Template:Did you know nominations/Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board report on mass surveillance
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 10:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board report on mass surveillance[edit]
- ... that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board report on mass surveillance recommended against replacing NSA databases with a data retention requirement on U.S. phone companies?
- ALT1:... that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board report on mass surveillance recommended against a proposal to mandate data retention by U.S. phone companies?
- Reviewed: Bloodbath of B-R5RB
Moved to mainspace by HectorMoffet (talk). Nominated by Wnt (talk) at 16:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC).
Length and history alright, but fact is not in source given at that point. Since creator/nominator is indefinitely blocked, can someone else pick this up? Daniel Case (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Daniel, the creator may be blocked, but the nominator has not been. I'll ping Wnt's talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: I remember adding an inline citation to this fact (#7) "Obama ordered Attorney General Eric Holder and intelligence officials to develop a plan within 60 days for storing bulk telephone records outside of government custody ... The privacy board recommended against creating a data-retention mandate on the companies. Another entity capable of retaining the records doesn’t yet exist." Do you see something wrong with this? Wnt (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Anyway, you made me notice we weren't citing the original report, so here it is: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1008957/final-report.pdf "The Board does not recommend that the government impose data retention requirements on communications providers in order to facilitate any system of seeking records directly from private databases. The Board also does not recommend creating a third party to hold the data; such an approach would pose difficult questions of liability, accountability, oversight, mission creep, and data security, among others." Really, for an article like this that is about a document, having the 'horse's mouth reference' ought to be on the DYK checklist as far as I'm concerned, and so I ought to have put it in before proposing. Wnt (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Ooops, sorry about that. I had been looking for the hook fact in the Business Week story to be phrased similarly to the way it is in the article; it hadn't occurred to me that it was stated differently and there it is near the end of the article. Perhaps that cite should go to page 2 if possible. Daniel Case (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
This article does not have enough original content to qualify for DYK. It also lacks appropriate attribution for material copied from other Wikipedia articles, per WP:CWW. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Even removing image captions, references, and the only summary that could have been copied within Wikipedia (which I should point out that Hector put immediately below a link to the "main article" it came from), I'm coming up with a content count of 1302 (view source to see how this count is generated). As far as I can tell it should pass as is. I'll put an extra note in the edit history or on the talk page to clarify that the summary of the mass surveillance disclosures is indeed from that article, if that makes you feel better. Wnt (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, that's not the only copied section - view source to see amendation above. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed the PCLOB article! In any case, I've rewritten both sections to clear out all copied text concerns (substantially expanding the one as I marvelled at how it takes ten years to get a committee to write a report), so we should be OK now. Wnt (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, good to go now. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: I fixed the typo in the above icon template added by Nikkimaria so it displays correctly. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed the PCLOB article! In any case, I've rewritten both sections to clear out all copied text concerns (substantially expanding the one as I marvelled at how it takes ten years to get a committee to write a report), so we should be OK now. Wnt (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, that's not the only copied section - view source to see amendation above. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Even removing image captions, references, and the only summary that could have been copied within Wikipedia (which I should point out that Hector put immediately below a link to the "main article" it came from), I'm coming up with a content count of 1302 (view source to see how this count is generated). As far as I can tell it should pass as is. I'll put an extra note in the edit history or on the talk page to clarify that the summary of the mass surveillance disclosures is indeed from that article, if that makes you feel better. Wnt (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)