-
daniel
Can a muc member revoke their own membership?
-
jonasw
probably not?
-
daniel
I don't find anything specific related to that in the xep. Maybe some servers just allow the admin command if the removed user matches user who runs the query
-
Zash
Isn't membership editing limited to the owner(s)?
-
daniel
Yes that's what I meant. Maybe some specific implementations allow that if the member you want to edit is the requesting member
-
daniel
But it's certainly not explicitly mentioned in the xep
-
winfried
Well, that may be a GDPR issue... :-(
-
Ge0rG
daniel: that's only half a step away from allowing members to make themselves an owner ;)
-
jonasw
winfried, not sure. the owner is responsible for the members list.
-
jonasw
much of this might boil down to the question whether users have the right to have their data deleted from other peoples data.
-
Zash
An exception for members leaving the group makes sense
-
jonasw
like, my roster is *my* data, are you allowed to force me/my server operator to delete your JID from my data?
-
winfried
jonasw: storage and membership are two different processings
-
jonasw
winfried, where’s the difference?
-
Zash
jonasw: That doesn't happen tho
-
jonasw
Zash, what doesn’t happen?
-
Zash
Just updating the subscription state to none
-
pep.
Zash: yeah makes sense, there could be an exception for that
-
winfried
jonasw: showing membership, relaying messages, storing messages
-
jonasw
Zash, I think somebody argued that even storing PII like the JID could be an issue.
-
Zash
Group creator storing other people's jids?
-
winfried
jonasw Ge0rG pep. if you are able look at the document I send to the members list before the meeting of 12:30, it would be very helpful
-
Zash
Ge0rG: Easy MUC leaving ?
-
jonasw
winfried, I don’t see a document on the members list
-
jonasw
are you subscribed?
-
Zash
I saw it
-
jonasw
meh, restarting my MUA
-
jonasw
there it is!
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: Akonadi FTW!
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, indeed. akonadictl restart and 5s later it’s on order. jokes aside, it has some weird troubles with switching networks while the notebook is suspended :/
-
pep.
.odt aww, you're going to force me to use the big guns
-
winfried
Zash: yes, storing a JID as MUC owner is a 'processing' in the context of the GDPR, but it not a very problematic processing
-
jonasw
pep., I can put a .pdf somewhere
-
pep.
Nah I have libreoffice it's fine
-
pep.
I just never use it
-
Zash
No .txt? :)
-
winfried
sorry about that, I just wanted to go to bed after working 14 hours straight yesterday and didn't want to figure out how I would be able to put that table in the Wiki (what I would have preferred)
-
jonasw
wiki tables are a PITA indeed
-
jonasw
maybe Zash can apply some pandoc magic to convert this to mediawiki markup?
-
winfried
:-D be my guest!
-
Zash
Pandoc probably reads odt, so sure
-
daniel
we don't have to make that about gdpr. but if clients tend to show the entire member list (not just the currently joined users) we should give users the ability to actually 'leave' a muc
-
jonasw
daniel, indeed
-
pep.
daniel: agreed
-
Zash
There being three or so separate lists is fun too
-
jonasw
three separate lists?
-
daniel
owner, members admins
-
Ge0rG
winfried: awesome table, looks good to me
-
jonasw
I can’t parse the table.
-
jonasw
speaking of which, I might not be very useful in todays meeting.
-
pep.
I'm on my phone with nothing installed for that ATM (still in bed :-°)
-
jonasw
pep., I can upload you a pdf, as I said
-
pep.
It can wait that I get on the laptop
-
jonasw
pep., https://sotecware.net/files/noindex/GDPR-table.pdf
-
pep.
Unless..
-
jonasw
pep., but I won’t let you :>
-
winfried
jonasw: mentally parse?
-
jonasw
winfried, yeah
-
jonasw
not your fault though, I’m tired and exhausted for unrelated reasons.
-
winfried
jonasw: any amount of coffee that would resolve the issue?
-
Maranda
Lazy pep. it's past 10
-
jonasw
winfried, I’m caffeine-free for several months now; also, no :)
-
pep.
Maranda: BST not CEST
-
Maranda
Pft then it's past nine still lazy
- Ge0rG took a 1000km trip last week to grab his coffee machine.
-
jonasw
that’s some serious dedication!
-
jonasw
or addiction.
-
Maranda
Indeed
-
Maranda
I think more the latter
-
Maranda
But could be dedicated addiction
-
Ge0rG
I can stop any time I want!1!!
-
Zash
Why would you tho
-
Maranda
Or dedication to addiction
-
pep.
winfried: "how to safeguard on remote server?", that also came across last time, what falls on the recipient's consent exactly?
