You are not a member of this team. If you want to be part of this team, click on 'Subscribe to this team'.
Good evening,
I am having ethical concerns with respect to the public disclosure of the on-site point of contact information. In particular, we think that it is not ethical publishing on Labdoo website the following information:
1. Name
2. Surname
3. Telephone
4. Email Address
5. Physical address
6. GPS
7. Project application’s PDF (including the information above and more)
In our case (and I guess it is not the only one), our on-site contact is a private individual, as the edoovillage does not dispose of public telephone and email. Therefore, we consider very dangerous publishing all this information of a single person, and we would rather prefer to keep public only the physical address and GPS of the edoovillage, and drop from the public website of Labdoo the information above (1-7). Still, this information could remain available to the dootrippers in order to ease the dootronics’ delivery process. For future improvements, it would be nice integrating the function to let the project managers decide whether to share this info or not.
Greetings,
Matteo
Comments
Hello Matteo,
Hello Matteo,
very valid and thoughtful observations..
I guess this could start a very interesting discussion inside the core team more from the "proccedural" than from the technical side
Technically, the problem can be "workarounded" by just omitting to provide that information in the pertinent fields and puting it some non shown field (like revision notes) or leaving that documentation outside the tool in a differnt repository (a google doc in the labdoo cloud registering those "private" projects)
The doubt will be in any case...should we do it?
- from one side, transparency is one of the big pillars on which labdoo bases its philosophy. Being able to show what exactly happened with each donated dootronic and where they are is a big selling point (at least I use it as such in the presentations I hold) and finding "classified" projects or edoovillages might be a bit undesirable
- from the other side, anyone that knows the situation in some of these countries is aware that there might be many reasons why exposing the information of the projects or its participants might endanger their integrity, being some of them prosecuted or giving shield prosecuted people, by what it is perfectly understandable that we should not publish any data about them
MY PROPOSAL:
would be to allow such cases, documenting all the required fields as "confidential" (or similar) in the tool. Saving the very same information in different documents in the labdoo googledrive.
Restrict this proccedure to ONLY the strictly needed villages, where the responsible can explain the reasons to have his project treated as "classified" and obtain the approval of (Regional Hub Manager/Labdoo core team member)
Is this proposal OK for the rest of the team?
PS @Matteo: Most welcome to the project, we are very very happy to have you on board (bada ba dum...)
Hello,
Hello,
It is necessary to facilitate contact data to travelers. We often have trouble contacting the schools when we find a traveler and we need to be able to reach them easily, having a phone number, email, address or even 2, just in case they are on vacation, which is
not a rare case.
Since we are not having any other enquiries like this and to favour transparency, may be in this project (they want to keep it confidential) they could just write the partner NGO contact data and the school address so any traveler can contact this partner NGO instead of contacting the school directly. In this case we would not need to change our rules of transparency
Matteo volunteers at AUCOOP_UPC for the Origin Project for Open Arms in Senegal. We could write AUCOOP_ UPC or Open Arms contact data instead of the school email and telephone may be?
Or are there any other schools concerned about this subject?
Another solution could be to only show the "labdoo user name" and facilitate contact through that, hiding personal data only to hub managers. I still think the school address should always be available.
Lets really thing about, any more thoughts?
Thanks Matteo and Javier
Very good points all around.
Very good points all around.
It is possible to modify the platform so that certain fields are only visible to hub managers. If there is interest in doing so, please propose the fields that you think should be hidden so we can evaluate and implement the modifications. Thank you.
Good evening,
Good evening,
first of all, I thank you all for your welcoming in Ladboo, for your attention, as well as for your answers and proposals in solving this issue.
At first I didn’t want to share this information, but in order to let you understand the need for this change in Labdoo’s privacy/security policy, I want to share with you that the partner NGO already received threats by some members of the Senegalese communities. In order to avoid prosecution of field staff and personnel related to the partner NGO we consider mandatory the possibility of avoiding the publication of the following data, whenever this corresponds to a private individual rather than a public institution: 1. Name, 2. Surname, 3. Telephone, 4. Email Address, 5. Physical address, 6. GPS, 7. Project application’s PDF
I remind that in our case, the on-site contact is a private individual, as the edoovillage does not dispose of public telephone and email.
As I proposed in my first message, the concerns about the transparency can be solved by keeping public the physical address and GPS of the edoovillage, as it is a public place and local communities are aware of its existence. Besides, the state of dootronics, and pictures would still be shared with Labdoo community.
In order to facilitate the contact data to travelers, I had proposed to make the confidential information available to dootrippers (as well as to hub managers, as proposed by Elena and Jordi) through a private section only accessible by them. I consider other good options those proposed by Javier and Elena:
- omitting the confidential information in the pertinent fields
- putting the confidential information: 1) in some non shown field (like revision notes), or 2) in a different repository (e.g., labdoo private cloud); or 3) facilitating only the partner NGO contact/Labdoo user name.
In conclusion, with respect to our edoovillages (https://www.labdoo.org/edoovillage?e=84320 and https://www.labdoo.org/edoovillage?e=84325) I dropped the following fields:
6.1 Nombre completo; 6.2 Teléfono; 6.3 Correo electrónico; 7. Project application’s PDF. However, I left public the Labdoo username, the edovillage’s pictures, together with the address and the GPS of the edoovillage (always) and those of the local NGO (when different from the edoovillage).
In the particular case of our project, we remind that AUCOOP volunteers will also be the dootripers, so we already dispose of the detailed and sufficient information for the delivery of the dootronics.
Best regards,
Matteo
hello,
hello,
i find perfect the information shared for tose 2 projects. it leaves them in a safer side and still allows a good level of certainity of where the laptops are being sen | with what purpose.
my opinion is that it is a good proceddure for exceptional casea like yours
since it is exceptinak, i would recommend leaving the tool as it is, since we have to maintain the tool operative and usable for the majority, and not reprogram it adecuaring to the exceptions...
so from my side it is good as it is
BR