| 1 |
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:24 AM desultory <desultory@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 07/01/19 07:59, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 1:02 AM desultory <desultory@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >> publishing PII purely on the basis of disciplinary |
| 7 |
> >> considerations could be quite reasonably considered to be an outrageous |
| 8 |
> >> overreach. There are reasons that "doxing" is generally considered to be |
| 9 |
> >> rather reprehensible. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > It obviously is reprehensible. However, nobody is suggesting |
| 12 |
> > publishing PII for any reason, and I have no idea where this idea even |
| 13 |
> > came from. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> How, exactly, is a requirement to provide and publish "legal name as a |
| 16 |
> natural person, i.e., the name that would appear in a government issued |
| 17 |
> document" [GLEP76] not a requirement to publish persona data [PII]? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
It isn't an issue if the person involved publishes itself and Gentoo |
| 20 |
is merely the medium, IMO. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> > Furthermore, I do not think that Gentoo should be collecting PII under |
| 23 |
> > conditions of confidentiality for any reason in the first place. Nor |
| 24 |
> > should we be doing any activities that require us to do so, such as |
| 25 |
> > accepting money from people, or paying people. IMO we do not have the |
| 26 |
> > demonstrated ability to do this in a safe and compliant manner, and we |
| 27 |
> > have a history of not performing legally-required activities in a |
| 28 |
> > compliant manner. |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> Too late, Gentoo has multiple services which collect some form of PII |
| 31 |
> (e.g. the EU considers an IP address to be, at least potentially, PII), |
| 32 |
> and retain at least some of that data without publishing it. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I said that I don't think that it should be. I never claimed that it wasn't. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> > For this reason, I think it would be a big mistake to allow people to |
| 37 |
> > contribute under pseudonyms under the condition that they reveal their |
| 38 |
> > real identities to some Gentoo body that would retain this information |
| 39 |
> > in confidentiality. That would expose Gentoo to a rather large number |
| 40 |
> > of privacy laws in a large number of places, for IMO little gain. |
| 41 |
> > |
| 42 |
> So, under the mistaken premise that Gentoo does not collect or retain |
| 43 |
> any form of PII you believe that Gentoo should not collect or retain any |
| 44 |
> PII, correct? |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
I never said that Gentoo doesn't collect PII. I said it shouldn't. |
| 47 |
And it shouldn't. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> Knowing that Gentoo does indeed collect and retain some PII, does your |
| 50 |
> opinion change? |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
No. Obviously whatever PII we do collect needs to be properly |
| 53 |
protected, just as we ought to be filing taxes and doing various other |
| 54 |
things that we have trouble doing. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
In both cases the problem can simply be avoided by structuring |
| 57 |
ourselves in a manner that doesn't introduce the burden of compliance. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
> LDAP, though most of that data is now published in some form it is still |
| 60 |
> by and large a collection of PII. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
We should not collect non-public PII in LDAP. There is no harm in |
| 63 |
allowing individuals to freely list their names/locations/etc if they |
| 64 |
wish, but we shouldn't have anything in the database, other than |
| 65 |
passwords or similar credentials, which isn't just published on the |
| 66 |
website. Hence there should be nothing to steal (well, other than |
| 67 |
passwords, and those are useless after they are changed). |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
As I understand it we've already been pushing to eliminate much of the |
| 70 |
PII from LDAP as it is - I'm curious as to what still remains that |
| 71 |
would be of concern. In particular I believe the birthdate field was |
| 72 |
dropped some time ago. Much of the rest gets published in the |
| 73 |
directory/etc and so it isn't anything that isn't open to see. |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
> > None of this is intended as some kind of attack on Trustees/Infra/etc. |
| 76 |
> > They're volunteers doing the best they can do without pay, and |
| 77 |
> > generally trying to clean up after a long period of neglect. It is |
| 78 |
> > simply a fact that if you have nothing to steal, then it is impossible |
| 79 |
> > to steal it, and no effort is required to protect it. |
| 80 |
> |
| 81 |
> Believing that you have nothing worth stealing is no defense against |
| 82 |
> those who believe that you do and intend to take it. |
| 83 |
|
| 84 |
I never claimed that we should shield ourselves with "belief." I said |
| 85 |
we shouldn't have anything to steal in the first place. |
| 86 |
|
| 87 |
Sure, that won't stop people from trying. It will definitely stop |
| 88 |
them from succeeding. |
| 89 |
|
| 90 |
-- |
| 91 |
Rich |
Archives