-
Maranda
Whichever sounds better
-
pep.
Can we clarify this during the meeting
-
Ge0rG
I think we don't need to ensure explicit consent to s2s delivery.
-
winfried
pep.: yes, please note questions like these, the thing is still subject to improvement
-
winfried
Ge0rG: agree, but *only* if no additional processing is done on the remote server :-(
-
Ge0rG
winfried: technically, the remote server is subject to the GDPR because you forward it data from EU citizens, right? ;)
- Maranda looks at the calendar
- Maranda places a big red cross
-
Ge0rG
winfried: I wonder if we need contracts or in-band XML markup for that
- Maranda puts enphasis on the red and big
-
jonasw
winfried, you wrote "implicit permission" for user metadata (presence) in grounds for processing; but isn’t approving a presence subscription explicit permission?
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, both
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: it's explicit approval but implicit data sharing permission, I'd say
-
jonasw
hmkay
-
winfried
Ge0rG: yes, I have the same line of thought, the question if it is subject to the GDPR is not settled yet, and probably not relevant at all
-
winfried
jonasw: yes, correct, plz take notes
- winfried has to do some other job now
-
pep.
And Maranda, it's not because you might have obligations that I also have to get up before 9 :p
-
Maranda
Lazy
-
Maranda
Just lazy
-
pep.
Sure
-
pep.
I want my sleep!
-
jonasw
j✎ -
jonasw
. ✏
-
jonasw
GDPR in 2?
-
winfried
yes
-
jonasw
winfried, what do you mean by "can we safeguard XY on remote server?"?
-
jonasw
do you mean "can we ensure that on remote server?"?
-
winfried
jonasw: ensure
-
jonasw
right
-
winfried
pep. Ge0rG present?
-
pep.
!
-
Ge0rG
hi there
- winfried *bangs* the gavel
-
jonasw
quick announcement: I’ll have a hard cutoff today at 13:30 CEST due to a meeting with my master thesis supervisor
-
winfried
jonasw: he can wait, this is more important :-D
-
jonasw
I’ll tell him that, I bet he’ll be convinced ;-)
-
winfried
shall we from out the table I have build?
-
jonasw
winfried, so, we’re plowing through Q1.1e today?
-
jonasw
seems good
-
winfried
Any questions / amendments / additions
-
winfried
?
-
jonasw
not right now
-
winfried
Ok, then lets tackle the issues top to bottom ;-)
-
jonasw
let’s do that
-
winfried
We need to inform about the processing
-
jonasw
the EULA thing in the credentials row seems to be a technical TODO for the EULA-XEP
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: EULA doesn't imply EULA XEP. Yet.
-
winfried
jonasw: what do you mean with "EULA-XEP"? A XEP containing a standardized EULA?
-
pep.
winfried, additions, what I asked this morning
-
jonasw
winfried, a XEP which defines how clients obtain the key points from a servers EULA. it would (in my mind) also contain *defaults* which apply to every xmpp server.
-
jonasw
(that would be among them)
-
pep.
Once the message hits s2s, is it on the recipient's consent, for whatever reason. Unless it's a service on the other end not a person
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: did you check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P for overlaps?
-
jonasw
no
-
Ge0rG
pep.: I claim it's fair game to tell your users that whatever you send to a remote server is subject to that server's ToS
-
pep.
Ge0rG, but they wouldn't know what server, would they
-
pep.
I mean
-
pep.
I can, you can, my mom doesn't✎ -
pep.
I can, you can, my mom doesn't know ✏
-
jonasw
with the EULA XEP it *would* be possible to have your client show you that ToS.
-
Ge0rG
pep.: by sending a message to mark@facebook.com your messages are subject to facebook ToS.
-
pep.
Ge0rG, but in her client it's written "Mark"
-
jonasw
but I think it’s even more fair game (and less critical) to say that "a message you send to someone is handled like the recipient wants, not like you want"
-
Ge0rG
pep.: show me a client that doesn't expose the JID of newly added users
-
pep.
jonasw, I agree with that, not sure how to expose it to users
-
pep.
Ge0rG, ok, now explain that to users
-
jonasw
pep., I think that’s common sense.
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, once we’re at the point of invitation URLs we might get rid of most of that. I wouldn’t rely on that.
-
pep.
Explain to users that's it's 2 different things, localpart and domain, and not just one thing
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: I disagree
-
pep.
I agree with jonasw
-
jonasw
fight!
-
Ge0rG
"somebody who claims to be called jonas wants to add you to their contacts. [yes] [no] [wtf is jonas]"
-
Ge0rG
now stop bike-shedding please.
