[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] GNU ethical repository criteria: Should privac
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] GNU ethical repository criteria: Should privacy issues really be extra credit?
Thu, 19 Nov 2015 13:01:47 -0500
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux)
I'm CC'ing the mailing list for these criteria
These decisions are made by RMS.
Richard (and repo-criteria-discuss)---I have quoted the entire message
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 17:19:47 -0800, Niels Nesse wrote:
> I recently came upon the GNU ethical repository criteria:
> I am very pleased to see the FSF take up this issue. There has been far
> to much apathy on the part of developers regarding the ethics of hosts.
> It bothers me however that many privacy and security issues that I would
> consider basic requirements for recommendation are addressed only in the
> extra credit section.
> I am a supporter of free software in large part because of it's ability
> to help offer me better privacy and security. It seems backwards to me
> to accept services as "recommended" that have with poor or abusive
> privacy practices. Without violating any criteria in the C-A range a
> host could store user data indefinitely in unencrypted form, give it to
> third parties without consent or disclosure, send passwords in plain
> text over email, etc, etc.
> I suggest that items A+0, A+1, and A+2 be incorporated into the B or A
> grades. I think these items address similar concerns as items in lower
> grades such as B1, C2, and C3. Another possibility is to simply not
> address any privacy issues to avoid assessing their relative weight.
Free Software Hacker | GNU Maintainer
FSF Member #5804 | GPG Key ID: 0x8EE30EAB
Description: PGP signature