Tobias Gondrom <tobias(_dot_)gondrom(_at_)gondrom(_dot_)org> wrote:
Hi Russ,
thank you for the information.
In this case, my preference would be not to publish the blue sheets with
the proceedings.
Reasoning:
The blue sheet data can at some point be used to determine movement
profiles of individual attendees at the meeting to a finer granularity
than today and therefore can be an issue for privacy (even though I
recognize that this is a public meeting). The fact that we "may reduce"
the amount of subpoenas is a viable reason, still personal data should
be handled as conservative as possible. Without a significant and
measurable economic advantage by the publication, we should rather not
publish this data with the proceedings.
(My underlying assumption is of course that currently our cost of
subpoenas is not forbiddingly high compared to overall conference costs.
If that assumption proves to be false, I would have to rethink my
statement above.)
Besides that:
- am agnostic on whether we ask for email address or not (in the end I
gave up on hiding my email address as a way to reduce spam...)
- even without publication, we could still scan the blue sheets and
maintain them in an electronic archive without keeping the hard copies
(please note there may be legal requirements on procedures of handling
non-paper copies that are later to be used in a court of law).
- And if we would go to a Hiroshima/RFID model, the discovery in
subpoenas could be much easier compared to scanned paper documents with
handwritten names.
Just my 5cents.
Tobias
fwiw, i am with tobias all the way up to, but not including, the rfid.
i find it interesting that he does not like the publication of fine
grained personal location data by blue sheet, but does not mind a likely
much finer grained electronic one.
i see ourselves some years from now having electronic tracking of
whether X was in the room during which parts of the discussion. do not
like.
randy