookie, set when they log in to a Wikimedia site, and deleted if/when they log out, which contains solely their username and encrypted password |
|||
* an administration-facing log of Wikimedia messaging and banners which they have already received |
|||
* an optional administration-facing flag in their account, indicating that they have donated to Wikimedia in month/year, without further identifying data, so as to suppress fundraising banners (if they have elected to overtly identify themselves with a Wikimedia username when making a donation). |
|||
Email addresses should be accessible for use for bulk mailings only by Wikimedia employees, and the email list file should be encrypted to prevent theft by corrupt or disgruntled Wikimedia employees. |
|||
For '''basic-level administrators''' the sole data collected should be that of logged-in users, plus their (pseudonymously-signed) administrator contract. |
|||
And no Wikimedia server or office should be located in any country — whether admitting to be a dictatorship or still pretending to be a democracy — which overtly, or by secret order, requires Wikimedia to collect or retain any data other than that specified here for these non-commerce functions. |
|||
Thank you for your consideration of these points, |
|||
— [[User:Privacycomment|Privacycomment]] ([[User talk:Privacycomment|talk]])Privacycomment |
|||
== Strip Wikimedia Data Collection to the Barest Minimum - Further Considerations == |
|||
Thanks [[User:Privacycomment|Privacycomment]] for this post. I just want to add my perspective with some ideas on how to look at data-relevant processes in general and how to use the artificial differences in national laws on an action done in the physical or digital world. |
|||
* First and foremost Wikipedia is a labor of love of knowledge nerds worldwide. This means that it is from an outside view an "international organization" much like the Red Cross - only to battle information disasters. This could be used to get servers and employees special status and protections under international treaties (heritage, information/press etc) |
|||
* History teaches that those protections might not be a sufficient deterrent in heated moments of national political/legal idiocy, so Wikimedia should enact technical as well as content procedures to minimize the damage. |
|||
===Data Protection=== |
|||
* Collect as few data as possible and purge it as fast as possible. Period. You cannot divulge what you do not have. |
|||
* Compartmentalize the data so that a breach - let's say in the US - does not automatically give access to data of other countries' userbases. |
|||
* Play with laws: as there are a lot of protections well established when used against homes, or private property shape your installation and software to imitate those - no "official" central mail server that can be accessed with provider legislature, but a lot of private servers that are each protected and must be subpoenaed individually etc... |
|||
* Offer a privacy wikipedia version that can only be accessed via tor - and where nothing is stored (I know this might be too much to admin against spam pros) |
|||
* Use Perfect forward secrecy, hashes etc to create a situation, where most of the necessary information can be blindly validated without you having any possibility to actually see the information exchanged. This also helps with legal problems due to deniability. Again - compartmentalize. |
|||
===Physical and digital infrastructure concerns=== |
|||
* An internal organization along those lines and with the Red Cross as an example would offer a variety of possibilities when faced with legal threats: First and foremost, much like choosing where to pay taxes, one could quickly relocate the headquarters for a specific project to another legal system so that one can proof, that e.g. the US national chapter of wikimedia has no possible way of influencing let's say the Icelandic chapter who happens to have a national project called wikipedia.org |
|||
* Another important step in being an international and truly independent organization is to finally use the power of interconnected networks and distribute the infrastructure with liberal computer legislation in mind much more as is now the case. Not to compare the content - just the legal possibilities - of the megaupload case with those of wikimedia, as long as US authorities have physical access to most of the servers, they do not need to do anything but be creative with domestic laws to hurt the organisation and millions of international users, too... |
|||
* If this might be too difficult, let users choose between different mirrors that also conform to different IT legislation |
|||
===Information Activism=== |
|||
* Focus on a secure mediawiki with strong crypto, which can be deployed by information activists |
|||
So: paranoia off. But the problem really is that data collected now can and will be abused in the next 10, if not 50-100 years. If we limit the amount of data and purge data, those effects can be minimized. No one knows if something that is perfectly legal to write now might not bite one in the ass if legislation is changed in the future. |
|||
Cheers, --[[User:Gego|Gego]] ([[User talk:Gego|talk]]) 13:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
There's a lot of discussion about the data collected from those who edit pages, but what about those who passively read Wikipedia? I can't figure out what's collected, how long it's stored, and how it's used. |
|||
Frankly I don't see why ANY personally identifiable information should EVER be collected from a passive reader. In the good old days when I went to the library to read the paper encyclopaedia, no one stood next to me with a clipboard noting every page I read or even flipped past. So why should you do that now? |
|||
I don't object to real time statistics collection, e.g., counting the number of times a page is read, listing the countries from which each page is read from at least once, that sort of thing. But update the counters in real time and erase the HTTP GET log buffer without ever writing it to disk. If you decide to collect some other statistic, add it to the real-time code and start counting from that point forward. |
|||
Please resist the strong urge to log every single HTTP GET just because you can, just in case somebody might eventually think of something interesting to do with it someday. This is EXACTLY how the NSA thinks and it's why they store such a terrifying amount of stuff. [[Special:Contributions/2602:304:B3CE:D590:0:0:0:1|2602:304:B3CE:D590:0:0:0:1]] 14:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:2602, I will be linking to this comment from below but you may be interested in the section started at the bottom of the page at [[Talk:Privacy_policy#Tracking_of_visited_pages|Tracking of visited pages]] . [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]] ([[User talk:Jalexander|talk]]) 03:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== Big Data === |
|||
* the draft itself is full of unnecessary drivel, obviously designed to stop anybody reading the "juicy bits" -- that is the unnecessary use of tracking images etc. The guideline is also too US-centric (the style is like one of those Microsoft manuals for Americans imbeciles), where much stricter laws apply. There are other WP sections, <u>with offices</u> [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Local_chapters] who will be subject to such laws. Certain European states require a cookie opt-out option etc. At least for WPs in pertinent languages such laws ought to be complied with. |
|||
BTW: what will happen to the collected data |
|||
# ''''when the NSA, or any other agency of any other government, is tapping it''' (which it probably done already)? Say a filter checking for "user:TinyTaliban" (living in say a [[:en:Banlieu|Parisian banlieu]]) looked up [[:en:Ricin Plot]]. will the plane he is using on his next holiday to fly to Venezuela be intercepted? |
|||
# '''Jimbo & Co. decide to go commercial? -- and sell the data.''' This is not such a far off suggestion, see what happened at ''couchsurfing.com,'' now called a "benefit corporation" [http://gawker.com/5836946/users-revolt-after-hippie-couchsurfing-site-goes-corporate Background] ... |
|||
(Using my right to make a comment without log in -- you'll find me anyway ...) |
|||
*Just to add to this discussion that we'v received a similar email asking for the ability to time limit storage of data linked to a user account, specific geographic servers for user data and procedures to deny access to information even if required to by law. The emailer has been invited to participate in this discussion as well. [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]] ([[User talk:Jalexander|talk]]) 03:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== small paragraph after the table of translations == |
|||
There's a small paragraph after the table of translations that seems odd to me: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
We also recognize that some of you know the ins and outs of tracking pixels while others associate the term “cookie” exclusively with the chocolate variety. Whether you are brand new to privacy terminology or you are an expert who just wants a refresher, you might find our Glossary of Key Terms helpful. |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
The problem here is the switch to using such technical language seems abrupt since tracking pixels and cookies are introduced ''after'' this paragraph in the next section (in "Use of info" / "Information We Collect"). (It seems as if the text text may have been re-ordered at some point.) I think just mentioning that they are "technical terms" helps alleviate this problem. I also think "some" over-estimates how many people know that stuff, so "only a few" would make less people feel inadequate. My attempt at improving this paragraph reads like this: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
We recognize that only a few of you are familiar with technical terms like “tracking pixels” and “cookies” (hint: these can't be dunked in milk) used in the privacy policy. Whether you are brand new to privacy terminology or you are an expert who just wants a refresher, you might find our Glossary of Key Terms helpful. |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
[[User:Jason Quinn|Jason Quinn]] ([[User talk:Jason Quinn|talk]]) 21:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Jason Quinn! Thank you for your suggestion! I'm going to tweak the language to: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
We recognize that only a few of you are familiar with technical terms like “tracking pixels” and “cookies” (hint: we're not referring to the chocolate variety) used in the Privacy Policy. Whether you are brand new to privacy terminology or you are an expert who just wants a refresher, you might find our Glossary of Key Terms helpful. |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
:I like your "these can't be dunked in milk" joke, but unfortunately, I'm told that the concept of dunking cookies in milk doesn't translate very well. Hopefully, my modification of your suggestion is ok. =) Thanks again! [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 19:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::(<small>Source for China: [//books.google.it/books?id=waEBYepwOokC&pg=PA122&dq=%22cookies+in+milk%22&hl=it&sa=X&ei=_qo8UuC2GeWq4ASGgYGoDQ&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22cookies%20in%20milk%22&f=false]; only 30 % in USA too it seems.[//books.google.it/books?id=kg4tAQAAMAAJ&q=%22cookies+in+milk%22&dq=%22cookies+in+milk%22&hl=it&sa=X&ei=tqs8UuftKqOL4ASLhIHYCA&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAzge]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 20:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)</small>) |
|||
== Policy scope is not clear == |
|||
Overall, the policy is a good one. However, it is unclear in at least one area. |
|||
The User-friendly summary of the policy says "This Privacy Policy does not apply to all of the Wikimedia Sites ..." yet the '''What This Privacy Policy Does & Doesn't Cover''' section of the policy itself says "This Privacy Policy applies to our collection and handling of information about you that we receive as a result of your use of '''''any''''' [commenter's formatting] of the Wikimedia Sites." These are, of course, direct contradictions, and leaves the reader confused as to what the policy does and does not cover. |
|||
It's important that the policy be very clear in what it does and does not cover. If there are some sites to which the policy does not apply, then the policy should clearly say that. [[User:Truthanado|Truthanado]] ([[User talk:Truthanado|talk]]) 00:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:You are right, see also [[#"Wikimedia Sites"]]. Sadly, this is not a minor problem but something that defeats the purpose of the policy completely. In general, the proposal has to IMHO be re-thought from scratch. |
|||
:Instead of making overly broad statements and then add a bunch of clarifications and exceptions, it should focus on the important things and say them clearly. We know what a failure the unified privacy policy by Google was; they needed to transfer the personal data from one service to another, but we don't have this need so we can and should be cautious and not add loopholes for half a billion users just for the sake of a few dozens using some obscure corner of the platform. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 05:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Text based page delivery (or 'how' we read) == |
|||
No, I'm not going to harp on about using Rory as it appears that you're determined to use him whether he is redundant gimmick or not. |
|||
Other than feeling that one instance of his use is sufficient, if he is to be used as currently stands, serious consideration needs to be given to rules of thumb pertaining to desktop publishing and website development. Culturally, the English language is read from left to right, meaning that English readers are acclimatised to the left hand side of the page being the central focal point when dealing with anything text orientated. Not only is there no word-wrap around the Rory images in order to allow for a longer continuum of text (remembering that we read ahead by a minimum of several words at a time), the entire left side of the document disturbs the reader's expectations by sandwiching the text (and tables!) to the right. Bear in mind that these rules of thumb were developed through experience and behavioural studies over many years, right down to serif being preferred for paper documents, while sans serif reads more comfortably online. It's foolhardy to disregard certain standards which have been proven in order to 'experiment' with other techniques. |
|||
I've spent over three decades involved with pedagogical issues surrounding visual teaching methods/delivery, from secondary education to Post Graduate research presentation (I'm speaking of delivery at tertiary MA and PhD level by 100% research), so I'm not just blowing smoke. |
|||
If Rory is to be used, the 'culturally logical' layout for any Latin script language is to about-face the set-out of current draft and have him on the right-hand side. I'd also suggest that he could be made a little smaller and that word-wrap be used. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 04:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: Hi Iryna Harpy! Thank you for bringing this point up. I know that some of the decision involved in placing Rory on the left-hand side of the page and not wrapping the text around him had to do with making the format easily adaptable to different scripts and different screen/window sizes. I'll have one of the people who helped with the layout address those issues in more detail on this thread. |
|||
: On a related note, based on community feedback, we are going to experiment with how to make Rory more useful in explaining the major concepts of the privacy policy over the next week. Some of the ideas we are going to try are either providing Rory with a narrative or with bullet points about the big concepts. If you have other ideas, we'd love to hear them. We're going to try to get some prototypes out to the community to see if they think that adds value. I'm hoping once we have a better idea of what text would accompany Rory (if any and assuming Rory stays in the policy), we can experiment with the layout to see if there are ways to make it more readable as you suggested. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 23:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Right. I'm seeing both support for and opposition to Rory, but I want to make clear we have not "determined to use him." As explained above, we are playing with the idea, which is why your feedback for or against is important. If, after taking into account community feedback, it doesn't make sense after some experimentation, we won't use him; if it does, we might. That said, IMHO, visuals are important, as I suggested above. So alternative ideas are also welcome. Many thanks. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 07:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thank you both ([[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] & [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]]) for your responses. I suspect I speak for quite a few people responding to the draft policy when I say that my main concern was that Rory had already been locked into the presentation and was going to be worked in regardless of whether his 'presence' was superfluous or not. As I'm now feeling a little more assured that he's not a ''given'', I'll abstain from further critiques regarding that aspect of the updated policy until the proposed prototypes are up and will judge as objectively as is possible at that point. I'm certainly not going to approach the subject with prejudice and will reserve judgement bearing context in mind. Cheers! --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 02:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree one hundred percent with Iryna Harp's concerns about text layout. As I understand the purpose is: "We want to make these documents as accessible as possible to as many people as possible." Congratulations, you have managed to do the opposite. |
