| Summary: | Bugzilla does not obey DIRECTIVE 95/46/EC | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Infrastructure | Reporter: | Sven E. <dark> |
| Component: | Bugzilla | Assignee: | Gentoo Infrastructure <infra-bugs> |
| Status: | RESOLVED OBSOLETE | ||
| Severity: | major | ||
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
Sven E.
2011-06-17 21:08:43 UTC
(In reply to comment #0) > Personal data ist not properly removed from closed bugs. What personal data do we store in your opinion? And why would any personal data need to be removed on closed bugs? The state of a bug can be changed at any time, making a bug no longer closed. Most obvious: Thze email address, which should not be accesible. I see the problem with reopening bugs, but that's another issue. The directive states that personal information may only be stored as long as the process lasts. Saying the process never ends is afaik not a legit option ;-), but I could be wrong about that. Other personal information would be emerge --info outputs attached to bug reports. Esp. USE flags cause privacy concerns since you can profile users via them pretty well. But the main focus is the mail address (and name) of course. Another thing is: The directive says I can at anytime ask, what 'personal' data is stored, why, for what purposes etc. - The page lacks any information on how to contact the person responsible for operating the service. That should be an easy fix and is reasonable, imho. Important: no personal information should be accessible in any way by 3rd parties. Question is: what is 'third parties' in context of a service like bugzilla. I am happy though that no email addresses are in the bug reports, when not logged in, the question is though: What about the names? (Well, people can decide not to give their names in the first place, but still, it should be considered, imho). And last (but not least) the directive says, that users (usually) have the right to have faulty personal data fixed or personal data deleted alltogether at any time (well, not if they are still needed for the processing, but the details don't matter too much right now). While I can modify most of my (personal) data in the preferences, I can not completely delete the account and all occurences of my email-address/name. Not really a problem, if I would know whom to turn to, to get it done. And yes I might be nit picking a little here ;-). I hope though that some of my arguments/points are still considered. @infra: 1. I vote we just apply the same services disclaimer & privacy policy we have as our login banner to a page on Bugzilla. Ideally, host it in www.g.o, and link it from here. 2. An explicit directive that ALL information posted to the site will be considered as public, and not removed. If they post it, it's here, and just removing it from Bugzilla is pointless Google has already cached it (eta from posting to caching is under 2 days last time I tested). 3. Give users an explicit instruction re ability to close their account, by emailing the Bugzilla admins. By closing, their name and email will be stored separately, and the displayed named+email will be changed. Additionally the account will be marked as disabled. (In reply to comment #3) > @infra: > 1. I vote we just apply the same services disclaimer & privacy policy we have > as our login banner to a page on Bugzilla. Ideally, host it in www.g.o, and > link it from here. > 2. An explicit directive that ALL information posted to the site will be > considered as public, and not removed. If they post it, it's here, and just > removing it from Bugzilla is pointless Google has already cached it (eta from > posting to caching is under 2 days last time I tested). > 3. Give users an explicit instruction re ability to close their account, by > emailing the Bugzilla admins. By closing, their name and email will be stored > separately, and the displayed named+email will be changed. Additionally the > account will be marked as disabled. +1 (In reply to comment #4) > +1 +2 how about applying the same policy in all of our web apps? gitweb forums etc (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > +1 > > +2 =3 Adding a good disclaimer and/or inform the user a priori is imho a good option that is as well reasonable. When informed a priori during resgistration a user still can decide not to participate. Referring to the bugzilla admins in a direct manner would be pretty good too. Something like, questions about x or requests conecrning y, contact bugzilla admins, question on policies, contact gentoo foundation's xyz division/group (whoever is responsible for maintaining policies and whatever the right term for that group is) http://ec.europa.eu/geninfo/legal_notices_en.htm is one example that shows a legal notice that refers to the directive (can be gentoo policies here of course) and what this implies. Even though I am just a user: +1 for the suggestions made. Others might disagree, but transparency on policies etc. and making them readily available (to users) should generally be done and usually resolves many possible issues or problems, concerns etc. in advance. Thanks for considering the input. Bugzilla is no longer hosted in the EU. (In reply to Alex Legler from comment #9) > Bugzilla is no longer hosted in the EU. And of course users weren't informed about this nor had they a chance to opt out and have their data removed before the move. *facepalm* (In reply to Sven E. from comment #10) > (In reply to Alex Legler from comment #9) > > Bugzilla is no longer hosted in the EU. > > And of course users weren't informed about this nor had they a chance to opt > out and have their data removed before the move. > > *facepalm* The move outside of EU wasn't deliberate nor was it done to "run away" from this bug. As we informed the Gentoo community, we lost some sponsors and had to shift services according to available resources - the bugzilla hosts happened to be from one of the sponsors we lost and the best place they fit is outside of EU. Still, in most parts of the world, including the US, it is common sense to inform users about such changes. In this case the move switched regulatory domains and the impact is quite substantially. No matter if it is Microsoft, Sourceforge or whatever service provider [just name it] they all inform users about changes in their agreements, on regulatory changes (read new/different laws) and so on. Call it 'agrophos nomos' of society, if you want... |
