[Osmf-talk] hosting in the UK and "anti-terror legislation"
Jaak Laineste (Nutiteq)
jaak at nutiteq.com
Mon Sep 9 12:56:40 UTC 2013
On 09.09.2013, at 15:33, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/9/9 Jonathan Bennett <jonobennett at gmail.com>
> Just to clarify, when we talk about "privacy" in OSM terms, I assume we
> mean "the inability to link an OSM identity to a real-world identity
> when that person doesn't wish that to happen"?
> Every *activity* by an OSM user is necessarily public, so there's no
> privacy there, and nor should there be. Unless I'm missing something?
> yes, I intended privacy for an individual user not being identified as a real world person. FWIW this is also a human right...
I support clear "OSM privacy statement" right to the front page of OSM. Most of us in this list (advanced users) can assume what private data he/she reveals by making edits, uploading GPX traces etc, but for the million other contributors there should be clear information (warning) what anyone from internet can see and deduct from it (your edits may easily reveal your physical locations), what our administrators will see, and what certain agencies (including their contractors, ex-contractors and possibly next employees of un-loyal ex-contractors) may get and deduct due to legal and possibly secret obligations.
Most possibly we cannot provide total end-to-end privacy (in terms of anonymity), this would be too expensive. Users deserve to be be aware of that.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk