- Case Number: a20140712.1
- Status: init
- Claimant: CAcert (represented by board) - [formerly Benedikt H (as internal Auditor)]
- Respondent: Werner D - acting Support team member from s20140623.75
initial Case Manager: EvaStöwe
- Case Manager: name case manager
- Arbitrator: name arbitrator
- Date of arbitration start: 201Y-MM-DD
- Date of ruling: 201Y-MM-DD
- Case closed: 201Y-MM-DD
- Complaint: Dispute against the acting supporter in s20140623.75
- Relief: To exclude that supporter from support and any other critical jobs, forever
Before: Arbitrator name arbitrator (A), Respondent: acting Support team member from s20140623.75 (R), Claimant: Benedikt H (as internal Auditor) (C), Case: a20140712.1
History Log
- 2014-07-12 (issue.c.o): case [s20140712.66]
- 2014-07-12 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A
- 2014-07-12 (iCM): notified C about case
- 2014-07-12 (iCM): notified R about case separately to not reveal the identity of R, as a de-anonymisation should be decided by the Arbitrator
2014-07-19 (iCM): informed R1, R2 and AE of related case a20140624.1 about existence of this case, because they may be affected by it
- 2014-07-26 (iCM): repeated requst for CM / A
2014-11-18 (A of a20140624.1): ruling for a20140624.1
2015-04-30 (A of a20141024.1): R has performed a partial successfull re-training and declared that he will not look up accounts by requests on the open support list. Board (and A of a20141024.1) refused the training as a complete training
- 2016-04-09 (R): declares immediate resignation from all roles
2016-04-16 (board): accepts resignation of (R) from support with motion m20160416.12
- 2016-05-27 (A of a20141024.1): rules "Werner has resigned from support team. There is no direct need for a training any more and the topic should be dropped. Should he ever apply for a job under SP again, he has to convince an arbitrator (in a case) that he has performed the training as it was described in follow up ruling I before he may be allowed to do that job."
- 2016-07-05 (Benedikt): declares immediate resignation as internal auditor
- 2016-07-10 (iCM): contacts board and Benedik about who the claimant of this case would be after resignation of Benedikt as internal auditor and no successor in that role; considers CAcert to be the claimant
2016-07-17 (board) accepts resignation as internal auditor from Benedikt with motion m20160717.2
2016-08-20 (iCM, 2 board members): session about clarification of continuation of cases protocolled in this mail and in FrOSCon-2016-Report, agreement that claimant of case would be CAcert represented by board and that the case a20140712.1 is best to be merged into this case, as it is of comparable nature; person of respondent was revealed to board as this was relevant for their decissions; relief updated
- 2016-08-20 (iCM): claimant is updated to be "CAcert (represented by board) - [formerly Benedikt H (as internal Auditor)]"
2016-09-18 (board): approves the results of that session with motion m20160921.2 as far as it concerns the part of the claimant/executive
- 2016-09-30: the Respondent is updated to be "Werner D - acting Support team member from s20140623.75"
2016-09-30 (iCM of a20140815.1): As both cases are about comparable issues and the issues named in this case seem to be of a less drastic nature than those of a20140712.1 and because claimant and respondent are also the same and that other case is older, this case should be merged into the older case as requested by the claimant.
