Message-ID: <b160f728-b34f-433d-8cc4-677605990936@leemhuis.info>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 11:55:40 +0100
From: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] docs: reminder to not expose potentially private email
 addresses

On 13.11.24 11:26, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 09:35:03AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Remind developers to not expose private email addresses, as some people
>> become upset if their addresses end up in the lore archives or the Linux
>> git tree.
>>
>> While at it, explicitly mention the dangers of our bugzilla instance
>> here, as it makes it easy to forget that email addresses visible there
>> are only shown to logged-in users.
>>
>> These are not a theoretical issues, as one maintainer mentioned that
>> his employer received a EU GDPR (general data protection regulation)
>> complaint after exposuring a email address used in bugzilla through a
>> tag in a patch description.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
>> ---
>> Note: this triggers a few checkpatch.pl complaints that are irrelevant
>> when when ti comes to changes like this.
>>
>> v1:
>> - initial version
>> ---
>>  Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst          | 17 +++++++++---
>>  Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 27 +++++++++++++++++---
>>  2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst b/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst
>> index b3eff03ea2491c..1f6942948db349 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst
>> @@ -264,10 +264,19 @@ The tags in common use are:
>>   - Cc: the named person received a copy of the patch and had the
>>     opportunity to comment on it.
>>  
>> -Be careful in the addition of tags to your patches, as only Cc: is appropriate
>> -for addition without the explicit permission of the person named; using
>> -Reported-by: is fine most of the time as well, but ask for permission if
>> -the bug was reported in private.
>> +Note, remember to respect other people's privacy when adding these tags:
>> +
>> + - Only specify email addresses, if owners explicitly permitted their use or
>> +   are fine with exposing them to the public based on previous actions found in
>> +   the lore archives. In practice you therefore often will be unable to hastily
>> +   specify addresses for users of bug trackers, as those usually do expose the
>> +   email addresses at all or only to logged in users. The latter is the case
>> +   for bugzilla.kernel.org, whose privacy policy explicitly states that 'your
>> +   email address will never be displayed to logged out users'.
>> +
>> + - Only Cc: is appropriate for addition without the explicit permission of the
> 
> Isn't Cc: as problematic as any other tag, is it ends up in both the git
> history and the lore archive ?

Hmmm. Good point, thx for bringing this up. And of course it is. But
it's the second point in a list and thus should not overrule the first
one. But I can see that it could be read like that. :-/ Up to some point
I even was aware of it, as the added "given the above constraints" later
in that point shows. But I guess I wanted to stay close to the previous
text and that is not sufficient.

Hmmm. So how about writing the second point like this:

"""
Even if the email address is free to use in tags, it is only appropriate
to use in Cc: without explicit permission of the person named; using it
in Reported-by: likewise is often appropriate as well, but ask for
permission for bugs reported in private.
"""

Hope that "likewise" is sufficient here...

>> +   person named; using Reported-by: is fine most of the time as well given the
>> +   above constraints, but ask for permission for bugs reported in private.
> [...]

Ciao., Thorsten

Powered by blists - more mailing lists