{"action":"opened","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/snoyberg/stack-coc/issues/7","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/snoyberg/stack-coc","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/snoyberg/stack-coc/issues/7/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/snoyberg/stack-coc/issues/7/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/snoyberg/stack-coc/issues/7/events","html_url":"https://github.com/snoyberg/stack-coc/issues/7","id":379497105,"node_id":"MDU6SXNzdWUzNzk0OTcxMDU=","number":7,"title":"What should \"Respect privacy\" entail?","user":{"login":"duplode","id":2839278,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjI4MzkyNzg=","avatar_url":"https://avatars0.githubusercontent.com/u/2839278?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/duplode","html_url":"https://github.com/duplode","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/duplode/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/duplode/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/duplode/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/duplode/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/duplode/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/duplode/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/duplode/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/duplode/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/duplode/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":0,"created_at":"2018-11-11T07:12:23Z","updated_at":"2018-11-11T07:12:23Z","closed_at":null,"author_association":"NONE","body":"On the \"respect privacy\" section of the communications guide, I see where @gbaz is coming from with \"it seems to [...] introduce the principle only to immediately introduce language that undermines it\", so I will attempt to reconstruct the case being made in that section, looking for ways we might make it clearer.\r\n\r\nThe motivation for the \"if both sides agree\" caveat is that an universal and automatic expectation of privacy can be abused. For instance, a bad actor might run a smear campaign against a third party using private messages. The current version of the guidelines addresses that by requiring an agreement reached upon \"a private message requesting the other side participate privately\". I presume this preliminary message would have to truthfully indicate the nature of what would be discussed -- that being so, the aforementioned bad actor would have to ask something to the effect of of \"I have some hot gossip about Z. Wanna hear it?\", at which point the recipient would be able to decline taking further part in the exchange.\r\n\r\nUnder such an interpretation, I believe the guideline is not contradictory. There is, however, another difficulty. Suppose that a fellow Haskeller sends me, without asking me beforehand, a personal message which includes personal information about their background and life story that, in principle, would be no one else's business. Should I have the right to share this personal information just because there was no preliminary message? Clearly not -- that would be against the spirit of the guideline, not to say against basic human decency. The one way out I see -- and I know it is a bit of a minefield -- is accounting for the content of the private messages when deciding whether there should be safe harbour for them. It might look like this:\r\n\r\n> On occasion, holding certain discussions in private can be the prudent or kind thing to do. However, private communications can also be used as a means for attacks and intimidation. As such, a message can only be reasonably considered as private *if what it says does not affect anyone other than the sender*, or if there was a previous agreement between sender and recipient about its privacy. If in doubt, send a preliminary message asking the other party to participate privately.\r\n>\r\n> Somewhat obviously: if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy **do not** violate it!\r\n\r\nSome examples of how that \"does not affect anyone other than the sender\" clause might work, in the absence of a previous agreement:\r\n\r\n* X tells Y their opinion on a GHC proposal: reasonably private; no one is personally affected.\r\n* X tells Y private matters about themselves: reasonably private; only X is affected.\r\n* X insults Y: not reasonably private; Y is affected.\r\n* X tells Y gossip about Z: not reasonably private; Z is affected.\r\n\r\nThere certainly are thorny corner cases here. For instance, a preliminary message saying \"I have some hot gossip about Z\" would arguably already contain an insinuation about Z. Still, it is probably not a good idea to rely on much more than the wise judgment of the involved parties to deal with the corner cases, as adding minute detail to those guidelines would be a hopeless endeavour."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"duplode"}}