-
Ge0rG
we've got real business to accomplish here.
-
pep.
Just for completeness, "Hey foo, I gave your details to bar, he's going to add you" *foo receives a contact request from _bar_* [yes] [no]
-
pep.
back to 1.1e?
- winfried takes my eyes of the chatwindow and sees a catfight upon return
-
jonasw
:D
- jonasw meows innocently
-
jonasw
so what do we have?
-
winfried
I propose to postpone this discussion and start a top: informing the user upon account creation
-
jonasw
+1
-
winfried
that doesn't need a EULA-XEP
-
Ge0rG
winfried: maybe it does, if the user does IBR
-
winfried
but a standard/model EULA may come in here handy
-
winfried
Ge0rG: isn't IBR evil and banned?
-
jonasw
yeah
-
jonasw
no, IBR isn’t banned
-
jonasw
it’s even getting developed
-
jonasw
see XEP—0401 for example.
-
pep.
And maybe in a not-so-distant future clients will support data forms
-
winfried
OK
-
Ge0rG
So there are different things we might understand under "EULA XEP": - a template for writing server EULAs - a protocol for informing the client about the EULA URL - a protocol for informing the client about specific EULA details - an s2s protocol to let remote users know of your EULAs
-
jonasw
in my mind it’s a mix of the first and the third point
-
winfried
Ge0rG: +1
-
pep.
Ge0rG, I was kind of including all the above
-
jonasw
yeah, kinda all of those actually
-
pep.
Maybe less focused on s2s at first, but that was mentioned a few times
-
winfried
Will that be 1 XEP or 4?
-
jonasw
do we need to figure out the formalities of that XEP in this meeting?
-
Ge0rG
strictly speaking, we don't need any of those, except #2 for IBR
-
pep.
I think the direction is good
-
winfried
Ge0rG: +1
-
Ge0rG
So I suggest we skip out the EULA topic
-
Zash
Template / guidelines for writing an EULA sounds like an informal XEP if anything✎ -
Ge0rG
Zash: 👍
-
pep.
Ge0rG, the s2s thing, how do you do that without a XEP?
-
pep.
Same for 3. actually
-
pep.
But yes I agree the details of the XEP can be done outside this meeting
-
Ge0rG
pep.: my point is: we haven't yet established the need for any EULAs but the ones between a user and their server
-
Zash
Template / guidelines for writing an EULA sounds like an informational* XEP if anything ✏
-
winfried
Summary to solve first block: template EULA + protocol for informing client of EULA URL for IBR
-
Ge0rG
pep.: and until there is a legal requirement to have remote EULA consent dialogs, we don't need an s2s EULA XEP
-
pep.
ok ok
-
winfried
correct? Then we can move to the second blob
-
jonasw
+1
-
Ge0rG
Otherwise we'll have to maintain a list of remote EULAs the user has accepted and block access to any other domains. Ain't that great?
-
pep.
Ge0rG, not saying it is, at all :/
-
winfried
Metadata in C2S context
-
winfried
I guess we need to inform server operators about the limits here
-
Ge0rG
winfried: good point.
-
Ge0rG
winfried: so we need a second document aimed at server operators outlining the limits
-
pep.
yep
-
winfried
yes
-
jonasw
yes
-
pep.
Ok so 1.1e really is "come up with that document"
-
winfried
I guess we need also mention this in the EULA template
-
winfried
but do we need to communicate any standardized EULA clauses to the clients here or a link to the EULA?
-
winfried
I guess maybe keep the link visible
-
jonasw
both is good
-
winfried
(and handle changes)
-
jonasw
wtih both I mean a combination of both
-
jonasw
that’s essentially whta the EULA-XEP originally was about
-
winfried
third Blob
-
Zash
eula { url, registered clauses ... }
-
winfried
Metadata in S2S context
-
Ge0rG
with standardized EULA clauses, we are really in the P3P territory and somebody should have a hard look at that prior work
-
jonasw
I think all the "how to ensure on remote servre" things can be answered with "not".
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, I’ll put that on my todo.
-
jonasw
but I can’t promise anything
-
winfried
Ge0rG: I don't know *how* standardized that has to be
-
winfried
But P3P sure is a good thing to look at
-
Ge0rG
winfried: me neither. I'd say that having a human-readable ToS template is a good first approximation for now
-
winfried
Ge0rG: +1
-
Ge0rG
unless the current s2s blob makes us formalize enforceable s2s requirements
-
Ge0rG
which I hope to avoid at any cost
-
winfried
jonasw: ensuring remote server, can't be done on a technical level
-
jonasw
winfried, exactly
-
jonasw
and on a legal level it’s at least questionable.
