From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id 4KFCGCwWe18+KAAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 12:48:44 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id CJr5EywWe198VAAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 12:48:44 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E62259401BD for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 12:48:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:60330 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kPPv0-0006D9-SW for larch@yhetil.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 08:48:42 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60972) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kPPa4-0004Nc-3q for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 08:27:04 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:36692) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kPPa3-0005TX-QG for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 08:27:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kPPa3-0000JS-Mw for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 08:27:03 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#43796: Privacy policy Resent-From: Jelle Licht Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 12:27:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 43796 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" , 43796@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 43796-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B43796.16019008131123 (code B ref 43796); Mon, 05 Oct 2020 12:27:03 +0000 Received: (at 43796) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Oct 2020 12:26:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48217 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kPPZs-0000Hx-JZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 08:26:52 -0400 Received: from mail1.fsfe.org ([217.69.89.151]:40854) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kPOBI-0004Lq-4V for 43796@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 06:57:25 -0400 From: Jelle Licht In-Reply-To: <20201004153419.kyacfjdwmok6yybg@pelzflorian.localdomain> References: <20201004153419.kyacfjdwmok6yybg@pelzflorian.localdomain> Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 12:57:20 +0200 Message-ID: <868scl3ppr.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -4.8 (----) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 08:26:48 -0400 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: -5.8 (-----) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 08:47:41 -0400 X-BeenThere: bug-guix@gnu.org List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (strict), No valid DKIM" header.from=posteo.net (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -0.91 X-TUID: 78B4Nf8rtilh Hello, "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" writes: > IANAL but I think Guix needs a privacy policy for both its website and > the Guix software in general. Thanks for looking into this. IANAL but I do not think it makes sense to have such a privacy policy at this moment in time. I'd rather have a person with legal expertise look at this situation and do the following: 1. Notice that we do need such a policy 2. Draft (or at least proof read) this policy. The reason for this is two-fold: I think there are enough 'legal' texts on the Internet of questionable enforcability/applicability, and doing things this way creates a cargo-cult mentality. Compare to the questionable habit of unconditionally adding the "The content of this email is confidential ..."-esque spam outgoing email (even if that mail is addressed to a public mailing list). If others disagree in principle or in practice with me on this, that is fine too of course :-) - Jelle