|||
:The big text boxes at the top, which are not part of the Privacy Policy, are not helping either. It's even hard to find out where the actual proposed privacy policy begins. |
|||
:I believe you have successfully managed to prevent the majority of people of reading the proposed privacy policy. |
|||
: Suggestions: |
|||
:#If you do something special with the layout like text placement, illustrations and use of big icons, make sure it increases accessibility and not the opposite. |
|||
:#Make the page look like a regular Wikipedia article page where people can start reading the proposed privacy policy immediately. |
|||
:#Rename the page so it's clear from the name that this is a proposal and not the current privacy policy. For example "Proposed privacy policy" or "Privacy policy (draft)" or "Privacy policy (proposal)". |
|||
:#Remove the side notes that are not part of the proposal. Instead, add a side bar at the right linking to side notes. |
|||
:Cheers! --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 09:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::''(Reply to second suggestion. Moved by [[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 18:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC))'' |
|||
::I think we should provide a link at top to the main policy, as we did with the Terms of Use. See http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 10:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Geoffbrigham, I moved your in text replies down. I hope you approve. I also added numbering to my suggestions. |
|||
:::Providing a link at the top to the main policy would certainly help. But I don't understand putting in an obstacle and providing a link to move past it. There shouldn't be any obstacle accessing the terms of use or privacy policy. When people want to consult the terms of use or privacy policy, they want to read the real deal and not any unofficial comments. Any accompanying comments should not form an obstacle. --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 18:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::I understand your point, Aviertje, but, in the context of the terms of use, the user-friendly summary was in fact proposed by the community (not WMF), and we have received a number of positive comments about it since. In this discussion, people are saying that they want nutshell summaries of our privacy principles, and, as I see it, the user-friendly summary will satisfy that need. So, if you don't mind, I would like to monitor this issue and see if others feel strongly. In the meantime, I will have this link put above the user-friendly summary: |
|||
:::::''This is a summary of the [draft] Privacy Policy. To read the full terms, scroll down or click here.'' |
|||
::::Thanks. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 11:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The unofficial summary and the official privacy policy (or terms of use) serve completely different purposes and should not be mixed. I looked up the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terms_of_use&diff=prev&oldid=3028203 proposal for an informal summary] and looked at the following edits to this proposal. It was suggested to create a separate informal summary containing a link to the official terms of use and managed by the community. Placing this unofficial summary above the official terms of use seems to be your own initiative. The fact that people value the unofficial summary does not mean it should be located here. It might be a good idea though to include such summary (officially) in the introduction of the privacy policy/terms of use. --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 22:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Let's see if we hear additional objections. I know the user-friendly summary was posted at the top of the terms of use for some time during the consultation, and I don't recall any objection. Now that the issue has been raised, I will monitor and see if there is any other opposition to its placement vis-a-vis the privacy policy. Tx. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 22:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::''(Reply to fourth suggestion. Moved by [[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 18:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC))'' |
|||
::I'm sorry. Could you explain this a bit more. Thanks. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 10:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::: With 'side bar' I meant a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidebar_%28computing%29 sidebar], a box at the right like on the page with the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy current privacy policy]. |
|||
::: With side notes I meant all comments that are not part of the proposed privacy policy. Like the "This draft Privacy Policy needs your feedback..", "Want to help translate?..", "This is a user-friendly summary of the privacy policy..". Even the "This is a draft of a proposed privacy policy.." can be removed if the title is changed like I suggested in suggestion 3 above. --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 18:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Simplicity and accessibility. == |
|||
One of the central uses of a privacy policy is to inform. |
|||
As such, mounting buckets of lawyer speak on a wall of text is precisely the opposite. |
|||
Whatever privacy policy you have you need to have a starting review segment of simple speak - the way you would describe the situation to your friends on a picnic without any pressure or need for unnecessary elaborate language. |
|||
Law-wise this useless, social-wise - priceless - as people don't have to suffer through every text the lawyer wrote to cover the possible loopholes and situations that may arise legally. |
|||
What you do and don't do can be covered in a group of brief, clear and easy to understand sentences - layman's terms if you will. It looks very much like the "This is a user-friendly summary of the privacy policy" intro you made to welcome people for input on this topic. The rest with all the details is also there, but it is not the only thing available for consumption. |
|||
Many companies ignore doing this and alienate users when it is discovered that somewhere in the abyss of text they've thrown a dubious or direct disregard of user interests not to mention basic ethics. |
|||
Whatever it is you are doing, if you make a simple statement about what it is, it is going to go much better than having to learn gossip about it from a third party that had the nerve to sit through and decode the swamp of text. |
|||
In case of this site, your operations have more hazards for the company than the users, make sure you are covered, we want the site to thrive. |
|||
Also address popular concerns here is an example of a simple intro: (may not be applicable but is just an example) |
|||
" |
|||
'''PLEASE READ THIS! We have made an effort to design it to be concise and helpful and not the usual barrage of dubious language you can find allover the web.''' |
|||
In case you haven't used wikimedia - we are ... |
|||
We only retain ip addresses to manage unethical conduct such vandalism that disrupts the purpose of the site. |
|||
It is done because there is no other way to maintain a civil interaction while everyone can come in and participate. |
|||
We don't know who you are and we don't ask, all we know is that you are not the same person that is editing the other article. |
|||
Using this statistic how many different users we have, we plan the technical development of our site to be able to accommodate demand of traffic for our users and contributors. (make sure you clarify what exactly is entailed in this - Use information only to understand how we can make the sites better for you based on your use and needs - what information EXACTLY and how long, if you don't know how long - just say there is no schedule so people know it may be indefinite.) |
|||
We absolutely discourage you from providing any personal information in your profile and the rest of our site - as your information is not free from abuse by third parties that can obtain it by any manner without consulting us in any way. You take responsibility for any personal information you do disclose and what happens to it. We do not have the capability to monitor all information at all times. |
|||
We can not identify who you are, but the nature of how the technology necessary for this to work has ways available to identify you, which are through legal channels and unlawful conduct. We can not invent new technology that can completely shield your activities - and we don't need to, as the site isn't for secret developments. We take it - you understand that using the internet leaves your information vulnerable regardless if we existed or not. |
|||
Other than that we make sure the rights of others as well as ours are kept and respected on our site, as not everyone is willing to allow use of their proprietary information that complies the knowledge bases we have open for everyone. |
|||
Below you can find the full privacy policy with every aspect and detail of it. |
|||
Thank you for being part of this great project. |
|||
Wiki staff." |
|||
... |
|||
And yeah - Roy is a bad idea. |
|||
The people who would care for Roy at this location usually wont bother to read your policy. |
|||
You are either taking this topic seriously or fooling around it with. You can't have a serious topic with toy gimmicks and mascots. And having a informal topic sort of ruins the purpose of updating an official matter. It's why business people don't wear flip flops and cartoon stamped sweaters to firm meetings. And believe me I wish we could do it without getting hammered, but alas we do. |
|||
It might fit to the intro capacity I've covered. But it will still generate variable impressions, and I doubt that most will be good. |
|||
:Hi - on the image and Rory issue, we have retired him for now. Please see [[Talk:Privacy_policy#Images_and_Rory|this discussion]]. Thanks. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 13:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Also, btw, thanks for your other feedback on this with respect to the style of the writing. I agree that simplicity and accessibility is important in language. As I posted above and elsewhere, I believe we are doing this reasonably well with this draft. The user-friendly summary does highlight key concepts, and we are considering other suggestions in this area. Overall the policy language is explicative in laymen's terms as much as possible to facilitate understanding at a non-technical level when feasible. If I'm not addressing or getting your point, feel free to let me know. Many thanks. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 18:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
==Anonymous vs identifiable editors== |
|||
The privacy policy is OK in theory. In practice I find that: |
|||
#Some editors use their cloak of anonymity to behave in a way in way that would not happen in real life. They are uncivil and unreasonable, and any conflicts of interest are hidden from scrutiny. |
|||
#Other editors like myself use usernames based on their real name, and their real life identities can readily be ascertained. That should not be a reason to do so. My own background and affiliates have been regularly used against me. ie. I have no privacy. |
|||
There is an apparent double standard here. Editors that are more open should not be disadvantaged. --[[User:Iantresman|Iantresman]] ([[User talk:Iantresman|talk]]) 17:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Iantresman! You are correct in that different people have different comfort levels about what they choose to share with the public about themselves (both in their username and elsewhere). But can you elaborate a little more about what you mean that there is a double standard? And how editors who are more open are disadvantaged? [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 23:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:*Editors ''may'' have conflicts of interest (COI). An editor who is a Republican, went to Harvard, and personally knows the editor of the New York Times, may have a COI editing articles on the those subjects. But anonymity means these details remain private and unchallenged. Editors such as myself have a username that is a trivial representation of my real life name. But this is not an invitation to access my background, and my affiliations, whic can and have been used against me. This is the double standard. Anonymous editors ensure their privacy is guarded, editors with links to their real-life identity, lose their privacy. This is not right, as it disadvantages those who are more open. |
|||
:*Anonymous editors ''may'' also make unfounded claims. I had one claiming to be a professor, and also allowed another editor to perpetuate the claim, even though it was false. In this respect, anonymity means there is no accountability. Then I had an anonymous editor claim that I was a leyman, despite me having two university degrees that I choose not to publicise. The privacy of more open editors, is also open to abuse. --[[User:Iantresman|Iantresman]] ([[User talk:Iantresman|talk]]) 11:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Hi Iantresman. I understand your points. Yes, there are disadvantages in disclosing your real name as people can find out more about your background as a result. This is unfortunately a trade-off that people who choose to disclose their real names must face. And yes, there are also disadvantages to permitting anonymous editing as there are fewer ways to verify the claims made by anonymous users without being able to look into their backgrounds. I'm a little confused as to what the relation of your comments are to the privacy policy draft though...could you clarify? [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 18:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Comments by Shell == |
|||
Lots of small details. |
|||
* <u>Your Public Contributions</u>: ''"Please do not contribute any information that you are uncomfortable making permanently public, like the picture of you in that terrible outfit your mom forced you to wear when you were eight."'' Such a picture is unlikely to be kept anyway, so it's not a good example. I'd either remove the example or change it into something like: ''...permanently public. For instance, if you reveal your real name somewhere, it will be permanently linked to your other contributions.'' (A better example/phrasing would be appreciated) |
|||
* <u>Account Information & Registration</u>: |
|||
**There's a link [[Privacy policy FAQ#standardaccount]], but that section/ID doesn't exist on the page. |
|||
** ''"Your username will be publicly visible, so please think carefully before you use your real name as your username."'' Slightly ambiguous (to me): ''Could'' be interpreted as the username should be your real name, so think carefully whether you want to sign up. The preceding sentence and the following paragraph make it clearer, but I'd still rephrase it (not sure how though - also not a big deal). |
|||
* <u>Information Related to Your Use of the Wikimedia Sites</u>: ''"We also want this Policy and our practices to reflect our community’s values."'' This looks like a stray sentence - can it be removed completely? |
|||
* <u>Information We Collect</u>: |
|||
** ''"For example, by using local storage to store your most recently read articles directly on your device so it can be retrieved quickly; and by using cookies, we can learn about the topics searched so that we can optimize the search results we deliver to you."'' This is a really long sentence that should be split up. Also, I don't understand how using local storage to store read articles can optimize search results. To me they seem like separate things. |
|||
** ''"Make the Wikimedia Sites more convenient to use, such as by using..."'' Should be rephrased: "such as by" sounds weird in my ears. |
|||
** ''...does not cause lasers to shoot out of your device...'' Too informal, I think. |
|||
* <u>IP Adresses</u>: ''"Finally, when you visit any of Wikimedia Sites, we automatically receive the IP address of your device (or your proxy server) you are using to access the Internet..."'' "Any Wikimedia Site" or "Any of the Wikimedia Sites" sounds better. It should probably be "...the device (or the proxy server) you are using...". |
|||
* <u>For Legal Reasons</u>: ''"We are committed to notifying you via email within five (5) business days, when possible, if we receive a legal request for disclosure of your information, assuming that we are not legally restrained from contacting you, there is no credible threat to life or limb that is created or increased by disclosing the request, and you have provided us with an email address."'' This sentence is too long. |
|||
* <u>How Long Do We Keep Your Data?</u>: You should provide more concrete examples - every piece of personal information should be covered. |
|||
* <u>Where is the Foundation and What Does that Mean for Me?</u>: |
|||
** ''"...you consent to the collection, transfer, storage, processing, disclosure, and other uses of your information in the U.S. <u>and</u> as described in this Privacy Policy."'' It sounds like there's this policy + collection etc. in the U.S. I suggest that you replace ''and'' with a comma. |
|||
** ''"...in connection with providing services to you."'' "In connection" is very vague - is it possible to use "in order to provide services to you"? |
|||
** ''"For the protection of the Wikimedia Foundation and other users, if you do not agree with this Privacy Policy, you may not use the Wikimedia Sites."'' This sentence seems misplaced. Should it be moved to the introduction, some other headline or to the other disclaimer at the bottom? |
|||
* <u>Changes to This Privacy Policy</u>: ''"...and via a notification on WikimediaAnnounce-L or a similar mailing list."'' It sounds like the mailing list can be chosen at random. Is "...or a similar mailing list" really necessary? Retiring WikimediaAnnounce-L could be as simple as announcing the move there (including this tiny link/name change in the privacy policy), while still following with this policy. |
|||
General notes: |
|||
* Is there any system regarding "and" vs. "&" in headlines? |
|||
* I like Rory. Tasteful, doesn't distract, and gives you something to look at now and then. |
|||
* Use apostrophes consistently (don't vary between ’ and ') |
|||
* Is it "user profile" or "user page"? |
|||
* It's still quite long. This introduction is, however, a quite good summary. |
|||
[[User:Skalman|//Shell]] 23:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: Hi Shell! Thank you for your detailed comments. We really appreciate you taking the time to help us on this. The legal team and I will go through your comments and suggestions in greater detail tomorrow and will respond in-line accordingly (probably with some questions for you). =) Thanks again! [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 00:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Apologies for the delay. We will be on this shortly. Thanks. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 10:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Bump. Do you have ant comments? [[User:Skalman|//Shell]] 10:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::Further apologies for the ongoing delay. We are juggling a couple of priorities right now, but intend to focus on your comments this week or next. Thanks. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 19:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Tracking of visited pages == |
|||
Hello. I received the following question via [[:wmf:Answers]]. I am posting it here for response and will point out to the correspondent where it is. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 01:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
''As you can imagine, with all the knowledge now available to everyone about the vast extent of USA and other countries’ spying networks, we all know that Wikimedia can be forced rather easily to give up every bit of personal, location, metadata, and other data you have. People who use Wikipedia are often people with a broad range of interests or people researching data for writing a paper for school or a work of literature, etc. They may visit sites in which they have no personal interest other than fulfilling a specific need at a specific time. However, there are probably a good many “trigger” words or phrases used by NSA and others that they would deem indicative of potential criminal or terrorist activity. They may ask for data on anyone who has visited any of the pages using those words or phrases within the last ten to twenty years! That makes everyone who uses Wikimedia a potential target. Perhaps, in the interest of securing the privacy of innocent parties, Wikimedia should NOT collect any information on which pages are visited. I realize this would put a big chunk information you should be able to use for the betterment of the sites out of reach, but with spying run amok, this may be a necessary sacrifice. Billions of your users are now getting very paranoid!''</blockquote> |
|||
*Additional comments above [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Privacy_policy&diff=5799995&oldid=5799932 Here (diff)] and in general in [[#Strip Wikimedia Data Collection to the Barest Minimum - Introduction|Strip Wikimedia Data Collection to the Barest Minimum - Introduction]] and related sections under that on amount of user tracking, [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]] ([[User talk:Jalexander|talk]]) 03:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
* We also have an email from a user who would like us to rethink any ideas to 'tailor' the experience automatically because their needs change day to day and they feel that tailoring it more will hurt the usefulness of the site in this way. They have been invited to join in here or elsewhere on the page if desired. [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]] ([[User talk:Jalexander|talk]]) 03:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Hi wmf:Answers, |
|||
::I personally and the WMF as an organization worry about the recent revelations that [[en:Edward Snowden|Edward Snowden]] has made. Our legal counsel has written a detailed [http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/06/14/prism-surveillance-wikimedia/ blog post] about our position regarding PRISM. We have enabled [https://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/10/03/native-https-support-enabled-for-all-wikimedia-foundation-wikis/ SSL] for all our readers on most Wikimedia projects. So we are committed to protect the privacy of all our users! |
|||
::I think it's important to realize that we are not storing data for long periods of time, and certainly not for 20 years. We are currently working on a separate Data Retention Guidelines that explains how long we store it. We cannot store no webrequest data -- we need it for performance monitoring, capacity planning, providing key performance indicators for all our projects. What we can do is to store the data no longer then we absolutely have to and that's what we are doing. |
|||
::Best, |
|||
::[[User:Drdee|Drdee]] ([[User talk:Drdee|talk]]) 21:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC) (in my role as Product Manager Analytics @ WMF) |
|||
== Do Not Track == |
|||
Starting a new section based on an email we received, summarized here and the emailer pointed to the discussion: |
|||
* The emailer is happy about the desire to protect information from unauthorized disclosure and use but is concerned about government monitoring [Specifically in the UK but obviously this is a broader question as well]. They would like us to watch for the browser set 'Do Not Track' header and to collect only minimal data for any user with that setting. [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]] ([[User talk:Jalexander|talk]]) 17:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:: The email [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]] references was fairly specific and well-written, so I will quote it here to give more context: "I think that some users, in some situations, have specific needs or desires not to be tracked. I think this means that wikimedia should support the 'Do Not Track' header and only collect minimal data for users with this. I could not find any information about a policy either way." |
|||
:: I think it will also be helpful, before answering, to clear up a common misconception about Do Not Track. |
|||
:: To quote from donottrack.us, the page about Do Not Track maintained by Stanford researchers (emphasis added): "Do Not Track is a technology and policy proposal that enables users to opt out of tracking by websites ''they do not visit''..." |
|||
:: The [http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#first-party-compliance World Wide Web Consortium's Do Not Track standard], which is the formal definition of what Do Not Track means, similarly says (emphasis added): |
|||
{{Blockquote |
|||
|If a first party receives a DNT:1 signal the first party ''may engage in its normal collection and use of information''. This includes the ability to customize the content, services, and advertising in the context of the first party experience. <p>The first party must not pass information about this network interaction to third parties who could not collect the data themselves under this standard. |
|||
}} |
|||
:: (It is important to note that the specification is unfortunately very far from finished; for example, [http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/5 there is still substantial discussion over what the definition of "track" is]. So things may change before the definition is finalized.) |
|||
:: In other words, the official definition of the Do Not Track header specifically allows the websites you visit to record and track information. What it primarily prohibits is giving specific kinds of information to third parties. Unfortunately, many people are confused about this, and think that the DNT header prohibits any sort of tracking, not just third parties. I hope this comment clarifies that point. |
|||
:: Because the privacy policy already has fairly stringent protections for all user information (not just those who turn on Do Not Track), particularly about how/when we give information to third parties, and because DNT does not limit what we ourselves do with the data, we had not included a mention of DNT in the policy. However, we're open to that discussion - for example, if it would be useful, we could summarize this information about DNT a FAQ. And we will of course continue evaluating the standard as it progresses. Hope that helps answer the question.- [[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 19:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::It may be worth clarifying that we aim at being stricter than the opt-in DNT behaviour. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 21:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Yes, that would probably make sense for a FAQ about DNT. I have started drafting something like that, but it'll probably be a few days.-[[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 19:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:We could even take the idea, that some users have a greater need to not be tracked, and allow for an opt out of some of the behavioural tracking, weather explicitly offering a choice somewhere or taking DNT as an indication of this desire and acting further than required by it. Its also worth noting and informing users of the limitations of DNT. --[[User:ZMD123|ZMD123]] ([[User talk:ZMD123|talk]]) 23:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:: Can you explain in more detail what the "greater needs" might be that you're thinking of? Implementing first-party DNT would be a lot of engineering effort, and I suspect that in most cases if we understood the specific concerns we might be able to find better/more specific solutions. -[[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 19:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
* In [[Privacy policy#Our Response to Do Not Track (DNT) signals|#Our Response to Do Not Track (DNT) signals]], you say: "this Policy is generally as or more protective than a formal implementation of the Do Not Track specification". There seems to be a missing ''as'' in that sentence; it could be parsed as ''this policy is generally as protective [than] a formal implementation of the specification",'' which makes no sense. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 22:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Verbosity == |
|||
The [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy old privacy policy] contains 16.790 characters in its main text versus the 33.582 characters of this draft as of now. So a doubling. - Is this a good development? Where's the summary, where's listing of principles? - Isn't that what we should be discussing, and not some long winded explanation and elaboration (even with cute animals)? --[[User:Anjoe|Anjoe]] ([[User talk:Anjoe|talk]]) 08:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Anjoe. IMHO, I don't think word count is the only relevant variable. The draft policy, in my opinion, does a better job explaining our collection, use, and storage of data; incorporates many more topics than the original policy (see above summary at the beginning of the discussion); adopts many global principles of data management; and uses introductory texts and summaries to make the policy more comprehensible. Now, no doubt, we can improve on this draft, including phrasing and looking for opportunities for succinct writing. But that is the opportunity for this 4-month consultation. With respect to your questions: There is a user-friendly summary at the very beginning that you should feel free to comment on, as others have already done. The most important principles are set out in this summary and the Welcome paragraph at the beginning. Obviously we are always interested in others' thoughts whether anything else should be included in that summary and welcome paragraph. Thanks. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 13:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Seek or find? == |
|||
I notice that in a couple of places the policy states that WMF will "seek to" do something: ''We seek to put requirements, such as confidentiality agreements, in place'' and ''we seek to put requirements, such as reasonable technical and contractual protections, in place'' to protect privacy. (The same language is used above by [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)]].) This is presumably intentional, and to the extent that it is intentional, unacceptably feeble. WMF policy must surely be to succeed in putting these measures in place to protect privacy, not merely to seek to do so. If WMF is unable to put measures in place to adequately protect private information in the hands of third parties, it should not be giving the information to those parties at all. [[User:Spectral sequence|Spectral sequence]] ([[User talk:Spectral sequence|talk]]) 21:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Ditto. This is the only thing I noticed worth inquiring about. [[User:ImperfectlyInformed|ImperfectlyInformed]] ([[User talk:ImperfectlyInformed|talk]]) 22:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Oh, dear. It seems we all want a perfect world. Unfortunately, it isn't. I suppose you would like to see guarantees that martial law won't be introduced later today and everything will be seized by the government, or that sometimes technical hitches and miscalculations WILL happen. In the immortal words of Homer Jay Simpson, "Stuff happens." There are no legal guarantees regarding unforeseen events, inadvertent errors or absolute security, therefore the language of this legal document (that's what it is: a serious, legal document) cannot reflect impossible or, at least, implausible absolutes. Would you be satisfied with them saying, "We promise that we'll try really, really, really hard to do our best but can't ensure that stuff won't happen."? Apologies for being a tad short about this, but what you're asking for is nothing short of ludicrous. Questions surrounding the wording of the policy ought to be realistic. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 01:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::I would like a perfect world but am not expecting the WMF to deliver it. I am suggesting that that the policy be to require effective measures to be in place and not give out private information unless those measures are in place. I don't think that's ludicrous at all. It would be ludicrous to expect those measures to be 100% effective, I did not say that and do not expect that. I said, and say, that they should be adequate, and they should be in place. To merely "seek" to put measures in place, is to allow the option of giving away information without adequate measures, and that is unacceptable. [[User:Spectral sequence|Spectral sequence]] ([[User talk:Spectral sequence|talk]]) 06:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::In which case, [[User:Spectral sequence|Spectral sequence]], your concern IS a reasonable one, and I apologise for the snarky response. HOWEVER, surely you must understand that you're still asking for something the legal department is not going to commit to whether or not your expectations are met. Being the legal department, their interests lie with protecting the WMF from being sued, meaning that despite presenting this fluffy prototype supposedly with the explicit intent of making policy as clear and concise as possible, they will continue to use evasive and ambiguous terminology. |
|||
::::That is actually why quite a number of people are railing against the fluffy presentation. So far, it has not delivered on being concise. I think most people would prefer a dry but succinct document over a document which is overly verbose & cutesy where unnecessary, and is failing to address salient issues. It's easier to hide behind a lot of "seek to" clauses when your blinding people with a lack of science. What you've detected is going to resonate far more without Rory and "cool stuff". It's also why I'd suggest that [[User:ImperfectlyInformed|ImperfectlyInformed]] should revisit his/her appraisal as, "Ditto. This is the only thing I noticed worth inquiring about." There's a lot more to notice about what the this draft method of delivery is concealing. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 10:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Thanks for that, glad to hear we were in agreement after all. You may be right about whether WMF will commit themselves to implementing these measures, but it will be interesting to hear their response. [[User:Spectral sequence|Spectral sequence]] ([[User talk:Spectral sequence|talk]]) 16:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Agreed. Before seeing this thread, I asked, |
|||
::::::Any objections to the edit s/seek to put requirements/put requirements/g ? |
|||
:::::I see no reason to be so wishy-washy. If there are to be exceptions, I feel the policy must state that any such exceptions will be specified, say, in the noted FAQ section. We already have the non-wishy-washy, "We will never use third-party cookies," so I see this ''seek to'' crud as unjustifiable. Legal: Are there any exceptions that will need to be noted? --[[User:Elvey|Elvey]] ([[User talk:Elvey|talk]]) 22:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Well, Legal, the consensus regarding your understanding of simple English and the end users' understanding of simple English seem distinctly different. Thus far, cuddly-speak and cute mascots have been sprinkled liberally throughout the draft document obfuscating a clear understanding of a policy which is still harbouring those nasty legalese terms. If I were ''seeking to'' translate legalese into a simple English version, I'd write, “Hi! We might put confidentiality agreements in place but, hey, we probably won't!” and, “We might put reasonable technical and contractual protections in place, but you won't find out until you've already uploaded your stuff here.” You see? I'm good with instilling a little tasteful [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour humour]. I beg your pardon? Oh, you don't find that humorous? How extraordinary that our tastes don't coincide. Here's hoping you manage to create something genuinely set out in lay terms and transparent with your next attempts. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 06:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
