Timeline for Chat messages and SO Jobs data are missing from the GDPR Data Access Request JSON dump
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 22, 2021 at 7:45 | vote | accept | Ilmari Karonen | ||
| Jul 22, 2021 at 0:26 | history | edited | Cesar MStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 48 characters in body
|
| Jul 21, 2021 at 1:59 | comment | added | Shog9 | Right on, @Cesar! | |
| Jul 20, 2021 at 23:42 | history | edited | Cesar MStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 417 characters in body
|
| Jul 5, 2021 at 14:57 | comment | added | Ilmari Karonen | @JourneymanGeek: Even for private moderator chat rooms where PII may be discussed, I still fail to see how disclosing to me the content of messages that I have written could in practice violate someone else's privacy. But it's at least a better argument against including such messages in the dump than any other that I've seen so far. And in any case it doesn't apply to me, as I was never elected (or appointed) as a moderator on SE. | |
| Jul 4, 2021 at 3:40 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | There's also an implicit expectation of privacy with regards to site-specific mod rooms and the TL. The mod removal process is also done via private chat rooms when done in accordance to process, and that's pretty much supposed to be private. I'm loath to invoke lawyers but I wonder if narrowly scoped waivers for these things would be legal/acceptable to the parties involved, considering for most part, people who can see private rooms are mods, and subject to the mod agreement | |
| Jul 4, 2021 at 3:35 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | @IlmariKaronen - the mod agreement states "I acknowledge that I have access to additional personally-identifying information about Stack Overflow or Stack Exchange users as a moderator. Some of this information may be subject to GDPR and other privacy rules. In connection with my access to and/or use of Moderator-privileged personally identifying information" and in relation to that "I will not disclose or share this information with anyone that is not a moderator or employee of Stack Exchange, Inc." - the argument of "We can't be sure if there's PII" can be true here. | |
| Jul 3, 2021 at 16:03 | comment | added | Mast | @41686d6564 It's possible to have non-public chat rooms that can be used by non-moderators, but yes, those are the better known examples of the non-public ones referred to. | |
| Jul 3, 2021 at 14:50 | comment | added | 41686d6564 | @IlmariKaronen By non-public chat rooms, you mean ones that are used by moderators only, right? | |
| Jul 3, 2021 at 14:45 | history | edited | 41686d6564 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Since the comments discussing the initial rejection are still there, I think it's appropriate to keep the previous message in the answer for context.
|
| Jul 2, 2021 at 15:21 | comment | added | Ilmari Karonen | @Philippe: Thank you. I'm still not 100% convinced that including only public chat messages is generally enough to satisfy the GDPR requirement of data portability, or that SE has a valid overriding reason to exclude them. But as I have never, to my knowledge, participated in any non-public SE chat room, I consider my personal request here satisfied. Well, at least once the feature is actually implemented. | |
| Jul 1, 2021 at 22:31 | comment | added | Philippe StaffMod | Just to call your attention to it: I have edited Juice's answer above with an update on the chat features. | |
| Jul 1, 2021 at 22:27 | history | edited | PhilippeStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
update on /chat
|
| Jun 22, 2021 at 14:07 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | You might be required by law to change the behavior of the export. There might even be penalties involved. It will be interesting to see if you want to respond further. | |
| Jun 22, 2021 at 13:15 | comment | added | Juice StaffMod | Hey all. No promises that I will or can answer this but I've brought it up internally to see if we want to respond further. | |
| Jun 22, 2021 at 6:40 | comment | added | rene Mod | I'm trying to get my head around wrt your claim about the /chat data. The only thing I can imagine is that chat messages doubled as a password store as well or something similar unimaginable like that. Just to be clear: we're talking about these chat messages, right? And this is how you get to page 2 and page 3. The OP could scrape them from your site ... | |
| Jun 21, 2021 at 20:03 | comment | added | Ilmari Karonen | I'm sorry, but I do not consider this a satisfactory response. At the very least, I am requesting a detailed explanation of 1) what kind of "PII of another user" could be contained in chat messages that I have written myself, 2) how disclosure of any such information to me could harm the other users identified in it, and 3) what technical constraints prevent you (SE) from separating this information from the requested data. I believe such an explanation falls under my right to be informed about the collection and use of my personal data. | |
| Jun 21, 2021 at 19:09 | comment | added | Makyen |
We appreciate you fixing the /jobs export. However, I'm ... concerned regarding the choice with respect to /chat. As a result, while I'd normally upvote, I'm declining to vote in this instance.
|
|
| Jun 21, 2021 at 14:04 | comment | added | ColleenV | @Mithical From the comments above "Chat content does not contain message content by design. There's no way for us to guarantee that we're not handing out message content that could contain the PII of another user...That applies to all chat messages. Sorry, I'm just the messenger on this one, so I can't answer any further as to why or why not it's that way." | |
| Jun 21, 2021 at 13:55 | comment | added | Mithical | "Regarding the /chat data. We will not be including that in the data export." - Why? | |
| Jun 21, 2021 at 13:50 | history | answered | JuiceStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |