Fwd: criteria to (not) add

Service: (NONE)
Case: none
Changes: 2
Source: link
Author: import script Bot

Fwd: criteria to (not) add

On 2018-05-18 14:05:11 UTC, Deleted wrote:

imported from 2318

On 2018-05-23 12:41:35 UTC, Deleted wrote:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/tosdr/avFQKZ3DY6k/WeDEXjikmd4J For reference, this is what Jan and I talked about in December. I
still think the 'location of court of law' one is not something you
can call globally good or bad about a service - but maybe we can add
'a large percentage of users will be able to use the service under the
law system of the country where they (habitually) live'? i guess all
law systems have good and bad aspects, but i know a lot of Europeans
trust their own country's law system, or that of other European
countries, more than the US law system. that's the reason this point
is on there. but it's a difficult one to implement, i guess.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jan-Christoph Borchardt
Date: Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: criteria to (not) add
To: Michiel de Jong

My thoughts on criteria (maybe merging):

1) (basically revised this one, data liberation has enough weight)
Ownership & Data liberation (not sure, but data liberation as it is
has not enough weight on its own)
2) Equality & Anonymity (because the case for separating it is
specifically Dropbox – rephrase to »service is blind to location, real
name, …« – »political views« are also problematic because that’s not a
matter of freedom of speech (see Swastika in Germany))
3) Third Parties (advertising) & Law enforcement (both essentially
»giving stuff away to third parties«)
4) Location of court of law (not sure, maybe merge with EEA?)

The 2 new ones:
1) this service is exploited by a for-profit company / is not ...
2) there is a contact person for questions and complaints about this
service / there is none
don’t warrant 2 whole new criteria in my eyes. Especially the
for-/non-profit one. Maybe if we rephrase or merge, but just binary
»non-profit« or »for-profit« is too short sighted. Giving data away to
advertisers for instance would be exclusive to for-profits, wouldn’t

Also a bit of devil’s advocate – on the discussion page we should also
say why we included the criteria and why in this form.

Just to mention it, another approach from the »big but few criteria«
would be »many but just binary criteria«. That would leave us with,
say, 50 criteria though (30 at least) and would be very non-accurate
(say, data liberation would not be expressed with a simple binary
choice as it doesn’t account for open formats, usability between
services, importing etc. – and if it does, it would be a very
black/white choice.)

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Michiel de Jong wrote:
> add:
> this service is exploited by a for-profit company / is not ...
> there is a contact person for questions and complaints about this service /
> there is none
> remove:
> the court of law is in an oppressive regime
> don't add:
> your data stays in the EEA (only relevant for Europeans)
> accessilbility (more general ethics than actual ToS)
> standards compliance (same reason)
> green power (same reason)

On 2018-05-30 12:50:25 UTC, Deleted wrote:

imported status as declined

We track editorial changes to analyses and updates to a point's status and display the previous versions here as part of an effort to promote transparency regarding our curation process.

Version 1: 2018-05-30 12:50:25 UTC by Deleted

Previous Title: No changes recorded

Updated Title: No changes recorded

Previous Analysis: No changes recorded

Updated Analysis: No changes recorded

Previous Status: PENDING

Updated Status: DECLINED

Version 2: 2018-05-18 14:05:11 UTC by Deleted

Previous Title:

Updated Title: Fwd: criteria to (not) add

Previous Analysis:

Updated Analysis: Fwd: criteria to (not) add

Previous Status:

Updated Status: PENDING