{{unindent}}In my day-job I actually work as a government regulator so I'm used to seeing wishy-washy legal language; however, I'm also used to telling companies that in some cases they don't get to have wishy-washy language, and they usually get the picture. Not really in the same position here. :) I don't know that much about privacy (altho [http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus67-how-comply-privacy-consumer-financial-information-rule-gramm-leach-bliley-act GLB privacy], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCRA FCRA], and [http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-we-know-about-what-data-brokers-know-about-you data brokers] are professional as well as personal interests) and especially not about the whole domestic spying mess. However, some of these clauses do not refer to cases where "stuff happens". Either you have confidentiality agreements with your vendors or you don't. If you can't get these agreements, then don't suggest that they exist. If you can get them from some of your vendors but not others, maybe disclose that. I would split this out from technical protections, which is indeed broader and much more complex. To be honest, given the already public nature of my Wikipedia contributions, privacy is pretty low on the list of my concerns, which is why this is the main thing I'm commenting on. [[User:ImperfectlyInformed|ImperfectlyInformed]] ([[User talk:ImperfectlyInformed|talk]]) 09:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Now that you've explained the, "ditto", I can empathise... well, other than in as much as being familiar with Australian privacy laws and having been involved in interpreting it/changes to it for the tertiary education sector a couple of times in a professional capacity: that is, working directly with a specific university's Legal department appended to HR. Naturally, as the explicit aim was to comprehend how it impacted on staff and students, the end policy documents were best attempts to be as concise as was humanly possible about what aspects of the privacy policy were enforceable by law and which aspects were tenuous (basically, a forewarning of 'iffy' areas). |
|||
::At the end of the day, the only approach I'd consider to be honest and informative would be to delineate what can be assured and stipulate what can't be assured. As potentially 'boring' as such an approach might be, it would exclude anything outside of that which is absolutely relevant, "Just the facts, ma'am." Aiming at the lowest common denominator (kid friendly?) inevitably backfires. Most kids wouldn't even see this as condescension but as a bunch of old farts trying to be cool, unable to even grasp youth culture terminology without making asses of themselves. The 'background info' would go to the bottom of the pile and be replaced with, "If you are under the age of 18/21 (whatever is deemed to be the standard adult legal age in the USA) or do not fully understand any aspect of this policy, please ask a responsible adult for advice on areas that you aren't clear about before you set up an account or post anything here." The demographic known as 'minors' springs to mind. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 04:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:ImperfectlyInformed, Spectral sequence, Elvey, Iryna Harpy and others in this discussion: thank you! I think you are right that we need to tighten the language. We will discuss internally this week and probably come back with other proposed language. I greatly appreciate your observations and wisdom here. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 10:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Apologies for butting in between your thank you and the response by [[User:ImperfectlyInformed|ImperfectlyInformed]], [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]]. At least I feel that Legal are actually paying attention to input. I'm afraid that the brashness of my comments have been informed by the ongoing fiasco with VE on Wikipedia which has left a bad taste in my mouth regarding all things WMF. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 04:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Emails sent through WMF systems == |
|||
The policy provides for the privacy of email addresses but does not mention the handling of emails sent through WMF systems. This should be addressed and of course the policy should be that the content of such emails is kept completely private. [[User:Spectral sequence|Spectral sequence]] ([[User talk:Spectral sequence|talk]]) 16:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: Hi [[User:Spectral sequence|SS]]. |
|||
: Excellent point. I see an "Emails" section in the [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Privacy_policy&oldid=5803996#Emails current draft], but it doesn't seem to address user-to-user e-mailing. |
|||
: If you have a confirmed e-mail address, you can contact other confirmed e-mail address holders on the same wiki via [[Special:EmailUser]]. It seems reasonable to note this somewhere, if it isn't already included. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 14:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Hi Spectral Sequence and MZMcBride! Thank you for your comments. As I understand it, the "Email User" feature does not actually result in WMF storing the content of emails sent through that feature. Emails are sent to the email address designated by user you have chosen to email, meaning that the contents of the email may be stored by whichever email provider that user has chosen. Because WMF does not have access to or control over the content of your email (the user you sent the email to and their email provider do), it is not covered by the privacy policy draft. In fact, it is specifically excluded under the "Examples of What This Privacy Policy Doesn't Cover" section under "direct communications between users". |
|||
::However, (while there are no current plans to do so) if, in the future, WMF does provide a private, user-to-user messaging system that would result in WMF storing the content of those messages, we would generally require a legally valid warrant prior to releasing that information. This commitment is to be specified in our forthcoming Requests for User Information Procedure & Guidelines, which will make clear the heightened standards any third party requesting nonpublic user information must meet before WMF will release information. |
|||
::I hope this addresses your concerns, but if not, please let me know and I will try to help the best I can. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 16:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::There is no way that emailing other users within the Wikimedia Sites is direct communication between users. WMF is providing the service, handling the emails and hiding the email address of the recipient for the sender. It's not relevant for how long WMF is storing emails. WMF has complete control over the emails. What is sent, how it is sent, how well it is protected and for how long the emails are stored. |
|||
:::The use of email addresses for this purpose should also be mentioned in the privacy policy. --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 21:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::Hi Aviertje. I think the language of the policy could be more precise in terms with regard to calling these interactions "direct communications between users". What we are trying to describe as not covered by the Privacy Policy draft would probably be more accurately described as "communications received by other users" in that we do not have control over the sharing of the content of your communications that are sent to other people. To the extent that we act as an intermediary in the way you describe, that information is considered nonpublic information. I will see what I can do to make that clearer in the policy. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 23:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Model policies to imitate? == |
|||
Were the drafters of this policy given or did they look at any other policies as models of policies that do it right? Which ones? I don't recall the site names offhand, but do recall a few sites that had great policies. What privacy policies do folks think are exemplary? Perhaps some good ones to look at: EFF?, FSF?, Yelp just updated theirs; it's relatively good, ...? What makes for an exemplary policy, IMO? It's short. It's specific. In terms of language, if not meaning, it's the opposite of the typical privacy policy.--[[User:Elvey|Elvey]] ([[User talk:Elvey|talk]]) 22:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: Hah, I had a similar idea and just came here to announce a new page: [[Privacy policy/Examples]]. It's a start. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 14:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::We did examine extensively other privacy policies in this drafting process from a wide variety of organizations, and it makes sense to continue doing so. (For example, I really like the use of icons and margin notes in the LinkedIn policy and maybe that makes sense for us - we already have the icons, but the margin notes also add clarity.) Privacy policies are usually tailored to the organization, so examples are useful, but cutting-and-pasting text or ideas should be done with caution. I would suggest that writing a privacy policy in our movement is a bit more challenging than for other traditional organizations. For example, we are not a for-profit corporation that embraces commercial values in the collection, processing, and use of customer data while tightly controlling all its processes. We fortunately have a unique collaborative community that supports the projects interactively, in multiple ways that are unprecedented elsewhere, requiring a somewhat different approach in our privacy policy and its descriptions. We need to explain our somewhat complex practices in ways that others will understand. We also are the fifth most popular website in the world, with the challenges of any major internet site, so smaller organizations may provide some best practices in their privacy polices, but may not have the complete answer for us. Thanks for raising and discussing. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 16:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Geo Location of IP address == |
|||
"IP adress.. which could be used to infer your geographical location". |
|||
This is similar to discrimination. I'm fed up of websites using my IP address to categorise me. I happen not to be a native of the IP address given to me by my provider so I recieve all the wrong assumptions based on my IP adresss. The point is the assumption (geo location) should not be made in the first place. It's like tailoring your services to the user based on the color of his skin, language, location... |
|||
:Hi, we do not use IP addresses to make assumptions on user demographics (if we do, we really shouldn't :), but there are various important reasons for counting requests as a function of their country or region of location, for example to determine whether our data centers can adequately serve traffic originating from a given region, if we're blocking users from giving regions failing to [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ams-fyukCIlMdFRwMWJ3czFRQ0NEeVliNklYTDhfdHc#gid=3 reach our websites via HTTPS] or if we have a large amount of visits from locations with mobile devices that we don't currently support. We also use geolocation for functionality like [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Nearby Nearby] that we offer on mobile web. [[User:DarTar|DarTar]] ([[User talk:DarTar|talk]]) 00:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm in the UK, I receive info about lots of events and also tell other UK editors about lots of events via watchlist notices. I don't want to see the full list of worldwide events, and I doubt that someone in ether Georgia would like their watchlist cluttered with events about London. So this is similar to discrimination, but in an OK sense. Like driving at 50mph in a 55 mph limit is similar to driving at 60mph, but is within the bounds of acceptability. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 12:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== What's the use of this policy? == |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy: "A policy is a principle or protocol to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes. A policy is a statement of intent.." |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines: "Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow.." |
|||
So the privacy policy is not a hard ruling but a guideline to reach a hypothetical outcome and reality may be completely different? What's the use? --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 15:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Aviertjel - I believe a privacy policy is a bit different. Privacy policies are required by law, such as in California where the Wikimedia Foundation is based, because users provide data and should know how their data is used. Privacy is also an important value to our community, so a policy should outline transparently how we collect, use, and store data. Privacy policies generally are not discretionary; organizations should be complying with their privacy policy. Indeed, the term "privacy policy" is a bit misleading. The policy is more than a piece of paper; it also describes the internal processes used to collect, store and use information. Take care. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 16:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:: Thanks. I found a link [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=22001-23000&file=22575-22579 Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 - California Business and Professions Code sections 22575-22579] on http://oag.ca.gov/privacy/privacy-laws. Does this law apply? It speaks of "a commercial Web site or online service" --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 18:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Hi Avierje. In my view, our site is not a commercial site and therefore is not technically subject to the law, for among other reasons. So, in short, your point is quite well taken here. The principle driving this law speaks directly to our values as a movement, and, accordingly, it does establish a good practice, even if not mandatory. The purpose of a privacy policy is to tell users how their data is collected and used, and an up-to-date privacy policy is particularly important for an organization like ours, which strives to be [[Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles#Transparency|transparent]] and [[Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles#Accountability|accountable]] in its work. Thanks for your insightful comment and help in clarifying the issue. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 19:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Legal status of the policy == |
|||
The policy does not clearly express its own legal status. Is it intended be, or form part of, some legally binding agreement between users of WMF sites and the WMF? Are other parties supposed to be bound by it in any way? Do it create any enforceable obligations on the WMF? In particular, what is the intended legal status of the sentence "For the protection of the Wikimedia Foundation and other users, if you do not agree with this Privacy Policy, you may not use the Wikimedia Sites"? Clearly I ''can'' use those sites whether or not I agree with the policy. What does it mean to say that I ''may not''? What does "agree" mean? Is it implying that by using the site I am agreeing with the policy in a legal sense? [[User:Spectral sequence|Spectral sequence]] ([[User talk:Spectral sequence|talk]]) 16:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: Hello Spectral Sequence! The privacy policy is a legal document, binding on both the Foundation and the users of the projects. This means that the Foundation is bound to only collect and use user information as provided for in the privacy policy. Similarly, while you are correct that you can use the sites whether or not you agree with the policy, by using the sites you are accepting the terms of the policy and will be bound by those terms. Thank you for eliciting this clarification! [[User:DRenaud (WMF)|DRenaud (WMF)]] ([[User talk:DRenaud (WMF)|talk]]) 21:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::If it is intended that this policy placed the user under some kind of legal obligation, that needs to be made clear in the policy and it also needs to be made clear in the Terms of Use. It would be a good idea to summarise the obligations the user is entering into under this policy. I also believe that insofar as the privacy policy is intended to be legally binding on users, it becomes even less appropriate for the formal policy to contain informal language such as "we think you are awesome". (Am I contractually obliged to be awesome, or are you just obliged to think me so?). [[User:Spectral sequence|Spectral sequence]] ([[User talk:Spectral sequence|talk]]) 13:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::The policy should also probably clarify whether this page itself is the complete legal contract, or do its subpages like the FAQ and glossary also form part of the contract.--[[User:Siddhartha Ghai|Siddhartha Ghai]] ([[User talk:Siddhartha Ghai|talk]]) 17:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Spenden / donations == |
|||
Weitergabe von Daten aus gesetzlichen Gründen. |
|||
Nicht alle Datensammelwut dient dem Schutz vor Anschlägen, |
|||
Mitunter dient sie auch dem Schutz von Straftätern in Staatsdiensten. |
|||
