[OpenID] (privacy) endorsement, John Bradley

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

> From: SitG Admin [mailto:sysadmin at shadowsinthegarden.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 3:48 PM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: general at openid.net
> Subject: RE: [OpenID] (privacy) endorsement, John Bradley
>
> >I think anyone who believes that privacy exists
> >online is either stupid or naïve, but I have
> >zero interest in debating that,
>
> How does this work with accountability? Would you
> support penalties for members of the Board who
> disclosed members' personally identifying
> information? Or would you insist that "There was
> no breach of privacy, because the member never
> really had any in the first place."?

Current membership agreement states that you allow all your information to be made public. So far I am only aware of you rejecting membership on that ground. If more people will present a similar objection, I will have no problem with the board voting for changing the privacy policy as long as it is allowed by the state of Oregon for non-profit corporation. If at that point someone violates foundation rules, they have the full support of the legal system to pursue justice. Should a board member be removed because of that? Well, that's another vote and if it was intentional, I would vote to remove that person.

We set rules and we play by them. The CURRENT rules do not offer any such privacy and changing it to accommodate *you* is not something I care about. If existing members or enough potential members cared about it to contact the board, I will be happy to revisit this policy and will likely support an opt-in mechanism.

> >To suggest that you cannot trust the names
> >people use in this community is to me an
> >unacceptable level of paranoia.
>
> Idealist, realist. There is NO EVIDENCE on this
> list that the names given are real names. Period.
> You can go outside the list and look them up,
> provide yourself with a level of assurance that
> YOU accept, but do not tell us that it is
> "unacceptable" to not trust such things based on
> their usage alone.

Technically, true. But in practice, in this community, on this list, living based on this assumption is paranoia.

> >There isn't a single active member on this list
> >who participated in actual work (specs,
> >foundation, evangelism) that I haven't either
> >met in person or met someone I trust who can
> >vouch for them.
>
> I have evangelized OpenID locally, but I suppose
> this doesn't count. Out of sight, out of mind.
> Members of the community may have done a lot to
> help OpenID, but if they won't give their real
> names *on this list*, it was never actual WORK.

Other than you, on this list, my statement is true. I did not imply you did not participate, just that from *your* POV, since everyone else has offered their name and affiliation, my description is accurate.

> >For the record, this is exactly what I have wrote before:
> >
> >"The foundation should not be handing out
> >personal information for any other purposes than
> >to obey its bylaws (for example, sending
> >notifications as legally required will mean
> >giving someone with an administrative capacity
> >access to the mailing lists). Members should
> >have an opt-in way to allow their name and
> >city/country to be listed, with optionally their
> >employer."
> >
> >How that is different from John's position is beyond me.
>
> Respect for privacy - which, again, you believe
> to not even exist. I won't try to make the case
> (to you) that this means you don't respect US,
> since it's tricky to include, in the definition
> of a person, the right to that which doesn't
> really exist.
>
> Many analogies spring to mind of denying some
> minorities basic human rights because those
> making the decisions thought there was some
> special circumstance that applied. I won't go
> into those, because most of them aren't nice, but
> I do think that decisions about privacy shouldn't
> be made based on the premise that it doesn't
> exist.

Now you are just being silly. I never said there is no such thing as privacy in general. My statement was clearly made in reference to the web. And having a right to something hardly ever translates to having it in practice.

I'm done with this thread.

EHL