Is This Local Government's Privacy Policy Fair? 11
"What information do we collect?
Name - Allows us to identify parents, guardians and participants
Address - Provides an exact geographic location
Emergency contacts - Allows us to reach a responsible party in an emergency
Birth Date - Allows us to calculate age of participants
Sex - Provides further information on participants
School - Allows us to better partner with education providers
Waiver - The waiver contains three parts: 1) A liability release 2) Permission to seek treatment in an emergency situation 3) A release of claims against our photographic records of our programming
Some federally funded programs also require:
Household income - Calculated against the poverty line
Household size - Used in conjunction with household income
Ethnicity - Compared with census data
How do we use what we collect?
Although we my use the unique information we collect about participants to inform them of further recreational and cultural opportunities, we will not sell, trade or otherwise release unique information without a court order. Telephone number information will be used for contacts related to programming registered for by a household member (changes, cancellations, emergencies, and satisfaction surveys), Aggregate data, such as the number of participants by zip code or the average age of program participants will be used in marketing literature, in making management decisions, and to better tailor our offerings to the need of our customers. Aggregate data will be striped of all unique names and address before being released. The law protects the unique data we collect, and it can not/will not be released without a court order. The data we collect for the Federal Government is released to them in aggregate form. No unique information is sent to the Federal Government.Definitions:
Unique information: Able to identify a single person or household (example: John Smith; 2013 W Third St., 333-2100)
Aggregate information: information that is the same for a group of people (example 4-6 years old; 45403)"
No balancing act (Score:1)
Someone could always go around and use the contact database to survey everyone who came through your doors, but this would require their effort and people could always tell them to get lost. It would not be a case of you turning over data; you wouldn't even have the data, so nobody could bother you about it. If your point is to keep the Feds happy with their stat data without becoming a lightning rod, that seems like a good way to achieve it.
--
Knowledge is power
Power corrupts
Study hard
Try to destroy all identifiable info ASAP (Score:1)
Using a two-part form, with the contact info and home address on one part (to file) and the rest on the other (to destroy right after data entry) will address people's concerns. Your disclaimer may also get people thinking about privacy, and how much info the government has any business keeping. If you can turn the Fed's money into a chance to do some consciousness-raising, kudos to you!
--
Knowledge is power
Power corrupts
Study hard
Re:Try to destroy all identifiable info ASAP (Score:1)
I would like to balance convience and privacy for the users.
As per the 'court order' business, this is a CYA manuver to deal with the fact it could happen, not that I expect it to happen.
Re:Missing: Opt-in/Opt-out (Score:1)
Re:Mostly reasonable (Score:1)
Is there a better way to determine this? I do not have one.
If parks and rec organizations were properly funded, we would not have to take the Fed's dole.
Local nightmare (Score:2)
Skipping the details (partly because I've forgotten them
The response? A rewritten waiver that made it clear that patrons could be photographed ANYWHERE IN THE FACILITY and they gave permission for this. Only people following the news would know that this included the shower, the toilet, and other areas where most people expect privacy.
Another part of the waiver was an acceptance of all risk on rec center sponsored events. I can accept the need to protect the facility from lawsuits because, e.g., someone felt that they didn't really need to have a physical before joining a high impact aerobics class. But this disclaimer looked like it would also cover an accident on an art gallery tour caused by a drunk driver employeed by the city, someone injured by a lightning strike because a nature hike tour ignored numerous warning signs of an approaching storm, and other clearly negligent acts.
I doubt you'll get anywhere with the bureaucrat running the Rec Department. You might, but it's unlikely. You should probably expect to speak at city council meetings and hope someone will listen. But the city is dealing with some legitimate concerns (minors need parental contact information, most other people desire emergency contact information, the feds provide a lot of funding and demand proof that the money isn't being used at a de facto country club).
Mostly reasonable (Score:2)
The information that the rec center requests is reasonable and seems to serve legitimate purposes. The federal government, on the other hand, wants data that I, as a citizen, do not want anyone but them to have (at least in conjunction with my name and address). If they need the info, does it have to go on the same form as the other information?
You've done well.. (Score:2)
Missing: Opt-in/Opt-out (Score:2)
Add the possibility for participants to decide whether they will accept promotional material, preferably as an opt-in choice. See also Jakob Nielsen's column on "Request Marketing" [useit.com].
Re:Local nightmare (Score:2)
The photo waiver is in place because a person wanted to be paid for a photo we took at one of our free events. We need the ability to document programs and events without having to chase down every participant or their parent for a waiver of rights to the photo. By getting sign-off in advance we save the hassle. It is a small price to pay IMHO for a free or subsidized service.
About the waiver, it only protects us if you do something stupid. If we do something stupid (negligence) no waiver in the world can protect us from the lawsuit. They are of limited value in the best circumstance and utterly worthless the rest of the time.
I am one of the bureaucrats running the Rec. department. We read Slashdot to!
As per you local difficulties I can not comment but it sounds pretty wrong to me.
Re:Missing: Opt-in/Opt-out (Score:2)
Unless this rec center enjoys annoying its patrons, I'd consider it essential to give the them the ability to opt-out of survey phone calls. Since survey call-centers are usually blocking caller-id, I think most people would agree that such calls an are, at minimum, suspicious and annoying.
JavaGurl