Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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