On 06-03-2017 12:45, Henrik Danielsson via arch-general wrote:
> 2017-03-06 12:53 GMT+01:00 Mauro Santos via arch-general <
> arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> On 06-03-2017 11:20, Henrik Danielsson via arch-general wrote:
>>> 2017-03-06 11:18 GMT+01:00 Ralf Mardorf <silver.bullet@xxxxxxxx>:
>>>>
>>>> Privacy is a principle. You seem not to understand the difference
>>>> between giving somebody data with the formal permission to use this data
>>>> and data that simply is available for everybody, but not explicitly
>>>> handed over to somebody. Paranoia isn't involved in my concern.
>>>>
>>> My standpoint is that privacy does not apply to this kind of public
>>> information, simply because it's not private and by no means sensitive
>>> (people freely chose the username and other visible info they posted,
>> no?).
>>> Thus, no, I see no difference and really no point in even considering
>>> trying to keep such information private.
>>>
>>> What anyone does with the freely available information posted in the AUR
>> is
>>> up to them ("mining" it or handing it over to someone else included), we
>>> could not do anything about it anyway, nor would I even care if I was in
>>> that list or not, since there seems to be no ToS between the one
>> submitting
>>> that information and the one publishing it. Since it was freely submitted
>>> without any terms, I can simply not find any restrictions on its usage.
>>>
>>> Yes, we should have a ToS to at least keep the principle of privacy
>> alive.
>>> But let's face it, real privacy online has been dead for long, if it ever
>>> existed.
>>>
>>> If there was a ToS, the situation would perhaps have been different, at
>>> least legally. I'm no legal expert of course, but to me it makes perfect
>>> sense that if you posted something on the internet, in a very public
>> space,
>>> you can have no expectations of keeping any of that information private
>> in
>>> any way, nor any information easily associated with.
>>> No, I don't see that as a problem, at least not if you never explicitly
>>> agreed that information would not be shared. What I really want to keep
>>> private I don't post anywhere.
>>>
>>
>> I think the point here is not so much privacy, as I believe everyone
>> recognizes that the information that was asked for (the full list of
>> usernames) is public and can be scraped.
>>
>> The point here is handing over the full list of usernames on request. Do
>> note that in their research proposal[1] they specifically mention
>> scraping information from github. That information is public, github
>> does have an API to query that information, but they still have to
>> scrape it, I suppose that implies github does not hand it over wholesale
>> on request, why should we? This might be due to their ToS or they know
>> something we don't.
>>
> It would be rather interesting to see what they could come up with from
> that correlation.
Probably nothing meaningful. As I've said before you have no way of
knowing if user foo on github is the same as user foo on the AUR.
> I think, perhaps a bit cynically, the reason github may not hand over that
> data directly is likely that they don't want to do some of the work of the
> researchers for them. As you said, the data is there, the format matters
> less if they're going to massage it into something else later anyway, so
> why bother with the effort of compiling it on their [github] own time?
>
> We could simply deny the AUR username request it for the same reason, or no
> reason at all. Since some people seem uncomfortable about what could be
> derived from a potential correlation of publicly available data, that's
> most likely the safest way to go.
>
--
Mauro Santos
