Talk:Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Archives/2015
|Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 January 2015, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.|
Termination of the confidentiality agreement
I note that the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information does not include any mention of termination (or cancellation or rescission, for that matter). I understand that rescission of contract is covered by California Civil Code Section 1689, but including a short description of that process (for example mentioning that the agreement is considered rescinded when both parties agree, or the user in question resigns their privileges access or loses their access in any way) would still be helpful, especially for the majority of us non-Americans who are not specialized in the details of California law. @Jalexander-WMF, @Slaporte, @Mpaulson, @RPatel: could this last-minute addition be considered, please? odder (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
An update on the implementation of this policy would be welcome -- it is now fourteen months since the Board mandated it. Even if the implementation is proving difficult, brief regular updates on its status do not seem too much to ask. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- I too have been wondering about the status of this. Rjd0060 (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- I too hoped to have this done long long ago. Because the current implementation "works" until we're ready to roll out this has, for better or worse, not been the top priority. It has been a victim of the enormous amount of work that both the legal and CA side have been dealing with (on my side for example the past couple months have ranged from election issues, that caused a fair bit of work for me during my vacation, to worse then average community safety issues). I don't want to promise any specific time frame at this point but I will promise that I REALLY want to get it done and that I want to get it done as soon as physically possible. Hopefully that means I'll be able to get around to it in the very immediate future ( I am certainly not trying to slack off on it for what it's worth, I'm in the office today, and likely tomorrow, doing sadly unrelated work). Jalexander--WMF 19:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Does this prohibit disclosure to newspapers and other media?
". . . the public, when it is a necessary and incidental consequence of blocking a sockpuppet or other abusive account."
The foregoing clause of the policy permits disclosure of nonpublic information to the public under the circumstances described. Given the ambiguously described circumstances, one might reasonably inquire: does this clause prohibit or permit the conduct described in the recent ArbCom case regarding "Chase me, ladies, I'm the cavalry"? If that question cannot be answered with a simple "yes" or "no," I would suggest that your new nonpublic information policy has a rather glaring hole in it. Can anyone answer -- is anyone willing to answer -- my question? Should the policy not include a simple declarative sentence that prohibits any person from disclosing nonpublic information to members of the media without the prior written permission of the general counsel or other authorized WMF representative? I look forward to your response. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have sent this to User:Jalexander-WMF and Legal for an official interpretation and response to your question. --GVarnum-WMF (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. I think I understand what the operative clause is intended to say, but it is not a model of clearly phrased legal drafting. Given the consequences for functionaries with access to nonpublic information, and more importantly for the project and persons whose nonpublic information it holds, I believe the meaning should be crystal clear and not subject to interpretation by reasonable persons. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- @GVarnum-WMF and Jalexander-WMF: Any follow-up on this question, guys? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The following creates a logical disconnect with "nonpublic information".
“This Policy does not apply to users whose rights only include the ability to view standard deleted revisions.”
Every administrator has the ability to hide revisions from public view (referred to internally, as above, by the inaccurate label "revision deletion"), and view revisions that have been hidden in this fashion. By definition, a hidden revision is nonpublic information. This policy needs to be rewritten to accommodate that fact. — Scott • talk 16:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)