-
winfried
(if the data is readable, ik can leak)
-
jonasw
is it the responsibility of the service operator to ensure that all s2s peers comply?
-
Ge0rG
winfried: it's possible to enforce on a technical level that the claimed s2s server's policy matches the user's requirements
-
Zash
Is it not enough to say that communication with remote peers are up to them, the user consentend when they sent a remote-addressed stanz
-
jonasw
I’d even go as far as "sends any stanza to a user which is not themselves"
-
Ge0rG
I see three outcomes: - we can't / won't enforce any s2s behavior / compliance claims - every server needs to advertise whether they comply with GDPR - P3P style fine-grained formal description
-
jonasw
because even on the same server users might’ve opted in to MAM while you didn’t
-
winfried
I am in doubt now
-
pep.
jonasw, that could make sense
-
winfried
Ge0rG: first one, we may say: transfer is obvious to other server and part of the service the user requested, so leave it
-
Ge0rG
winfried: does that apply both to EU and thrid contries based servers?
-
winfried
but then we come in the realms of forwarding my mail to gmail
-
winfried
Ge0rG: yes
-
Ge0rG
does it need to be obvious to the user where the server is hosted?
-
winfried
Ge0rG: good question, don't have a definitive answer to that: transfer outside the EU needs to be mentioned in the EULA, but the legal demands for S2S inside the EU are the same as outside the EU (in the context we have now)
-
winfried
- "- every server needs to advertise whether they comply with GDPR" - that may not be needed, advertise 'no secondary use / profiling' would suffice!
-
winfried
- "- P3P style fine-grained formal description " is in my opinion an overshoot (but that is an opion)
-
Ge0rG
winfried: so I suppose just covering the possibility of EU and third-country transfer in the EULA is sufficient?
-
winfried
Ge0rG: I *guess* so, would be interesting to take to court though...
-
pep.
hmm, can we come back to user-metadata C2S for a sec, I'm trying to find points to write down, but apart the TODO: document for server operators, I don't see much
-
pep.
The EULA XEP is also mentioned in every step concerning C2S for now
-
winfried
pep.: also publish a link to the EULA, needs to stay available + system for versioning the EULA...
-
pep.
I was hoping to include versioning into the XEP, not yet sure how/if really needed
-
jonasw
and notifying the user of changes
-
pep.
yeah that as well
-
winfried
But do we want to reside on the most minimal version of S2S: inform it can happen, don't ensure anything on the remote server
-
pep.
Inform *s2s* can happen?
-
winfried
pep.: yes
-
jonasw
winfried, do we have a choice?
-
winfried
If it is obvious to the user it is handled by an other server with other legal status, it is ok like that, but we had that 'does my mother understand' catfight.. that is relevant here
-
pep.
I'd be enclined to even say to the user "careful your messages may be considered differently once you send any stanza to a user which is not you", as jonasw mentioned above
-
pep.
So even C2S
-
jonasw
winfried, I don’t think we can make that obvious
-
jonasw
TLDs are not a safe indicator for that, IPs are a bit better, but not available to the client.
-
pep.
+1 to that ^
-
jonasw
unless it does SRV lookup for the service itself
-
jonasw
which may easily yield you a geo-located response with your closest entry ponit to the cluster
-
jonasw
so it would look as if it was EU from within the EU, but in fact the servers are partially outside the EU
-
jonasw
(DNS round-robin could case something similar with less fancy efforts)
-
winfried
I don't think we need to handle inside EU and outside the EU differently here: both are allowed if it us needed the perform the servers the user requests
-
jonasw
TL;DR: we can’t really show that to the user and have to assume the worst.
-
winfried
The issue is, do we need to tell the user if more is done with the data then is needed for performing the service the user requested?
-
jonasw
I don’t know.
-
pep.
I think we do, yes
-
pep.
Well legally I don't know
-
Ge0rG
winfried: I'd say we need something like "messages sent to users on other servers are subject to those servers data usage policies"
-
Ge0rG
+ yadda yadda non-EU countries
-
pep.
+ other user's settings?
-
winfried
+ & + +1 ;-)
-
pep.
wat wat
-
Ge0rG
pep.: two different statements, first about other users -> their archival config, second the above one
-
Ge0rG
I'll make an attempt at writing an EULA once I have the time. In a month or so
-
jonasw
s/to users on other servers/to other users/;s/to those servers data usage policies/to the policies the those users agreed to, which may be more liberal than the policies you agreed to/
-
pep.
you still have a month and 2 days before GDPR, you're safe
-
pep.
yes I'd prefer jonasw's version
-
pep.
