Ioli Papadopoulou i.papadopoulou at
Thu Aug 10 14:12:14 UTC 2017

Good afternoon,

I agree with you, Mat. I don't have a plan yet, but I have an idea of 
what could be done to this direction:

We certainly need to agree upon a plan with clear objectives: what we 
want to achieve, how and when. We also need volunteers for the 
"field-work", a steering committee (or alike) to help, give directions, 
delegate tasks to volunteers and coordinate their progress. Finally, due 
to the complexity of the GDPR, I think we need a legal team to verify 
the final output, before it goes public, or correct the expressions we use.

It is a big challenge and won't be easy, but it is worth giving it a try.

We could break down the work in groups of applications such as, for 
example:  1) group of operating systems, 2) group of social media, 3) 
group of CRM 4) group of email  etc. and assign volunteers to work with 
each group, according to experience. Volunteers will study the GDPR in 
depth and elaborate on each group, how/why FOSS is more GDPR-ready than 
it's closed-code counterpart.

I could volunteer for email, if you accept, because I happen to know it 
well enough. I could provide a list of arguments, about how FOSS can 
help towards compliance with the GDPR regarding email.

The same could be done for the rest of software segments. It won't be 
easy at all. This is why we will need a legal team, such as Data 
Protection Officers, to clarify the grey areas and propose corrections.

This is just an idea, as I said. I am open to suggestions. I would be 
happy to contribute, to the extend I can, to such a nice mission.


On 10/8/2017 1:09 μμ, Mat Witts wrote:
> Greetings,
> I take your point Jonas about disapora possibly matching facebook on the
> default privacy settings. I'll take your word on that for this
> discussion because it may be more significant to consider which of the
> two (diaspora/facebook) could be predicted to change the quickest to
> respond to the potential contravention.
> That techno-cultural aspect of FS (community) vs. proprietory
> (market-led) design features suggests to me it may be worth working
> something up on that... I may contact disapora for a view...
> I note the high requirements of GPDR too, and because proprietary
> software is much more likely to flout Open Standards I believe FS (and
> FSFE) is more naturally positioned to talk into this new legislative
> context without the need to shout, deliver free seminars or provide free
> food & drinks(!)
> Ioli - I am  sure GDPR offers a great opportunity to promote FOSS - one
> way or another - the messaging could be quite powerful I think because
> the GDPR articulates many contemporary issues for companies and citizens.
>> Can we blame consumers or companies for choosing closed code over FOSS?
> Well, lets not blame... lets see it as a huge opportunity to educate both!
>> I would like to work with you, to help create relevant publicity about
> the true values of FOSS, including its inherent GDPR-readiness.
> Sounds like a plan...
> I think GDPR has so much social and political force and influence over
> large populations the FSFE would do well to talk into that space for
> lots of reasons... and all of them I think are positive and developing
> policy and orienting public affairs around that I believe would
> definitiely been effective and in the FSFE mission interest
> / mat

More information about the Discussion mailing list