I just read that the ACLU has been keeping files on its members…including sensitive personal information!
So, this ultraliberal organization, which constantly preaches to us about the evils of “Big Brother”-style government, has been secretly gathering and keeping information on its members!
Damn, if ya can’t trust the ACLU, who can ya trust? :smack:
Define “sensitive personal information”. That could be construed to be, say, their members’ addresses and phone numbers. Oh, the shock! Oh, the horror! They keep a mailing list! :rolleyes:
Someone has to explain to ralph124c the difference between “civil liberties” and “personal information.” Spend extra time on the part about “voluntary disclosure.”
Aiiee! A private organisation to which its members volunteered information is keeping said information in an organised fashion!
Also, link?
Uh, it’s a non-profit organization, and it’s primary source of funding is donations. Guess how organizations get donations. Yup, by mailing them information. And how do you tailor that mailing (or other contact) to maximize the gift? By maintaining records on your donors to determine appropriate solicitation amounts and methods. What do those records consist of? Personal information that is voluntarily given to the organization.
Ralph, I would also suggest that you might have a complete misunderstanding as to what the ACLU does.
Seriously. Maybe open a new thread seeking to eradicate some misinformation that you’ve been carrying around on your shoulder in chip form for the past 2 years.
NY Times article. Those who don’t want to log in can Google “A.C.L.U.'s Search for Data on Donors Stirs Privacy Fears”.
From the article:
OK, guys, hold it, put down those torches…
If the press reports are right, then there IS something of a problem because whoever runs the marketing/mailing list operation for ACLU MAY have been doing data-mining beyond what the members thought they had agreed to, and there may or may have not been deviations from whatever their own privacy policy was at the time. Does not make it a rights violation but it does make it bad business practice, specially for this entity: “Caesar’s Wife must not just be honest, but also look and act like it.”
However, if all that info is so easily available off public records and we don’t need to authorize its release to third parties, is it not really a case of all of us being confused as to WTH is “private”? I mean, really, if it’s info I can look up in Nexis/Lexis once I have your name and address, how private is it?
But yes, people have a reasonable expectation, even with private entities, that “voluntary disclosure” means that the only info disclosed is that which they overtly volunteered. That it may be legal and not a rights violation to have some small-print/EULA type trick by which they authorize further disclosures does not make them more comfortable. This sounds like a case of those in charge adopting some “industry standard practices” without stopping to think.
I work in university fundraising research. I use very sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about our alumni and donors in a fund-raising effort.
This technology is called “the Internet.”
Gimme a break. We fundraising researchers know about data protection and privacy issues. If I did confidential research on a donor and then blabbed it here or sold it to another university or company, sure, that would be a heinous breach of privacy. For that matter, I’m not sure how the research I do would be a breach of privacy anyway. I mean, the bulk of research I do is on Lexis-Nexis, which comprises mostly newspaper articles, property purchases, and SEC stockfilings. I can’t figure out how reading published newspapers, looking at old real-estate filings, and looking at company filings that appear on Yahoo Financial (fer cryin’ out loud) consitutes privacy breaches, even to the ACLU. I can’t understand why an organization that (rightly, IMHO) argues that executive orders on the conflict in Iraq or the inner workings of Fortune 500 companies must be public information deems back issues of newspapers or real-estate filings as “sensitive private information.”
And one other thing: if the ACLU is doing detailed research on its $20 donors, it’s wasting its time.
I thought we weren’t allowed to start joke threads. 
- You’re not allowed to start joke threads in the Pit.
- What aspect of this thread to you take to be a joke?
I think you got a little whoosh in your hair there, Munch.
No, I really don’t. I think Gamaliel believes that ralph started this thread as a joke - but there’s an actual debate here, which Duke and JRDelirius have picked up on. If Gamaliel was trying to make a funny, he wouldn’t have used the confused smilie.
No, I was being serious. How can an organization that claims to be wary of the government’s efforts (to keep info on citizens) , be so cavalier about ITS members personal info? I mean, I appreciate this group’s efforts to protect me from Christmas lights and creches, but I do not understand why it sells its members personal info to mailing lists.
After reading the actual link (which would have been extremely helpful, ralph), I have to agree to an extent. But reading the whole link, it’s clear that the organization isn’t “so cavalier”, as its board has rebuked the administer who is doing this, has taken steps to exclude him from several decision-making tasks, and is reviewing his authority on other matters.
And again (and again, and again…), the personal information that individuals provide the ACLU is VOLUNTARILY GIVEN, and any number of other organizations sell their lists to other mailing lists. But that isn’t the story here.
Maybe not as a ‘ha ha funny’ joke, but this thread is a joke. Just a frequent ACLU critic who is just grasping at anything that pops up in google search to attack them. Oooo…the ACLU uses publically accessible SEC filings and Nexis! Get a rope! Now he’s claiming that they are selling mailing lists - cite please? I don’t see that in the NYT article.
Well let me tell you…I donated to the ACLU a few years back. Within a few months I was BOMBARDED, INUNDATED, with solicitations for every left wing organization you can name. It was totally unnerving to think how many organizations my name had been given to.
So comes the next year, and the phone call from the ACLU (or whoever it outsourced the calls to). Would I like to donate again? Ummm…no, I said. And I told him why. And the guy says “absolutely not the ACLU does not give out the names of it’s members to anyone.” Categorical denial.
Rolls around the next year and I get a mailed solicitation from the ACLU with a little fine print disclaimer that it will share my information with others. So what, was this guy just lying?
Anyway upshot is I feel a little toyed with and abused and though I like the ACLU, I’m not going to donate for a while. I understand this is another way for them to make money, and if they were the only charity I was interested in, I’d keep donating. But I’m not rich and there are plenty of other groups (Amnesty, Oxfam) I’ve neglected and this gives me reason enough to donate to them instead.
Without knowing for certain, I would make an educated guess that the solicitation call was outsourced and he was making it up on the spot. He may even have made calls for other organizations that explicity told potential donors their information wouldn’t be used. With an organization as large as the ACLU, it’s hard to picture them making such calls themselves. That sort of work is usually outsourced or given to volunteers (who, granted, *should * be told they do or do not give out information - that should be a manager’s job on the line there, somewhere).
Make sure someone at the ACLU knows you’re withholding potential membership/donation dollars because of this. It does help.