I don't know if that holds legally, but that's a bit more thorough
-
jonasw
I don’t either
-
winfried
So no need for a S2S EULA XEP?
-
pep.
If we have this kind of disclaimer I don't think so?
-
pep.
Though, we were at "metadata"
-
pep.
Not data, yet
-
pep.
But I guess that still holds
-
winfried
I would *like* to know it, but is it needed for the GDPR? I doubt it.
-
winfried
maybe write a XEP like that and advertise it as 'good practice'?
-
pep.
winfried, probably implicit consent with roster subscriptions, or user joining MUCs etc.
-
Ge0rG
pep.: I think everything said above also holds true for data
-
pep.
Ge0rG, same
-
winfried
Ge0rG: +1
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, +1
-
pep.
Do we go with Ge0rG or jonasw's version?
-
jonasw
if the "once you send it to the recipient, the recipient is responsible" holds, we’re good with it I think
-
Ge0rG
jonasw had the better polished wording
-
pep.
good
-
winfried
everything said here holds on the content too, except for MAM storage
-
jonasw
Δt=-6m
-
pep.
winfried, how does it not include MAM
-
jonasw
winfried, how’s MAM storage different?
-
pep.
Plan for next?
-
winfried
that one is legitimate interest of third party (maintaining a log)
-
winfried
(art 6.1f)
-
Ge0rG
winfried: with the receiver being the third party?
-
pep.
winfried, third-party as is recipient? That falls under "messages send to other users are subject to policies those users agreed to"✎ -
winfried
yes
-
jonasw
what pep. says
-
pep.
winfried, third-party as is recipient? That falls under "messages sent to other users are subject to policies those users agreed to" ✏
-
jonasw
I gotta run in a few mins, plan for next?
-
winfried
jonasw: yes
-
jonasw
I don’t have time tomorrow or on Wed
-
winfried
thursday same time?
-
jonasw
Thu or Fri would work, usual time
-
jonasw
Thu 12:30 CEST
-
pep.
Thu same time worksforme
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, ^
-
Ge0rG
+1 on either
-
jonasw
it’s settled then
-
jonasw
anything else?
-
winfried
Thu 12:30 CEST
-
winfried
Good work again!
-
pep.
We've covered credentials, User metadata/data (C2S/S2S) then
-
jonasw
thanks all!
-
jonasw
heading out now
-
winfried
pep.: much applies to content to
-
winfried
jonasw: good luck!
-
pep.
yes, "data"
-
pep.
ah it's called content
-
pep.
ok
-
pep.
hmm, instead of "messages", we should say "Stanza" probably?
-
winfried
pep.: if you mail the logs, then I will try to update the schedule
-
winfried
pep.: +1
-
pep.
Or something that the end-user can undertand
-
Zash
I pandoc'd this https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/GDPR/Table if that's fine
-
pep.
instead of stanza
-
winfried
Zash: yes, that would be great!
-
pep.
Zash, nice
-
winfried
Any possibilities to add lines between the fields?
-
winfried
Zash: it *IS* great, thanks a lot!
-
Zash
I don't know, I'm not /that/ familiar with mediawiki syntax.
-
winfried
Zash: I will have look myself otherwise...
-
Zash
Please do, it's a wiki after all :)
-
winfried
Zash: :-D
-
pep.
Zash, do I include you in the participants? :)
-
Zash
pep.: Maybe a little? I barely follow this tho.
-
pep.
winfried, today's minutes compress well :P
-
winfried
pep.: I also took some notes myself, but they are not objective ;-)
-
winfried
Zash: lines added...
-
pep.
winfried, https://bpaste.net/show/23e279a44f9e
-
pep.
I'm going to send this
-
winfried
pep.: great!
-
pep.
I'll include a link to the table as well
-
winfried
pep.: missing the 'inform server operators' from the logs ;-)
-
pep.
at what point
-
winfried
[12:53:14] <winfried> I guess we need to inform server operators about the limits here
-
pep.
I meant, where does that go
-
pep.
what limits
-
winfried
It is about the limits of using art 6.1b and 49.1b
-
pep.
Also I should include Ge0rG's points on the EULA XEP
-
pep.
And that it won't be tackled during this meeting
-
winfried
so it is a limit to what processing can be handled with this EULA template
-
pep.
Right
-
winfried
Have to go now, other business to attend...
-
winfried
thanks, pep.
-
dwd
That was an easy email to write. :-)
-
Zash
Impressive diversity in formulating your statements.
-
dwd
Repetition is a powerful argument of its own.
-
jonasw
lol
-
Ge0rG
I suppose everyone is free to pick their weapons