Election Data

[Josh Boyer]

On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 12:11 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 21:08 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 17:05 -0400, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >> > I'd be very disappointed if we refused to release _anonymised_ vote data
> >> > purely on the basis that we think there might be some nutter out there
> >> > who wouldn't come out from under his table for a few days if we did so.
> >>
> >> I'd be disappointed if we were yet another data point of groups who do
> >> not handle their users information w/care.
> >>
> >> It's such a cliche.
> >
> > Can you explain how it wouldn't be handled with care if it was
> > anonymized?
> >
> 
> The issue is that the board is the steward of the data. How long does
> the data get kept (what is Fedora's data retention policy?) and who is
> allowed access to it is something the board should consider. Not just
> for useful research, but fishing expeditions by some British Ministry
> to see if David Woodhouse was voting or going to the Dr on such a date
> and can be held for an additional 40 days because he forgot to mention
> that when questioned.  [Now David may think thats an ok situation, but
> I would lose some sleep over it.. and I am just being selfish here.]

Explain to me releasing ANONYMOUS voting data would implicate anyone.

> People may also have some 'legal' expectation of privacy unless told
> otherwise by banners and signed agreements (updated CLA's). This would
> also affect whether the board could give the data out (or have to do
> some such thing that any member who comes from Netherlands can't have
> their data aggregated with sets given out unless they were told it was
> going to be done).

Again, how is privacy lost if the data is anonymous.

josh