- 2016-09-30 iCM: informs original claiming person, claimant, respondent, arbitrators of update of claimant and merge and revelation of respondent
Private Part
Link to Arbitration case a20140712.1 (Private Part), Access for (CM) + (A) only
EOT Private Part
Dispute
original Dispute
Dear Arbitrators, As CAcert's internal Auditor, I would like to open a dispute against the supporter S1 (private data unknown to me) from arbitration case a20140624.1's anonymised mail collection [1]. Reasons: Audit got aware of a massive data privacy breach and abuse of supporter power by S1, documented in i20140625.1 [2]. Audit has not the tools and power to prosecute an individual based on his/her misbehaviour. Therefore, I'd would like to ask arbitration to take over the case and handle the individual prosecution against S1. Supporter S1 * violated § 8 in conjunction with § 9 Privacy Policy [3] three times and * abused his power as supporter to request additional information and provide false information (to be verified by arbitration case [4]). Best Regards Benedikt [1] https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/priv/a20140624.1/AnonymSupportCase [2] https://wiki.cacert.org/Audit/Incidents/i20140625.1 [3] http://www.cacert.org/policy/PrivacyPolicy.html [4] https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20140624.1
second dispute mergend into this case from a20140815.1
Dear Arbitrators, As CAcert's internal Auditor, I would like to open a dispute against supporter Werner D[...]. Reasons: Audit got aware of a attempted data privacy breach and abuse of supporter power by named supporter, documented in i20140814.1 [1]. Audit has not the tools and power to prosecute an individual based on his/her misbehaviour. Therefore, I'd would like to ask arbitration to take over the case and handle the individual prosecution against named supporter. The Supporter violated § 8 in conjunction with § 9 Privacy Policy [2] by attempting to look up the data related to an email address posted to the public mailing list (cacert-support@lists.cacert.org) with a support question. Based on his statement, the attempt was not successful, since the address does not exist in our database. This case might be related to [4]. Best Regards Benedikt [1] https://wiki.cacert.org/Audit/Incidents/i20140814.1 [2] http://www.cacert.org/policy/PrivacyPolicy.html [3] https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20140624.1 [4] https://wiki.cacert.org/Audit/Incidents/i20140625.1
pre Arbitration Activity
- 2014-07-12: Note from iCM: the respondent is known to Arbitration, if the name should be revealed should be decided by the Arbitrator.
- 2016-09-30: Update: The person of the respondent was revealed to the [new] claimant at 2016-08-20 as this was requested by the claimant to be able to come to an understanding of the relationship between this case and a20140815.1, which the claimant than asked to merge into this case. The possibility that the respondents of both cases were the same was already mentioned within the original dispute for a20140815.1. As there is no specific reason for special privacy involved and as the claimant has to act transparent, the respondent is revealed in this case by the iCM.
- 2016-09-30: the Respondent is updated to be "Werner D - acting Support team member from s20140623.75"
Update of claimant
Benedikt who filed the case as internal auditor has resigned from that post and so far there was no successor. By this it seems that the role of claimant has fallen to CAcert represented by board. Board has agreed with this point of view via motion motion m20160921.2. Benedikt did not respond when he was informed about according considerations.
- 2016-08-20 iCM: Because of this the claimant is updated to be "CAcert (represented by board) - [formerly Benedikt H (as internal Auditor)]"
Benedikt as a person is not party of this case.
Further details can be found in the history log and in FrOSCon-2016-Report a report of a session to clarify the future of a multitude of cases where the filing member had resigned but which possibly looked as cases filed in a CAcert role. The current case was one of them.
Update of relief
The part in the named review regarding this case reads:
1. a20140712.1 - "Dispute against the acting supporter in s20140623.75" Link: a20140712.1 short summary of dispute: Audit got aware of a massive data privacy breach and abuse of supporter power by the respondent. documented in i20140625. 3 times violation of two parts of Privacy Policy and also abuse of power to request additional information and provide false information (see also a20140624.1). Request: ask arbitration to handle the individual prosecution" Dirk and Gero (both: role board): * Will be continued by CAcert Inc. * updated relief: To exclude that supporter from support and any other critical jobs, forever Dirk (role support) Dirk also stated that this would be in the interest of the support team.
- 2016-09-30: The relief is updated accordingly.
merge with case a20140815.1
At same session board as claimant of a20140815.1 requested to merge that case into this case, as both have same claimant, same respondent and same nature.
2016-09-30 (iCM of a20140815.1): As both cases are about comparable issues and the issues named in this case seem to be of a less drastic nature than those of a20140712.1 and because claimant and respondent are also the same and that other case is older, this case should be merged into the older case as requested by the claimant.
- If the Arbitrator of that case later sees a need for seperating both cases again, this remains to be possible. A merge only saves trouble and work for all involved persons and hopefully enables Arbitration to clarify both disputes quicker which is again in the interest of everybody involved.
Discovery
Ruling
Execution
Similiar Cases