[Osmf-talk] OSMF Articles of Association - Discussion on Revision for 2013 AGM

Oleksiy Muzalyev oleksiy.muzalyev at bluewin.ch
Fri Apr 19 01:44:40 UTC 2013


Good morning,

I am sure everyone read this by now: "German privacy regulator orders 
Facebook to end its real name policy" 
http://www.itworld.com/security/328387/german-privacy-regulator-orders-facebook-end-its-real-name-policy

I deleted my "Facebook" account for the same reason, because my real 
name is also stated on my bank card, on the real world ID card, etc. 
Real names harvesting, identity theft is a growing phenomenon. People 
sometimes have to go through pain of of changing their real names after 
an identity theft. It is life shattering experience.

The list of real names should not be too readily available on-line. 
Obtaining a real name in proper context is already 50% of an identity 
thief's "work". I do not know how realistic is the danger for a mapper 
from "The Man" in a company or from some democrature regime, but the 
identity theft is a reality around us. It is multi-billion criminal 
"business".

There should be, in my opinion, at least some systematic barrier for 
accessing real names list on-line. For example, a member may request to 
see the list, and it is shown on a page, which does not allow an easy 
copy-paste. For example, a Flash, or an image page with real names in a 
format not too suitable for OCR (optical character recognition). And no 
access to real names via search.

brgds
Oleksiy
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Alex-7

On 19.04.2013 1:55, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 19.04.2013 00:35, Steve Coast wrote:
>> Personally, for privacy reasons I disagree. My belief is that opt outs
>> should exist in some way, for at least some data. For example, employees
>> at major map companies may wish to keep their membership private from
>> their employer.
>
> That is a valid argument - some people might also want to keep their 
> membership private from the dictatorship they live in.
>
> However I think that we have to weigh and balance goals here. What is 
> more important: Everyone's ability to convince themselves that nothing 
> fishy is going on (with the potential downside of some people not 
> being able to join for privacy reasons) - or everyone's right to join 
> (with the downside of much reduced transparency)?
>
> I think that "if you want to remain anoymous, you can be a mapper but 
> not a member" is an acceptable price to pay for transparency.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>





More information about the osmf-talk mailing list