[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad pattern in URL body, blacklisted website in body, link at end of body, link following arrow in body, +2 more: What are either side effects? by Neway 19 on drupal.SE
@SmokeDetector Recoverable. Partially recovered via OP's grace period edit. Recovered by another user's edit. OP has edited since and not re-inserted offensive content.
@SmokeDetector User edited during the grace period to remove the second copy of the paragraph along with the spammy links at the end of the answer. Content feels like it was copy-&-pasted from somewhere without formatting, but a few brief Google searches don't show it as obvious plagiarism.
@Makyen Added [A-Za-z_]*(1_)?407[\W_]*337[\W_]*9869[A-Za-z_] to watchlist
CI on ebafb6b succeeded. Message contains 'autopull', pulling...
[ SmokeDetector ] SmokeDetector started at [rev ebafb6b (SmokeDetector: Auto watch of [A-Za-z_]*(1_)?407[\W_]*337[\W_]*9869[A-Za-z_]* by Makyen --autopull*)](//github.com/Charcoal-SE/SmokeDetector/commit/ebafb6b) (running on teward/Solar Flare)
@SmokeDetector OP rolledback to vandalized version 13 hours ago on this bountied question. I raised a custom mod-flag. There is also a sound.meta.stackexchange.com post about it.
@SmokeDetector Gave tpu feedback, but did not flag. There's something going on with the three domains in the detected version of the post. It might be useful to see what, if anything, the user posts.
[:44597400] Blacklisted user - blacklisted for //elementaryos.stackexchange.com/a/15297 (https://m.erwaysoftware.com/posts/by-url?url=//elementaryos.stackexchange.com/a/15297) by the metasmoke API
@SmokeDetector i see that you add new regexes to the watchlist (or rather blacklist) nearly everyday. I wonder if there is even a remote possibility that a new blacklisted regex ends up invalidating a previous old post that had originally cleared the tests successfully?
@GaurangTandon Happened to this post. We didn't catch it when it was first posted, but we caught it after 5 revisions because we'd blacklisted bestfantasybooks.co
@NobodyNada I agree, but, at this point, we have been asked not to comment, unless we have knowledge of/association with the site. That request was specifically because of leaving an earlier version of the autocomment specifically or that purpose.
We'll publish critical vulnerabilities in PGP/GPG and S/MIME email encryption on 2018-05-15 07:00 UTC. They might reveal the plaintext of encrypted emails, including encrypted emails sent in the past. #efail 1/4
@NobodyNada That is possible to give a warning doesn't mean they will. I do know the local relevant regulator in my (EU) country said that they would fine elementary schools in case they saw that nothing was done. Of course, this likely isn't comparable, but well, let's just say there are risks involved with a 'we will see'-attitude and I don't think size matters.
I'm still not too worried -- but some people in the Tavern are worried about the consequences
And all data linked to the above. Meaning concretely for Metasmoke that is user information, user emails, user ip addresses in so far as they are linked to any particular person by other data points and feedback
disassociation is sufficient for anonymizable data sets - if a metasmoke user requests deletion we can anonymize their feedback and account and simply remove the PII from it.
Then we need a processing repository which lists all types of PII we knowingly collect, why we collect it, who has access, and how long we store it
Yes
And provide contact facilities to revoke your consent at any time (deletion request) and request access to the full data set saved about you (disclosure request) this can be manual via admin email
If that sounds annoying and complicated that's because it is.
It sounds like a fairly typical case of needing to jump through the hoops created by a law. The right solution is to just buckle-down and do it. To a large extent, a large barrier to this sort of thing is just knowing what's actually required, which it appears you've just basically laid out @user5389107, which helps tremendously.
@Mithrandir it's complicated, but one important aspect is that the EU willeactrvely try to enforce the rights of EU citizens even when the service they use is kostedeoutside the EU ... more of a concern where there aoe trade deals, extradition treaties etc; but becauee of the size and significance of the EU market, you might be affected even if you move your servers to Vemeneor Mongolia
So the way I see it for us - we don't collect directly identifiable PII for anyone but metasmoke users. If we formulate a decent privacy statement and have everyone agree to it and have documented procedures for access and removal of data and have a processing repository we're in the green
Will take some time to set up but should be trivial to maintain
i.e. can I just stick a page on metasmoke or on our website that says "we collect these things at these points for these reasons, agree to it or go away"
Just to have it stated: There could be all types of PII information in any particular post which is in the MS database, this could include contact information provided by a spammer (i.e. that we put in watch/blacklists), or even PII that is disclosed by someone other than the affected user.
However, it looks like you've covered this by saying that it's SE responsibility to notify us if there is a deletion request (potentially a nightmare from SE's side, as it would require notifying anyone who accessed the data from the SE API).
@user5389107 Probably easiest if I write one, actually, since I'm guessing I know more of the details than you, but I'd appreciate a read-through once I've done it
Basicly if the post is "Hi I'm Peter Example from Example Bvd 23 in exampletown and this is my black magic service for getting your lost lover back mail be at peter.example@example.com" we'd remove the mail address, email and name
[ SmokeDetector ] SmokeDetector started at [rev 19ce38b (SmokeDetector: Auto watch of [A-Za-z_]*(1_)?845[\W_]*259[\W_]*6015[A-Za-z_]* by Makyen --autopull*)](//github.com/Charcoal-SE/SmokeDetector/commit/19ce38b) (running on teward/Solar Flare)
That would make it "necessary for the performance of a contract" maybe? The next clause says if it's like that then there just needs to be a way to contest it