:Hm, information collected in the donation-process are partially covered by the vague point "Information We Collect". But since the point "service improvement" can be used to justify the collection of almost every possible type of data, the entire policy loses its protective nature. And once those information have been collected, WP can be forced to hand them over on a legal basis, or give them to a third party for scientific research or whatever. [[User:Alexpl|Alexpl]] ([[User talk:Alexpl|talk]]) 09:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::My apologies for my lack of German language skills, but I'm a little confused about what the original question or comment is in relation to the section title of "Donations". Could you clarify? If your question regards donations, donations are actually covered by the [[Donor policy | Donor Privacy Policy]] rather than the main Privacy Policy. Hope that helps. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 00:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
==Opt-in vs. Opt-out== |
|||
Under the heading [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Information_Related_to_Your_Use_of_the_Wikimedia_Sites Use], |
|||
the policy talks about what would be my data, or my experience and then continues |
|||
to how we ("we", WF Inc) would understand the aforementioned better. |
|||
For the latter undertaking, the text fails to give legal or technical or economical reasons in most of this section (and others). |
|||
The text does appeal, though, to readers' susceptibility to advertising by using phrases like |
|||
* "more relevant", "faster", "more effective", "greater security", "optimize applications", "customize content", and so on. |
|||
These trade event buzzwords do not seem adequate for a privacy policy. |
|||
Given this impression, a simple change involving the users can make the policy more acceptable to them, I think: |
|||
in place of what could be termed “deflective rhetorics” (seemingly copying other companies'), |
|||
require every individual user to '''opt for''' being measured. This way, a user will clearly give permission to WF Inc to measure this user's behavior. |
|||
Emphasize opt in, that is, '''not''' opt out! — [[User:GeorgBauhaus|GeorgBauhaus]] ([[User talk:GeorgBauhaus|talk]]) 11:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Georg, I am a researcher at WMF and part of my job is to help people who design new features make informed decisions about their impact on readers and editors like you. We strive to make the type of data we collect transparently [[Research:Schemas|available and auditable]] and to publicly report the results of our analysis in the form of dashboards, research reports and aggregate or anonymized open datasets. We measure the aggregate behavior of groups or cohorts of users, we do not collect data to target or profile individuals for the purpose of selling or advertising, and to be blunt: this is not deflective rhetorics, but it's what the organization needs to operate Wikimedia's sites. An opt-in model where we would ask individual users permission to collect data undermines our ability to tell whether a new user interface is working or causing problems, whether the site is reachable or it takes hours to load a single page, whether spambots are targeting our sites and so on. I do agree with you that we should do a better job at explaining how – as a user – you can browse anonymously and protect your privacy when visiting or contributing to our sites. I disagree that it's the job of a privacy policy to explain the "technical or economical reasons" that drive our research or our need to collect data (these can be found in the Foundation's annual plan or in individual project or program pages), but to disclose what data we collect, how long we keep it and define your rights as a user when it comes to this data. [[User:DarTar|DarTar]] ([[User talk:DarTar|talk]]) 23:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Do not save the IP of logged in users! == |
|||
Logging IPs ''of logged in users'' is a tool of surveillance. It is unnecessary. This only opens the door to governments who will ask you to hand over these IPs in order to get more information about their target. Stop it now, before it is too late. Who cares about the 10000 sock puppets if you can protect the human right on anonymity for the rest(>1000000) users? That only "a few admins will have access to the IPs" does not help. Who controls the controler? Who controls what happens in secret with the data ? You might add it s not secret that we collect the data: "We stated it in the policy that the data would be collected". But it s secret (not viewable) who accesses the stored data and when it was accessed. Storing the IP ''of logged in users'' is against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_anonymous . You can derive too many things by the knowledge of the IP to say that the user stays anonymous. SO DO NOT STORE IT. IT IS NOT NECESSARY. --[[Special:Contributions/92.193.47.88|92.193.47.88]] 20:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Well - wikis would face even worse vandalism if they didn't keep the IP: in that case a vandal could e.g. easily make a bot that creates new accounts, and make one vandal edit per account. However, it ''would'' be good if the privacy policy stated for how long the IP is kept at a maximum, since it's probably not necessary to keep the info indefinitely. [[User:Skalman|//Shell]] 20:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Hi Shell! We actually plan on going into more detail about how long we keep IP addresses in the forthcoming Data Retention Guidelines. Sorry that we don't have those out for you yet, but we're working to get a draft out as soon as we can! [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 21:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Anonymous! Thank you for voicing your opinion. I certainly understand that logging of IPs is a sensitive topic, especially given the recent events regarding the actions of the NSA. The Foundation has made [http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/06/14/prism-surveillance-wikimedia/ its position] clear with regard to PRISM and any other secret governmental surveillance program. Additionally, we plan on releasing Requests for User Information Procedures & Guidelines in the coming weeks to be transparent about the heightened legal standards any third party has to meet before the Foundation will release any user data. And with regard to the admins who have access to nonpublic data, such as the IP addresses of logged-in users, the new [[Access to nonpublic information policy | Access to Nonpublic Information Policy]] draft is also up for review by the community and goes into more detail about the duties of these admins and the situations under which they are permitted to access nonpublic information. |
|||
:As to your question as to why we collect IP addresses from logged-in users -- we use IP addresses for research and analytics; to better personalize content, notices, and settings for you; to fight spam, identity theft, malware, and other kinds of abuse; and to provide better mobile and other applications. As as Shell noted, IP addresses are vital in vandalism investigations. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 21:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm an admin on the English language Wikipedia. We don't have access to the IPs of logged in users and I don't believe that admins have on other wikis. As far as I'm aware only checkusers, developers, Arbs and maybe oversighters have access to this data. Absolutely they need access to that data, otherwise we have no way to deal with sockpuppetry and various other problems, but they only need it and it is only kept, for short periods of time - I think a few months. It would be a good idea to extend that for certain bad faith accounts so that we could spot them when they return after a few months, I suspect that informal practice is to keep such information anyway, but it would be good to formalise that and maybe put some limits and controls on it. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 12:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Hi WereSpielChequers. You are correct in that not all admins have access to IP addresses. The Access to Nonpublic Information Policy is only meant to cover admins that have specific rights that give them access to sensitive data. Thanks for pointing that out! And yes, we hope to formalize retention practices in the forthcoming Data Retention Guidelines, so that there will be better known, consistent procedures and practices as to how long we keep data. Thank you for your input with regards to bad faith accounts. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 22:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Well it is interesting to see so many sharing concerns about IP addresses. I have an idea for your consideration - Hashed IP addresses. |
|||
As I am sure you (as organization with a large website) are aware, hashing is often performed on users passwords. An interesting tutorial about this can be found on *****://crackstation.net/hashing-security.htm#normalhashing . |
|||
Passwords are often hashed with salt for security reasons, however if wikipédia instead of logging IP addresses were to hash the addresses of users without accounts without salt, the hash produced (the same for each IP address) would still be useful to prevent article vandalism in a more privacy preserving fashion. |
|||
If these HIPs as opposed to IP addresses were logged whistle-blowers or people with privileged or rare knowledge would have a higher, although far from perfect, degree of security contributing to wikipédia. I would very much like to see wikipédia leading the way to a more privacy friendly Internet. |
|||
== Images and Rory == |
|||
<gallery widths=60px heights=60px> |
|||
File:Rory sketch - waving.jpg |
|||
File:Rory sketch - using data.jpg |
|||
File:Rory sketch - not sharing.jpg |
|||
File:Rory experiment.png |
|||
File:Rory sketch - sword and shield.jpg |
|||
File:Rory sketch - San Francisco.jpg |
|||
</gallery> |
|||
Hi everyone. We appreciate greatly the helpful feedback that we have heard to date on using images, like the above ones of Rory, with the proposed privacy policy. Our intent, given the importance of the document, is to find a way to ensure that everyone reads it, while being consistent with our values and culture as a community. We were using the above images to introduce the main parts of the privacy policy in a less legalistic way than most privacy policies. Those topics were: “Introduction,” “Use of info,” “Sharing,” “Protection,” and “Important Info.” Each image of Rory corresponded to each of these themes in the draft privacy policy. |
|||
We’ve had a bunch of comments both supporting and expressing concerns about the use of images or Rory in particular. Some of the past discussion may be found [[Talk:Privacy_policy/Archives/2013#Illustrations|here]]. (Since the community consultation period started, we also received about 18 private emails, many of which were playful, in apparent support of Rory.) |
|||
That said, in light of your comments and concerns, I think it is important that we at WMF give a little more thought about the idea of Rory. We accordingly are going to retire Rory from the privacy policy for now, and go back to the drawing board. One line of feedback was that the purpose of Rory was unclear. So we may brainstorm on that issue as a team, and, if we think we have a good idea of how to make that purpose more clear and effective, we will share it here. One theme I like in the discussion is including summary bullets in the left margin, so we are going to reflect about that as well. |
|||
Again thanks for taking the time for reading this draft and giving us thoughtful comments both for and against provisions in this draft. Take care. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 21:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist|close=1}} |
|||
: ''In principle'', I personally liked the presence of some pictures. It helps navigate a document - a good example is how forums that allow user avatars can remain usable at much higher post per page counts than no-avatars forums. |
|||
: What I personally didn't like, and I think what most users didn't like, is that the images just didn't seem to belong with the rest of the document. They didn't contribute to it, they had minimal relevance, and the overall tone was just too removed from something that addresses security concerns. Making a nod to the section at hand just isn't enough to make it relevant. |
|||
: I think the perfect solution would be to fit the policy with pictures that properly contribute to it. Incorporating cchematics and diagrams would be best for this purpose. Something illustrating the cycle of data collection-storage-use-removal, or the chain of potential issues and their mitigation. Or anything else, just any aspects of the policy that you can come up with a way to summarize or elaborate on in visual form. |
|||
: Whether there is a mascot or not is probably not as important as whether the pictures are relevant and useful to the matter. [[User:CP\M|CP\M]] ([[User talk:CP\M|talk]]) 09:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Hi CP\M - I definitely hear you on this. What do you think of using bullet points summarizing major themes in the margin, like the [http://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement LinkedIn terms of use]? [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 12:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Geoffbrigham, I think that would be a good idea because not everyone will have the time (or would want) to read extensive text about their legal rights and responsibilities. At least with summaries in plain language, people can read briefly about what section is about and if necessary, read in further detail to learn more. I noticed a lot of other major websites do that, perhaps, because it shows better transparency. For example, [https://www.google.ca/intl/en/policies/privacy/ Google] (easy to read language), [https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy Facebook] (in sections with descriptions), & [https://twitter.com/tos Twitter] and [https://twitter.com/privacy Twitter, again] (short tips to summarize important areas). [[Special:Contributions/184.146.118.35|184.146.118.35]] 00:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thanks. Your thoughts have been really helpful here. I believe we will likely experiment with margin summaries. We are a little busy on other things in the legal department right now, but we hope to propose some language in the coming month or so - well before the end of the consultation process. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 16:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Translation problems == |
|||
Current version of /zh has problems (If code not converted at the top, some simplified Chinese characters display). I am unable to remedy it, because for some reason I'm prevented from doing so. [[User:Penwhale|Penwhale]] ([[User talk:Penwhale|talk]]) 23:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Can you give specific changes needed? [[User:PiRSquared17|PiRSquared17]] ([[User talk:PiRSquared17|talk]]) 23:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, Penwhale, we'd love to help, but as PiRSquared17 mentioned, we need some more detail about what exactly is happening and what should be changed. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 00:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Capitalization in titles == |
|||
In the current privacy policy sentence-style capitalization is used in titles (headers). Exactly what style of capitalization is used now? And what is the reason for changing? Is the new capitalization style presumed to be more clear? |
|||
There seems to be a few capitalization errors in the titles. I suggest to fix them. --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 23:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: Hi Aviertje! We are following AP guidelines for title capitalization in the new policy. This was simply a stylistic choice intended to make the draft read more easily. We apologize for the inconsistency in application and we are now fixing it. Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention! [[User:DRenaud (WMF)|DRenaud (WMF)]] ([[User talk:DRenaud (WMF)|talk]]) 21:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Structure of the document == |
|||
I find the current privacy policy much more clear than the new one. It's much easier to retrieve information from it. One of the reasons I think is because there are redundant headings in the proposed new privacy policy. If you remove the headers "Welkom!", "Use of info", "Sharing", "Protection" and "Important info", the document suddenly makes much more sense. |
|||
It looks like meaningless headers were added, only to provide for short descriptions for the big icons. I suppose this is done to make the document look more attractive to a younger audience and to lure people into clicking the icons at the top. Also the numbering of chapters seems to be removed to support the structure created by the big icons. It may look more cool and attractive and you perhaps get more clicks, but I'm sure the actual information comes across much harder. --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 15:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Aviertje. Thank you for your suggestion. The purpose of the icons was to make it easy for people to skip to sections that they are looking for or are the most interested in. I see what you're saying about some being redundant, such as when the "Sharing" icon and heading is immediately followed by the subsection heading "When May We Share Your Information?". However, other times, the icon and accompanying heading help group together related subsections. For example, the "Important Info" icon and heading groups together "Where is the Foundation and What Does that Mean for Me?", "Changes to This Privacy Policy", "Contact Us", and "Thank You!". The Introduction icon and heading do something similar. |
|||
:The hope was not to make the document look attractive (although that's not the worst thing to do if you are trying to encourage people to read something), but to make it more navigable. What do others think? Do the icons and section headings help? [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 18:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:: It's funny that you mention "Important info" as an example. "Important info" says absolutely nothing. Each chapter could be named that. Naming it "I don't know what to name this" would even be more informative. |
|||
:: BTW. "Welcome!" is a bad title, because the section is not about welcoming the reader. It can be a greeting if you make it normal text instead of a header. "A Little Background" is also a bad title. The inconsistent use of the informal word "info" looks strange. --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 16:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Hi Aviertje. If you have suggestions as to what the titles should be renamed as, I'd like to hear them and hear what other community members think, both about the current titles and your proposed titles. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 22:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::Like I said at the beginning lose the meaningless headers "Welkom!", "Use of info", "Sharing", "Protection" and "Important info". As to "A Little Background", what do you think of "Language used in this policy"? --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 22:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Introduction and scope of the privacy policy == |
|||
In my opinion the introduction should only contain redundant information. People expect the introduction to contain only redundant information and often skip it. |
|||
I think the introduction should be followed by a chapter about the scope of the privacy policy. This should include information about the identity of the Foundation and whether the Foundation has to comply with the provisions in the privacy policy. --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 15:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Aviertje! Thank you for your suggestion. The purpose of the introduction is to give the privacy policy draft some context. It outlines some of our guiding principles and lays out the scope of the policy draft. I think it plays an important role in the draft for those reasons. Providing redundant information in the introduction only serves to make the policy draft longer without reason. Every section of the policy draft has been included for a reason and should be read in full. I understand that some people may skip the introduction (or any other section that does not interest them), and part of the reason why we have subsections (like "What This Privacy Policy Does & Doesn't Cover") is to make it less likely that people will accidentally skip a section that is important to them. |
|||
:As to your second comment about having a chapter about the scope of the privacy policy, I'm not sure I understand. The scope of the privacy policy draft is actually covered as a subsection of the introduction (following the "Welcome" and "A Little Background" subsections), and is entitled "What This Privacy Policy Does & Doesn't Cover". Could you clarify? |
|||
:As to your comment about explaining the identity of the Foundation, can you explain what you mean exactly? In the "A Little Background" section, we state by ""the Wikimedia Foundation" / "the Foundation" / "we" / "us" / "our"", we mean "The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., the non-profit organization that operates the Wikimedia Sites." What additional information do you think we should include to make the identity of the Foundation a little clearer? |
|||
:And finally, regarding your question about whether the Foundation has to comply with the provisions of the privacy policy. The answer is yes, a privacy policy is a legal document that outlines the Foundation's practices with regard to the collection and use of user information and the Foundation is supposed to follow it. Any alleged violations of the privacy policy should be brought to the attention of the Foundation's legal team or the Ombudsman Commission so that it can be investigated and addressed as appropriate to the particular situation. |
|||
:Thank you again for taking the time to bring these issues up. I look forward to hearing clarification of some of your points and hope we can make the draft better as a result. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 17:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::I meant not to make the privacy policy longer, but to move important information like "What This Privacy Policy Does & Doesn't Cover" out of the introduction into a separate chapter. |
|||
::Concerning my comment about the identity of the Foundation, I was thinking of the information in the section "Where is the Foundation and What Does that Mean for Me?" I suggest to move this information to the beginning. First things first. A privacy policy should state who is responsible for processing personal data, what data is processed and for what purpose. It seems logical to me to use this order. |
|||
:: There doesn't seem to be a law saying the Foundation has to comply with the provisions in the privacy policy, see section "What's the use of this policy?" on this talk page. And there doesn't seem to be a statement in the terms of use or privacy policy explicitly stating the Foundation has to comply. Since this is a legal document, what's not stated, doesn't count. Anyway, I think it would be good to include explicit statements saying the Foundation has to comply with certain things. The terms of use and privacy policy seem to be very one-sided agreements. It's all about protecting the interest of the Foundation. The users are forced to consent with everything. The Foundation doesn't commit to anything. Not explicitly stated anyway. --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 15:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Aviertje, can you point to language in other privacy policies that would be along the lines of what you are recommending re binding nature of the privacy policy? As a side note, I would question that this is a one-sided agreement, especially given the commitment to collect relatively minimal information compared to other major website. We understand your other points and will monitor this discussion to see how others feel as well. Thanks. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 09:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::I don't know examples by heart from other privacy policies and I don't have the time to research this. Sorry. |
|||
::::Let me ask you a question. Can you point me to language in the proposed privacy policy where user rights are protected? Compare that with the times the rights of the Foundation are protected. |
|||
::::Can you also point me to language in the proposed privacy policy where the Foundation explicitly commits to collect relatively minimal information? --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 14:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Standard for most privacy policies, there are various places where protection of user rights is mentioned (e.g., "We do not sell or rent your nonpublic information, nor do we use it to sell you any third-party products or services."). There are also provisions regarding protection of the rights of the Foundation (e.g., "We may need to share your personal information if we reasonably believe it is necessary to enforce or investigate potential violations of our Terms of Use, this Privacy Policy, or any Foundation or user community-based policies."). |
|||
:::::With regard to our data collection practices, as we have [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#introduction pointed out], for example, “you do not have to provide things like your real name, address, or date of birth to sign up for a standard account or contribute content to the Wikimedia Sites.” |
|||
:::::Courts often apply contract law to online policies. We will be including some language to make this clearer. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 23:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::After reviewing the proposed privacy policy again, I give in. I was wrong. |
|||
::::::I think I was put off by things like "This Privacy Policy explains how the Wikimedia Foundation ... collects, uses, and shares information we receive from you .... It is essential to understand that ... you consent to the collection, transfer, processing, storage, disclosure, and use of your information as described in this Privacy Policy." While the Foundation merely gives an explanation, I have to consent. There is a lot of attention to informing the user he is giving consent. Is it the intention to get consent from the user, or is it the intention to make the user aware of how his information is used? --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 08:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Banners == |
|||
Recently when I visited Wikipedia I was presented a banner saying something like "Wiki Loves Monuments: Photograph a monument for Wikipedia and win!" This kind of advertisement is a clear invasion of privacy. There doesn't seem to be an option in the preferences to turn this off and the privacy policy does not mention banners, does it? --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 16:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Aviertje! Thank you for your question. You are correct that sometimes the Wikimedia Sites display banners to users. The purpose of these banners are to alert you about certain things that involve the Wikimedia movement -- sometimes they will encourage you to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation (after all, the Wikimedia Sites are supported almost entirely from donations from the community), sometimes the banners let you know about interesting Wikimedia-related events that are going on (like the Wiki Loves Monuments competition, which encourages people to contribute to Wikimedia Commons), and sometimes they alert you to discussions about important topics that might impact you as a user (like the privacy policy draft discussion). They are never used for subjects that are not related to or could impact the Wikimedia projects or the Wikimedia movement. |
|||
:Could you clarify why you believe the banners are an invasion of privacy? Displaying banners does not, itself, result in the collection of any personal information. Clicking on a banner may result in the collection of some personal information, such as IP address, through the use of JavaScript (a method of information collection we use not just for banners and which is described in the "Information We Collect" section of the draft). You are correct in that the privacy policy draft does not directly address the banners. Do you think adding specific language under the "Information We Collect" section would be helpful in this regard? |
|||
:As to your question about turning off banners, we try to not overwhelm you with banners (we actually use cookies to try to limit the number of times that you see a banner), but there is not an option to turn them off completely. This is because there may be times where we need to alert users about important information. For example, when a major legal policy is changed and is going to go into effect, we use banners to provide users notice of the impending changes. This method of notice is particularly important because we do not have another equally effective way of reaching all of our users as we do not require contact information to use Wikimedia Sites or even when you register an account. |
|||
:Hope that helps address some of your concerns. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 00:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:: You ask why banners with advertisements are an invasion of privacy? Because I have "the right to be let alone" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States]. When I request a page with information from WMF's server, an advertisement is sent directly to me personally. I don't appreciate spam. Not by e-mail, not by phone and not by answering http requests. --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 13:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::A banner is part of the wiki page itself, it is shown to everyone who looks up a page without looking to who is looking. All major sites use or have used banners in certain cases that are considered important, as there is no other way to communicate to all users together. The Wikimedia Foundation does not advertise for commercial benefit (spam). There is a difference between spam and a notice. The Wikimedia Foundation only uses banners for notices as the worldwide community is in general against advertisements. What is a notice? A notice is a message to everyone about the conditions of the website and changes in those or about activities that are organized on the website. Examples are the implementation of a privacy policy (change in condition), asking for a donation for maintenance/etc of the website (condition) and the organisation of the largest photo competition in the world (activity). So don't mix up spam with notices, we do not call a cat a dog either. If you visit whatever website, you can only retrieve the complete web page from the server, which includes all texts, images, links and notices. That has nothing with privacy but the wish someone has to visit a page we created with all the information we have put on it, not just for that person, but for everyone. [[User:Romaine|Romaine]] ([[User talk:Romaine|talk]]) 02:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::An advertisement doesn't have to be for commercial benefit for it to be considered spam. |
|||
::::The Foundation provides the service Wikipedia. The function of this service is to be a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's function is not to send notices for the Foundation to everyone. The Foundation has its official website and blog for that. I can accept to be bothered by a banner on Wikipedia when the Foundation wants to announce new terms of use or a new provicacy policy. For anything else, I don't see why I should be bothered. Leave me alone while enjoying the free service. At the least, make receiving other notices optional. --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 22:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Err, any user can hide the banners fairly easily. If you're unregistered, you can use client-side CSS or JavaScript in your Web browser. If you're a registered user, you can use server-side JavaScript and CSS pages to do this. For example: [[w:en:User:MZMcBride/hidebanner.js]]. There's also a close mechanism (usually via an "X" icon) associated with every(?) banner that's deployed. The banners are certainly optional if you put in a modicum of work. :-) |
|||
::::: I'll try not to take the bait regarding "leave me alone while enjoying the free service." That's just silliness. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 01:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Although the Foundation has a blog and an official website, only involved members of the community would know about these. The privacy policy discussion is important for all users, and casual readers may even be interested in Wiki Loves Monuments. Compare Wikimedia's donation banners to websites with real ads, and you'll see they're in a very different league. More like a (possibly target by language/country) notice or announcement. Not spam. You may opt out [if you have cookies enabled] of CentralNotice banners by clicking the "X" (sometimes "hide"?) button, or by using user CSS (in [[Special:MyPage/common.css]] on any wikis you read) to hide all CN and even local (SiteNotice) banners. <source lang="css">#siteNotice, #fundraiser, #centralNotice, .fundraiser-box { display:none !important; } |
|||
</source> [[User:PiRSquared17|PiRSquared17]] ([[User talk:PiRSquared17|talk]]) 01:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Clicking the "X" only disables the current displayed banner. It does not opt out for receiving such banners. |
|||
::::::Disabling the feature yourself is a violation of the terms of use, see [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#17._Other_Terms Terms_of_use 17. Other_Terms]: "You agree that we may provide you with notices, including those regarding changes to the Terms of Use, by email, regular mail, or postings on Project websites." |
|||
::::::Unlike regular ads, the notices are not clearly distinguishable as Advertisements. For one thing they are not marked as being ads. This makes it unclear that they are meant for everybody to read if they are interested. In fact, they are not messages displayed to everyone, optionally to read. |
|||
::::::The terms of use says "You agree that we may provide you.." It does not say "You agree that we may provide everybody.." The notices are addressed to each person individually. Advertisements sent this way are a form a direct marketing. I don't know the ins and outs of the law of California. But I understand the California Constitution gives each citizen an inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy. That may very well mean that you can always object to direct marketing. --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 13:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I don't see how displaying a banner is a violation of privacy. Think of it as part of the web page. Compare that to sites (e.g. Wikia) with real ads. If hiding banners is against the ToU, then MZM and I have been violating it... {{ping|Mpaulson (WMF)}} comment? [[User:PiRSquared17|PiRSquared17]] ([[User talk:PiRSquared17|talk]]) 13:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::PiRSquared17, why did you remove the banner? --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 11:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Hi Aviertje, PiRSquared17, and MZMcBride. Aviertje, I'm not sure exactly how you have derived the right not to see banners from a general right to privacy provided in the California Constitution. Can you point us to some statutory or case law supporting your theory? I am unaware of any such interpretation under California law, but would be happy to examine any materials you have. PiRSquared and MZ, I do not believe you have violated the Terms of Use by hiding some banners. The Terms of Use language cited in this discussion simply means that you have agreed to permit us to provide you notice by email, regular mail, or postings to the sites. It does not mean that you hiding the banner or throwing away mail that we send you results in a violation of the Terms of Use. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 22:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::My protest is not against banners in general, but against the banners in the mentioned case. A banner is just the means, it's about the contents of the banner. Like spam isn't the same as email. |
