Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 18:46:10 -0400
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
From: Candy Madigan <candymadigan at mindspring.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Re" Phone Numbers
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

At 04:59 PM 5/2/2005, you wrote:
>At 01:38 PM 5/2/05 -0500, samlubell at verizon.net wrote:
> >>From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
>
> >>Again I ask: what is the benefit to WSFA of publishing this particular
> >>information?
> >
> >There's no benefit (other than faithfulness to the print edition) so if
>anyone does not want their address or phone number we'll cheerfully remove it.
>
>I understand that...Kieth said as much in his announcement.  I'm objecting
>to the "opt-out" style of procedure.  "Opt-in" would make more sense, all
>things considered.  I.e., if you want your info included, you can say so,
>otherwise it won't be.  This covers those ex-WSFA members who's data is
>still valid, as well as current members who may not have time to search
>through every Journal from the last 30 years one at a time to see if their
>personal data is being handed out to the world.

You're not thinking.  Opt-in only works for new stuff that is not already
on line.  Old stuff would take *many* manhours to delete.  Unless you plan
to volunteer for that particular labor, you really don't have room to
complain.  Or do you propose that you pay Keith to do it?  I guess each
person who objected to having their info in the WSFA journal could each
individually pay Keith for his time in laboriously going through every bit
of data that WSFA has published on line and deleting that person's data.

>Also, since the data is already up, the longer it stays up the more chances
>that it will end up in various net search engines, where it may or may not
>be removable...or even locatable (try to get it out of all the SPAMmer's
>databases for instance).  It should be removed ASAP under the "better safe
>than sorry" rule in order to protect WSFA if nothing else...though I'd have
>hoped that those in authority in the organization would take that path
>which protects members regardless of legal threats.

So I take it you are threatening to sue?

>Every organization I work with these days is being very careful to spell
>out their privacy policy, and to safeguard "personally identifiable
>information" against access by anyone other than those the owner of that
>information has specifically agreed that it be shared with (even within the
>organizations).  Your attitude is years out of date, and completely
>contrary to current attitudes, and perhaps not compliant with current laws
>(but again, I'll leave that to the legal minds who know more about that).
>Have you missed the recent hullabaloo over disclosure of personal data at
>Lexus-Nexus?  I believe Congress is having hearings about it soon.  We
>should not be ignoring this stuff...

As I said, if you are volunteering to do the work...

>As someone who was around in the days before the net, in WSFA, and who
>provided the data with the understanding that it was for internal use in
>WSFA *only*, I would be *REALLY* pissed off to find that WSFA has now
>decided to hand it out to the world at large without so much as asking
>permission.  That's an abuse of trust.

WSFA did not make any decisions of that sort, WSFA merely republished old
publications that were already circulating to the world at large.  Keith,
et al, has gone to the monumental labor (for free by the way) of getting
the WSFA journal on line.  As soon as it was pointed out that there might
be a privacy issue, he started taking out anything that he thought might be
an issue.  Since he is not omniscient, I'm sure that he is making errors in
judgement, but since you're not omniscient either...

>My data has been used in this way, but luckily for me personally, it's out
>of date and so not a major danger to me.  This may not be true for everyone
>though, and that's why I'm concerned.  If the web version of the Journals
>was restricted to access only by WSFA members, that concern would be
>different...in that case we'd still be handling it under the terms it was
>acquired under.  By opening these documents to the entire planet (and any
>others) WSFA has unilaterally changed the terms of the agreement, and
>that's just wrong.

It was never acquired under the assumption that only WSFAns would see
it.  It was to be *published* anyone who could get their hands on a Journal
was free to read it.

> >But going through our entire on-line journal backlog of over 30 years to
>remove the phone numbers and remainder of addresses (remember part is
>already blocked out) on the chance that someone might object seems like a
>tremendous amount of effort for very little gain.
>
>How hard it is to do the right thing should never be a factor, but lucky
>for us it's not much effort at all.  If you like, I'll do it.  My VMS
>system has very good search features as well as file comparison utilities
>and scripting capabilities, and I can write whatever software would be
>required to handle this task there.  I can run all the files to remove the
>phone numbers, addresses and e-mail addresses, then run difference listings
>to show what was changed between the input and output versions, and hand
>the whole thing back to Keith.

Why *Thank*you for volunteering to do the work since you are the one having
the hissy fit about it.

> >I think the policy we already have, which is similar to that used by
>Google, is sensible.  If someone wants their address or number removed we
>will.
>
>I disagree.  Google is only passing out information which was already
>publicly available...WSFA is not, so the situations are not comparable.  I
>see it as extremely unfriendly to personal privacy of current and past
>members as well as a reckless action endangering WSFA's reputation
>(whatever that might be ;-) and financial resources.  It may well be
>actionable in court as well, but I don't know for sure about that.

WSFA's information has always been theoretically publicly
available.  ANYone can come to a WSFA meeting.  Therefore, ANYone already
has access to any Journal that happens to be available at that meeting.

> >Now if Keith says he has a UNIX command that will go through and replace
>anything that looks like a phone number with (xxx) xxx-xxx that won't erase
>similarly big numbers in treasurer reports and the like, that would be a
>different story.
>
>UNIX isn't the only real OS on the planet, but it certainly has the power
>to do what I described above too.  Might even be easier on UNIX, but I
>don't know UNIX as well as I do VMS.  I know I can do it on VMS.

That get's my vote!