Feminist SF Wiki talk:Privacy policy

Laura, thanks for making a start on this, with the weight of your position as webmistress to underline the credibility of this (preliminary, but still mattering) policy draft.

I see though that you have approached the matter of pseudonyms from the perspective of looking at someone who knows a person under their legal name revealing that other person's pseudonymous identity. I don't know how I can phrase this more clearly...(See the nota bene for another qualification.) Of bringing someone's pseudonymous identity to light in a way that will have repercussions on their life under their legal name, that will make it known to other people who know the person under that person's legal name. That's is one way of looking at things, but from the other side, the side from which I've been looking at the developments of Racefail 09, I was looking at someone revealing the legal name of a person in the context of interactions done under a pseudonym, and bringing their legal identity to the attention of people familiar with that person's pseudonym.

Put together, both perspectives describe the same act, and that act has consequences that go in both directions (affecting as they do the person outed, whose circumstances affect how they interact under each identity; and the consequences of the outing ripple out in the communities the outing reaches, which can overlap), but I strongly feel that it's important to formulate the matter both ways, because knowing the legal name of someone who has standing under a (or several) pseudonym doesn't qualititatively feel important the same way as knowing the pseudonym(s) of someone for the purposes of interacting with them under their legal name(s).

I would simply edit the entry to add the complementary aspect, but, you being the lawyer, I was wondering if you were taking a particular law-related approach in formulating this policy, which would influence the importance of wording it one way instead of the other.

N.B.: I say legal vs. pseudonymous for lack of better words because I also don't want to link either perspective exclusively to the terms public or private, although that might be a question where you also have legal vocabulary issues in mind. The distinction seems too muddled to me -- people using pseudonyms aren't necessarily interacting in private, although the circles where the pseudonymous identity is relevent may seem private by their being specialised forums instead of general or unmarked forums. And the legal identities, not the pseudonymous identities, particularly in the examples I can think of, of the people outed, are often the private sites that are put at risk from an outing.

Do you have any recommendations or considerations on these questions of perspective?

--Ide Cyan 04:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to respond quickly, so nobody is waiting on me; but it's too late at night for me to give this all the attention it deserves. I'll come back tomorrow if I can.

Very good points, Ide Cyan, and let me encourage you to make any / all the changes you think are appropriate. I dashed this draft off and I think you are probably correct that I was mostly thinking of it in one direction. I was not intending to take a particular law-oriented approach, and in fact tried to be relatively non-legalistic. But the legal training inescapably informs how I look at issues, so .... Anyway, do please feel free to edit as you like. If I notice anything in later changes that poses some issue viewed thru a legal lens I'll flag it, but, honestly, law isn't rocket science: it's a lot of obfuscatory language but usually careful reading is perfectly sufficient. And you're definitely one of the more careful readers here! <smile>

You're also right to flag the distinctions between legal, pseudonymous, and other identities. I considered discussing anonymity in there too, but ended up leaving it out, since we're mostly considering stable identities and how and whether they ought to be connected. It may be the case that we note that pseudonyms and legal names are particular cases of identities, but there are many types and shadings of identities, and we just have to adapt principles as best we can to various situations.

Hope this is on point & not too confusing. Busy tomorrow, but hopefully will be able to check back in again in the afternoon or evening (US eastern time).

--LQ 05:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. It's waaay too late for me to be thinking straight at the moment too, so I won't be making any edits yet (I think I momentarily strained my English-language expression abilities writing the above earlier), but one other thing that occured to me in reading your response & with recent excellent critical RaceFail-related commentary in mind is that the drafting of the Wiki's policies should also be advertised as open for input -- and influence -- where the word would reach more people of colour / non-white fans, and other oppressed parties that could best express what form of policy would make them feel safer, since you & I are white and we cannot draw up a comprehensive policy without input from people whose oppressions we do not know/share first-hand ourselves. (And attempting to do so can only go so far before stumbling over the difference between liberal and radical endeavours.)

So, I'm thinking -- at least a post on the blog, and perhaps I could put something up on Whileaway, although even that would circumscribe the discussion & it needs to go wider. And now mon anglais s'épuise alors dodo maintenant ou bedon qqch d plus facile...

--Ide Cyan 06:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

By all means, publicize this discussion or any other in any appropriate fora. I for one am always happy when other people do outreach / recruiting / promotions, since I suck at it .... My general assumption is that by putting things in wiki form we are basically stating our openness to discussion / dialog / community-driven editing, but of course merely being available is not sufficient in a world infested with various privileges and lack thereof. So, recruit away .... --LQ 18:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A quick note because I need to do my regular day job at the moment. The OTW and Fanlore have a very good set of policies we could look at as a model. I especially like their Identity Protection policy and its emphasis on protection and proof of consensuality. --Liz Henry 18:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)