|||
:::::::::I said: "I don't know the ins and outs of the law of California. .... That may very well mean.." It should be obvious that I was raising questions rather than giving answers. I have done a quick scan on California law now. Surely you can't derive much from California Constitution. But I do see the same basic principles concerning privacy being applied. For example, direct marketing is definitely related to privacy. What's the Foundation's policy about own direct marketing (not by third parties)? And can people object to it? |
|||
:::::::::What legal implications does hiding the banner or throwing away mail have? Does the Foundation still consider new terms of use and new privacy policy binding when notices about these new terms are being hidden and thrown away? --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 21:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Comments on purpose of the presentation of the policy == |
|||
The new way to present the policy must have had a little background about the purposes pursued. The legal staff threw the draft without explanations about why the changes in the pattern and language improved the policy. |
|||
According to the stated at this discussion, I find two objectives. I have some comments on these. |
|||
'''(1).-''' "Ensure that everyone reads it". |
|||
*That is an impossible task. Rarely you can ensuring that people do something, even less in a web site. Intent to ensure that everyone reads the policy sounds as paternalistic as a parent trying to ensure that his/her child eat his vegetables… sounds familiar, does not it? But, |
|||
*You can encourage to read a document. In the scope of Wikimedia projects, I find a continuos messages about how is important read some policies as ''The Five Pillars'' or about that you can not upload copyrighted material. These messages appear in correct context, when you are trying to edit an article, or upload an archive. That is not about cuddly mascots or funny sentences, is about to show you how to do some task, and you can be interested in that information because is concerned with what are you doing.The Privacy policy is the kind of thing that needs to be shown when you are editing an article as anonymous contributor. You are warned about ''You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to a user name, among other benefits.'', you can aggregate to this sentence something as this: "Read our privacy policy to know how your data will be treated". You could emphasize the privacy policy when people are registering at the projects, or are giving to WMF their e-mail or other personal data. You could harass the visitors with a continuos banners about to read the privacy policy, but, that would be silly. |
|||
*I think images are not helpful to encourage, even less to ensure, that people read something. Icons and colors in a document can be helpful to make the reading visually attractive, and, as CP/M discusses above, most of the images in a writing are in it with the purpose to illustrate, simplify, reinforce or visually explain something. A cuddly tiger brandishing a sword does not help to understand the WMF efforts to protect my data, unless, literally, a tiger with a sword and shield (and blue Cookie Monster™ slippers) is safeguarding the Wikimedia servers, everything is possible! I found some cartoons ([http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BD-propagande_colour_en.jpg],[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing/Justifications]]) that try to explain some issues about licenses. They were created not in the aim to substitute the official policies but to synthesize and show some points about licenses. |
|||
'''(2).-'''Make possible that "readers who may not be as familiar with our sites and projects" and "everyone should be able to easily understand" the policy. |
|||
*First, explain the objectives of the WFM projects is not in the scope of the privacy policy. Other documents take care about it. As [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About this] or [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en this] . By the way, do not mix the privacy policy with the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use Terms of Use], most of added verbosity to the current draft is a result of include information that is treated in other documents. |
|||
*Translate legalese in a plane English is a laudable purpose. Nobody expects to find a document as ''Subject to the terms and restrictions set forth in this Agreement, Acme Inc. ("The Company"), hereby grants you a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license to utilize the one copy of the product….'' But simple English is that, '''simple''', not friendly, not playful, not hilarious but simple. |
|||
*Most important. Legal staff is avoiding a very important fact. All Wikipedia articles are redacted in a formal and even scholar tone and Wikipedia is the 5th visited web site in entirely world. If your target audience are, mainly, visitors and users of Wikipedia, you do not have to put the policy in a lower level than the Wikipedia articles. People is intelligent, do not forget that.--[[User:SirWalter|SirWalter]] ([[User talk:SirWalter|talk]]) 06:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi, SirWalter - thanks for taking the time to express your concerns. This is, as you point out, a difficult set of goals, but we've already discussed them at length earlier in this discussion, and have acted on some of them (such as the removal of the tigers). If you have specific concerns about specific passages, we're happy to discuss those separately. For example, we've changed specific jokes that have raised concerns with translators. But at this time we're comfortable with the overall tone and style of the policy and don't plan to change it. Thanks. -[[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 18:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, that is frank. I have to say that I don't agree that the informal, jokey style is appropriate for a policy that is intended to be legally binding and to form part of the basis of a formal legal relationship between WMF and the users of its sites. I really think you need to revisit that decision. As I said below, what is the legal force of a sentence such as "We think you are awesome"? [[User:Spectral sequence|Spectral sequence]] ([[User talk:Spectral sequence|talk]]) 21:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Changing the policy == |
|||
The policy makes provision for changes and states that continued use would constitute acceptance of the new policy. It is not clear what would happen to information gathered under the current policy once a new policy came into effect. Does WMF commit to handling information collected at some time under the policy in force at the time indefinitely, or does it expect to allow itself to vary the policy at some future date but apply that change retrospectively? [[User:Spectral sequence|Spectral sequence]] ([[User talk:Spectral sequence|talk]]) 08:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Spectral sequence. Basically, content collected by the Foundation is governed by the policy it was collected under. So the information collected while this policy is in force will be governed by this policy and the information collected under a future policy will be governed by the provisions of that policy. However, it's worth noting that a privacy policy describes the minimum protections provided. If a future policy is able to provide for greater protections than the previous policy (for example, if we get the technological ability to provide greater protections), we may apply those greater protections to information collected under previous policies. But we will not provide fewer protections to information collected under a previous policy. Does that make sense? [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 21:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks, that is what I was hoping to hear. [[User:Spectral sequence|Spectral sequence]] ([[User talk:Spectral sequence|talk]]) 17:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::+1. But, where is it written? Is it consequence of some law or of some passage in the policy? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 17:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Conflict with user community policy == |
|||
The section ''To Protect You, Ourselves, and Others'' states "We may need to share your personal information if we reasonably believe it is necessary to enforce or investigate potential violations of our Terms of Use, this Privacy Policy, or any Foundation or user community-based policies. [...] Wikimedia Sites are collaborative, with users writing most of the policies and selecting from amongst themselves people to hold certain administrative rights." What happens when a community policy conflicts with or contradicts the provisions of this policy? Which takes precedence? The answer needs to be made explicit. [[User:Spectral sequence|Spectral sequence]] ([[User talk:Spectral sequence|talk]]) 18:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Spectral sequence! That's a great question. The Terms of Use does not, to the best of knowledge, contain anything that contradicts the Privacy Policy draft (it only reiterates some things in the current Privacy Policy and the Privacy Policy draft), as they are meant to cover different subject matter. As for community-based policies, they should be in adherence to the Privacy Policy. Although, it should be noted that the Privacy Policy is meant to describe the minimum protections provided and does not prevent other Foundation or community policies or practices from being more protective of privacy. Are there any particular policies that come to mind that you are concerned about? Would adding language like this be helpful: "In the event that a community-based policy relating to a Wikimedia Site covered by this Privacy Policy conflicts with this Privacy Policy, this Privacy Policy takes precedence to the extent the community-based policy conflicts with this Privacy Policy." [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 18:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::I would prefer a "ratchet" clause that stated that the WMF privacy policy provided a minimum level of protection and that community policies were invalid to the extent that they provided a lower level, but valid to the extent that they provided a higher level of protection. [[User:Spectral sequence|Spectral sequence]] ([[User talk:Spectral sequence|talk]]) 17:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== What does "may" mean? == |
|||
The word "may" is ambiguous and used often in the proposed privacy policy. What does it mean each time it is used? I suggest not using this word. |
|||
I suggest to remove "may" (twice) from "This Privacy Policy does not cover some situations where we may gather or process information. For example, some uses may be covered by separate privacy policies.." It is redundant here. --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 09:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:"May" is pretty unambiguous to me. It's used in cases where the policy permits us to do something, but either does not require it or we do not need to so something for every user in all cases. Changing language like this to "will" or "does" may not be appropriate in all cases. ;) <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 03:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Hi Steven. Your definition is not in the dictionary. It is a combination of two possible meanings of the word. Also considering your definition would make the word even more ambiguous. --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 16:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::: Do we need to explicitly define these words, like RFC 2119? [[User:PiRSquared17|PiRSquared17]] ([[User talk:PiRSquared17|talk]]) 16:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::The policy is intended to be legally binding so ambiguity must be resolved. [[User:Spectral sequence|Spectral sequence]] ([[User talk:Spectral sequence|talk]]) 18:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: I agree that the specific sentences you cite are somewhat redundant, but I don't think "may" is the real source of the problem - the whole thing is a little awkward :) I'll redraft that - thanks for taking the time to point it out. As for "may" more generally: |
|||
: There are many places in the policy where users or the Foundation must have the discretion or option to do something. This occurs in all legal documents - the parties can't foresee the future, so they use language that gives each other the option or choice to do certain things, sometimes only under certain conditions. We generally use "may" these situations, for a few reasons. First, the meaning is fairly well-defined: the [http://www.adamsdrafting.com/writing/mscd/ Manual of Style for Contract Drafting], a standard legal resource, says may "means 'has discretion to', 'is permitted to', or 'is authorized to'". May is also part of Simple English, and one of the most common words in English (top 100 in many of the [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Frequency_lists#English Wiktionary frequency lists]), so it should be widely understood even by non-native speakers. Finally, it is also commonly used by lawyers to express discretion (and is what is recommended by the Manual of Style for this purpose). |
|||
: In other words: may is used where the Foundation (and users!) have options. We can't simply eliminate the word altogether, because it is completely appropriate that there be options and flexibility within the document. However, if there are specific options in the policy that you think the Foundation or users should not have, please open a new section to discuss the specific option that you are concerned about. Thanks, and hope that explains our thinking on this issue. -[[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 21:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Of course you can eliminate the word and use something else. You named some alternatives yourself. Thanks for the lesson in lawyer talk. At least, now I know what is meant.--[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 19:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== I don't understand why we need a new policy == |
|||
The team behind the proposed draft of the new privacy policy have provided us with a nice summary of what the changes are supposed to be, and have been very patient at answering the many questions coming from community members involved in the discussion above. However, I haven't been able to find any information as to ''why'' we need a new privacy policy. The summary only says that we need a new policy because the previous one ''did not anticipate many technologies that we are using today''; this is a very vague statement, and one that I'm not really comfortable with. (Really? Didn't we know in 2008 that GPS existed?) I would like to see a more thorough explanation from the Legal team as to ''why'' we need a new privacy policy; I'm quite sure I'm not the only one asking this question to myself. [[user:odder|odder]] ([[user talk:odder|talk]]) 20:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:One big reason is that the current policy is way too vague and high-level. It doesn't actually include many specifics about what is permitted or not, beyond not retaining cookies beyond 30 days. For example, the current policy says, "When a visitor requests or reads a page, or sends email to a Wikimedia server, no more information is collected than is typically collected by web sites." Whoa. That is so open-ended you could drive a bus through it. Today many web sites typically collect all kinds of horrific data used to invade people's privacy, usually for the purposes of serving you advertising. We need a policy, like the current draft, that actually outlines why we might collect data about users, how we use that data, how long we keep it, and lots of other details that are necessary for us to keep Wikimedia readers and editors informed about their privacy. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 17:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::As long as we leak top level userdata to the public, we are second to none of those websites. ([[October 2013 private data security issue]]) The best privacy policy wont do, if we dont have the technical ability to protect the information which should be private - may that be as a result of incompetence - or worth. [[User:Alexpl|Alexpl]] ([[User talk:Alexpl|talk]]) 13:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Why not ask the user if he wants to contribute in making the Wikimedia Sites better? == |
|||
Several times it is mentioned that information is used to make the Wikimedia Sites better. Why not ask the user if he wants to contribute in making the Wikimedia Sites better? --[[User:Aviertje|Aviertje]] ([[User talk:Aviertje|talk]]) 22:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Does the WMF need consent to improve their sites? [[User:PiRSquared17|PiRSquared17]] ([[User talk:PiRSquared17|talk]]) 15:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS) == |
|||
By default, users to the Sites are sent to a <code>http://</code> protocol (for example: <code>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page</code>. Many users do not know that the Sites can be accessed using a secure server, as in a <code>https://</code> protocol (for example: <code>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page</code>). Firstly, I believe users should have the right to have their data encrypted using a secure protocol. Secondly, I believe users should have the right to know that they are able to access the Sites using encryption over a secure server. More specifically, I want the Policy to outline the capability of the Sites to handle users over a secure protocol. If possible, I would also like to see users automatically redirected over to a secure server rather than by default, sent to a <code>http://</code> location. [[Special:Contributions/184.147.55.86|184.147.55.86]] 21:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:The Wikimedia Foundation Operations team considered redirecting all traffic over HTTP to HTTPS, but there were some issues (e.g., China and Iran do not allow HTTPS access). For more information, please see [[HTTPS]] and [[wmfblog:2013/08/01/future-https-wikimedia-projects/|this WMF blog post]]. [[User:PiRSquared17|PiRSquared17]] ([[User talk:PiRSquared17|talk]]) 21:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: I don't think this belongs in the policy (especially since, as PiRSquared super-helpfully pointed out, this is mostly going to be moot in the longer term). But maybe a FAQ entry makes sense? Something like: |
