[Foundation-l] Note regarding status of privacy policy

[SlimVirgin]

On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>> In the UK, for
>> example, the Data Protection Act may require that the information be
>> handed over on request, and that the UK chapter (insofar as it's a
>> separate organization) take steps to ensure that it's not used in a
>> way that causes damage or distress.
>
> What does the UK chapter have to do with it? It *is* a separate
> organisation and is in no way involved with checkuser results...

I don't know how or whether the Data Protection Act would apply, but I
think if members of the UK group were involved in retaining checkuser
information (and I have no idea whether they are), it would kick in if
a request were made under the Act. I mentioned it only as an example.

I'm reminded of the animal liberation movement here. They set up
so-called "leaderless resistance" groups, because they don't want to
belong to an organization that can be sued or have its assets
confiscated, but they also don't want to act as lone wolves.
Similarly, the checkusers don't want to be part of the Foundation (or
the Foundation doesn't want them), but they also don't want to be
regarded as third parties under the privacy policy.

The legal sleight of hand hasn't worked with animal liberationists and
I don't see how it can work here either. The courts do find a way to
hold people and groups responsible for the damage and distress they
cause, so the best thing is to avoid the damage ahead of time by
making sure the checkuser and privacy policies are strictly enforced.