|||
<blockquote>"Q: Can I connect to the Sites with https? A: Yes! Logins are always https, and you always have the option of using https when visiting pages, either by editing the URL or by using a tool like [https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere HTTPS Everywhere]. We're also working to enable https much more widely. To learn more about that, see our [[HTTPS|HTTPS status page]]."</blockquote> |
|||
:Interested to hear what people think about this. -[[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 22:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:*'''Support''' as nominator. [[Special:Contributions/184.146.127.142|184.146.127.142]] 22:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Explicit agreement to cookie usage == |
|||
Many websites across the Internet now utilize a more explicit means of communicating the website's use of cookies and requirement to agree to said usage. For example, one can visit <code>https://www.google.co.uk/</code> where on the bottom one will notice:<blockquote>Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. [button]OK[/button] [link]Learn more[/link]</blockquote> |
|||
It is in the best interest of users and the Foundation to include a similar message indicating to that effect the use of cookies and an explicit click of the "OK" button indicating the user's acceptance to the Privacy Policy. This is particularly helpful rather than stating that the user automatically agrees to the Policy when said user visits the Sites. [[Special:Contributions/184.147.55.86|184.147.55.86]] 21:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Great idea. A volunteer started to document cookies used by WMF sites at [[cookie jar]], but it is not even close to being complete. By the way, I believe that google.co.uk asks the user about cookies because of the EU's [[w:Directive_on_Privacy_and_Electronic_Communications#Cookies|E-Privacy Directive]]. The Wikimedia Foundation might legally need to do so because they use cookies that are not "strictly necessary", but I'm sure they would have done so by now if legally required. Let's leave that to Legal. Even if it's not legally required, it may be better to inform users, however, as you say. [[User:PiRSquared17|PiRSquared17]] ([[User talk:PiRSquared17|talk]]) 21:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::A lot of European websites inform about cookies because of that directive. As Wikimedia Foundation projects are hosted in the United States, I would assume that the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't have to do this, but nothing prevents the Foundation from informing about cookies either. --[[User:Stefan2|Stefan2]] ([[User talk:Stefan2|talk]]) 10:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::We have seen this in several places here recently: the rationale, explicit, implict or presumed, that if WMF is not legally required to do something then it need not. While that may be correct legally, it suggests a somewhat limited commitment to users' privacy. There is no technical reason not to follow the European practice voluntarily, and I for one would suggest that WMF sites should do so as a matter of good practice. Could we hear an explicit reason why WMF has decided not to do so in these cases: a reason, that is, going beyond "we don't have to". [[User:Spectral sequence|Spectral sequence]] ([[User talk:Spectral sequence|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::I agree that this is a good idea. Could someone make a mockup of this? [[User:PiRSquared17|PiRSquared17]] ([[User talk:PiRSquared17|talk]]) 02:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Hi All. Thank you for bringing this issue up. This possibility was actually discussed internally when we were formulating this draft of the privacy policy. We decided not to explore this option further mostly because we were concerned that such pop-ups would take away from the user experience -- people generally do not like pop-ups as part of their interactions with a site. We don't think that having such a pop-up would be wrong or inappropriate per se, but it's a trade-off. If there was a significant call from the community to implement such pop-ups, we would happily discuss this possibility with the tech team again. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 20:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' for pop-ups, as nominator. [[Special:Contributions/184.146.127.142|184.146.127.142]] 22:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Concerns about concerns == |
|||
The sentence ''We may also disclose your personal information if we reasonably believe it necessary to detect, prevent, or otherwise assess and address potential spam, malware, fraud, abuse, unlawful activity, and security or technical concerns'' seems unduly broad. "Technical concerns" could, and indeed does, mean any thought WMF might form about anything and everything connected with the site, and if read literally more-or-less negates everything else in the policy, especially since "disclose" is quite unlimited in scope. This clause should be made much more restrictive. [[User:Spectral sequence|Spectral sequence]] ([[User talk:Spectral sequence|talk]]) 18:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Spectral sequence! I understand your concerns with the term "technical concerns" and am open to more restrictive language, but want to be sensitive to the fact that overly specific language may restrict our ability to address technical issues that do not fall into a specific enumerated category, but very well may be actively harmful to the sites. Do you have any suggestions as to how we could do that? I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 19:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== The draft EU Data Protection Regulation == |
|||
== Red link == |
|||
The draft EU Data Protection Regulation will probably come into force in 2016. It is proposed that it will apply to all non-EU companies processing the data of EU citizens. While of course we appreciate that the WMF is legally situated in the USA, its interactions with users situated in the EU will be affected by the Regulation. How does the proposed Privacy Policy sit with respect to the EU proposals? [[User:Spectral sequence|Spectral sequence]] ([[User talk:Spectral sequence|talk]]) 17:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Spectral sequence! We are aware of the upcoming draft and are tracking the regulation accordingly. The privacy policy draft was written with EU principles in mind and reviewed by EU counsel, but does not incorporate every EU regulation or proposal. Frankly, there is a lot that can happen to the content of proposed EU Data Protection Regulation between now and actually implementation of the regulation and we don't think it's wise to speculate quite yet as to how this will impact the privacy policy draft. We will, of course, keep tracking it and once the language of the regulation has been finalized and an adoption timeline is being established, we reevaluate the privacy policy to see if any changes are needed. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 19:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
There is a red link in [[Policy:Privacy policy/Frequently asked questions#There is outdated or inaccurate information about me in a Wikipedia article! How do I update my information?|this section]], please change it to correct link to Privacy policy, thanks. [[User:Ата|<span style="color:SteelBlue">Ата</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Ата|<span style="color:#80A0FF">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 17:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== What This Privacy Policy Doesn't Cover == |
|||
:@[[User:Ата|Ата]]: Thank you for pointing this out - I have gone ahead and fixed it. --[[User:GVarnum-WMF|Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him]]] ([[User talk:GVarnum-WMF|talk]]) 20:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Expanding the section on ''Examples of What This Privacy Policy Doesn't Cover'' reveals some things that don't quite seem to make sense. We read ''Some sites the Wikimedia Foundation operates have separate privacy policies or provisions that differ from this Privacy Policy'' which makes perfect sense, but is then followed by the phrase ''these particular situations have separate privacy policies that do not incorporate this Privacy Policy:'' where "situation" is not at all the same thing as "site". The list then includes some sites (like the shop) and then ''Administrative groups, such as CheckUsers or Stewards''. Should that bullet come after the comment ''This Privacy Policy only covers the way we collect and handle information'', where in passing "we" should be replaced by "the WMF"? |
|||
== Interwiki to enwiki == |
|||
I think it would be much clearer to say something like: |
|||
This privacy policy applies only to the way WMF collects and handles data and only on certain of WMF sites. Some WMF sites have their own policies; other parties than WMF have access to data on WMF servers and different policies apply to them. Specifically: .... |
|||
[[Policy:Privacy policy/Frequently asked questions]] has an interwiki link to [[w:en:Wikipedia:Username_policy]], which is strange. Is it intended? [[User:Ата|<span style="color:SteelBlue">Ата</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Ата|<span style="color:#80A0FF">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 17:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Spectral sequence|Spectral sequence]] ([[User talk:Spectral sequence|talk]]) 20:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:Ата|Ата]], can you elaborate on what you find odd? The linking to that specific page, the formatting of the link, or something else? Thank you! --[[User:GVarnum-WMF|Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him]]] ([[User talk:GVarnum-WMF|talk]]) 20:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Spectral sequence. I agree that we should move down the bullet point as you suggested. I also agree that we change "we" to "WMF" as you have suggested. I have given those instructions. |
|||
::I find it weird that [[File:OOjs UI icon language-ltr-progressive.svg|20px]]<span style=color:#3f6fcf>1 language</span> button on top of the page links to that specific page. Privacy policy FAQs ≠ enwiki username policy. [[User:Ата|<span style="color:SteelBlue">Ата</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Ата|<span style="color:#80A0FF">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 15:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Fixed! It was [https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Policy:Privacy_policy/Frequently_asked_questions&diff=prev&oldid=310909 a mis-ordered link]. Thanks! [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 02:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Discusssion at en WP == |
|||
:You also are correct that we need more clarity here. I generally like your wording, but I might suggest redrafting a bit. How about something like the following: |
|||
There is a privacy related discussion on en.wiki; you can read the discussion and give advice [[w:en:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Allowing_editors_to_opt_out_of_private_information_on_XTools.|here]]. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]]) 13:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::''This Privacy Policy does not cover all sites where WMF or others may gather or process data. For example, this Privacy Policy may not apply to sites that have their own independent WMF privacy policies or to sites that are run by third parties other than WMF. This Privacy Policy may not apply to certain community administrative groups in specified circumstances. You can find examples where this Privacy Policy does not apply below: .... .'' |
|||
== ru link == |
|||
:Does this work? |
|||
: |
Please make [[Политика конфиденциальности]] a redirect to [[Policy:Privacy policy/ru]]. [[User:Colt browning|colt_browning]] ([[User talk:Colt browning|talk]]) 13:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
:@[[User:Colt browning|Colt browning]]: That has been fixed. However, if that link is actively used anywhere - please let me know and we may be able to update its usage. Thank you! --[[User:GVarnum-WMF|Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him]]] ([[User talk:GVarnum-WMF|talk]]) 20:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Reader Privacy at the Internet Archive == |
|||
== COPPA == |
|||
Interesting read: http://blog.archive.org/2013/10/25/reader-privacy-at-the-internet-archive/ |
|||
Among other things: |
|||
{{quote|The web servers on Archive.org and OpenLibrary.org were modified to take the IP addresses, and encrypt them with a key that changes each day making it very difficult to reconstruct any users behavior.}} |
|||
It seems the ever-growing collection of data about users behaviour is not an irresistible trend in all corners of the web. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 17:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Very interesting reading, Nemo. Thank you for sharing. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 19:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Hello. Can people under 13 edit Wikipedia? [[User:Wimajo15|Wimajo15]] ([[User talk:Wimajo15|talk]]) 08:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Updated draft? == |
|||
:@[[User:Wimajo15|Wimajo15]]: Hello, the term of use and the privacy policy don't prevent children from editing Wikipedia. However, if you are a younger user, it is recommended reading [[:en:Wikipedia:Guidance_for_younger_editors|the Guidance for younger editors]] and [[:m:Staying safe on Wikimedia as a young person|the Staying safe on Wikimedia as a young person]] page before editing. Happy editing! [[User:SCP-2000|SCP-2000]] ([[User talk:SCP-2000|talk]]) 09:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Is the staff planning to release some updated draft at some point of the feedback period and if yes roughly when? Or is it planned to follow a [[w:Waterfall model|waterfall model]], incorporating all changes at once shortly before sending it to the board? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 17:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you. How is it that Wikimedia servers are located in the USA, but children are allowed to edit? Why is Wikimedia not covered by COPPA? [[User:Wimajo15|Wimajo15]] ([[User talk:Wimajo15|talk]]) 15:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:We are making edits as we go throughout the 4.5 month consultation period. We're a bit behind on incorporating some of the changes and waiting for more community feedback before implementing other changes, but you should be able to see what we have done so far in the history. And a lot more should be done over the next week. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 18:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 15:19, 3 June 2024
![]() | Editing of this talk page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled to counter excessive vandalism. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request an edit or unprotection, or log in from an autoconfirmed account. Please see the "Give feedback" page for more information on contacting the Wikimedia Foundation or Wikimedia projects. |
Red link
There is a red link in this section, please change it to correct link to Privacy policy, thanks. Ата (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Ата: Thank you for pointing this out - I have gone ahead and fixed it. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Interwiki to enwiki
Policy:Privacy policy/Frequently asked questions has an interwiki link to w:en:Wikipedia:Username_policy, which is strange. Is it intended? Ата (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Ата, can you elaborate on what you find odd? The linking to that specific page, the formatting of the link, or something else? Thank you! --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- I find it weird that
1 language button on top of the page links to that specific page. Privacy policy FAQs ≠ enwiki username policy. Ата (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed! It was a mis-ordered link. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- I find it weird that
Discusssion at en WP
There is a privacy related discussion on en.wiki; you can read the discussion and give advice here. Cremastra (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
ru link
Please make Политика конфиденциальности a redirect to Policy:Privacy policy/ru. colt_browning (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Colt browning: That has been fixed. However, if that link is actively used anywhere - please let me know and we may be able to update its usage. Thank you! --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
COPPA
Hello. Can people under 13 edit Wikipedia? Wimajo15 (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Wimajo15: Hello, the term of use and the privacy policy don't prevent children from editing Wikipedia. However, if you are a younger user, it is recommended reading the Guidance for younger editors and the Staying safe on Wikimedia as a young person page before editing. Happy editing! SCP-2000 (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. How is it that Wikimedia servers are located in the USA, but children are allowed to edit? Why is Wikimedia not covered by COPPA? Wimajo15 (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)