h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi guys,

Just to let you know that we have updated the main Volunteer page at A541027 (scroll to the bottom for the new bit).

Hopefully this answers most of your questions.

All the best,

Vip

Yes it does, thanks Vip.

Thats looking much better, thanks Vip

A couple of things:

1. I think that how the ID information is stored, who has access to it, under what circumstances it would be shared and to whom, all need to be explicit. Those are the things that people who have privacy concerns will need to know to make a decision.

2. Not all Gurus need an ID check, only those that are accessing the Guru email account. Gurus working on h2g2 don't need an ID check. Perhaps "the Gurus (who have access to limited personal information)" could be changes to "some of the Gurus (those who have access to limited personal information)".


btw, that whole volunteers page is looking good Nice and clear and concise. I'll have a proper read through later.

Thanks guys, glad it makes it better (even if not perfect)!

I'll keep this conversation handy for when we're working through this portion of the help pages - it's ongoing at the moment.

The help pages project, that is, not the volunteer pages specifically.

Cheers Vip. Can you please let me know if NPL or the SVs intend to publish onsite the information I suggest in point 1 above? I'm not saying it has to be done this instant, but I have raised this a number of times over several months and it would be good to know what the story is.

I accept that NPL has determined the ID issue, but when we had these discussions in Magrathea I felt assured that the privacy issues would be taken seriously. I really hope that is so.

I also think that the ID requirements should be put in an Announcement. It's quite a change and there will be many who don't read the Volunteer Help Page.

Thanks Kea,

I'll check the above and get back to you.

>>I also think that the ID requirements should be put in an Announcement. It's quite a change and there will be many who don't read the Volunteer Help Page.<<

If you volunteer you absolutely should read the volunteer page.

That's not saying an announcement isn't an option, but personally, I'd assume that anybody volunteering would have read up on it first.

Thanks Z, I appreciate that.

I agree Bel! I was meaning more that the community holds that knowledge within itself. It seems a courtesy thing to me, to tell the wider community of such changes.

", but personally, I'd assume that anybody volunteering would have read up on it first."

Yes you're right, unless they've previously been a volunteer, in which case people, who are by their very nature habit forming, will not read things again because they won't expect it to change. Something that hasn't changed for over a decade and is such a big difference, needs an announcement, although I'd make it part of a wider annnouncement calling for volunteers.

If the site is growing in membership, the number of returns as large as some suggest, it might be time to put out a blanket offer for more volunteers. Each of the primary groups is still rather small, are they not? 4 to 7 people ... Different time zones ... It might dilute the importance of some a little bit, but it's the greater good of the site that should determine that.

"Something that hasn't changed for over a decade and is such a big difference, needs an announcement, although I'd make it part of a wider annnouncement calling for volunteers."

*nods* That sounds like a sound plan to me. More volunteers will certainly be needed as we progress as well.

The Terms & Conditions state how a researcher's data is stored and how it is used.

All researchers ticked a box that said they read and agreed to the Terms & Conditions when they signed up for h2g2. That includes a paragraph which begins: "If you apply to certain volunteer positions, you'll be asked to provide additional personal information ..."

If anyone somehow skipped the reading part of the reading and agreeing in all the excitement to join h2g2 after relaunch, do so now or at any time. The link to the terms of use is at the bottom of every page.

Incidentally the October 18 Announcements mentioned that the new T&Cs were posted and even included a link.

"Not Panicking Ltd's privacy policy is in accordance with all data privacy laws, including the Data Protection Act 1998."

Happy Nerd
Comms

I don't think they actually answer my questions though HN. The way that reads is that NPL is covering its own bases, not the communities. I think that the information needs to be available in ways that are easily accessibly, easy to understand (including implications) and explicit so that people can make informed choices. The way the information is being presented looks incomplete to me (eg where is the bit about in what situations would RL ID information of volunteers be shared and with whom?).

I'm sure NPL is meeting its legal obligations with those statements. I don't think they serve the community well enough though. I'm still disappointed given the discussions that were had before the sale.

>>
Under the Data Protection Act you have the right to request a copy of the personal information Not Panicking Ltd holds about you and to have any inaccuracies corrected. (We charge £10 for information requests and require you to prove your identity with 2 pieces of approved identification). We will use reasonable efforts to supply, correct or delete personal information about you on our files.
<<

So if someone wants to access data held about them, they have to supply their RL ID. Does this mean that that NPL is *only* holding information about people whose RL IDs they have? Or that they hold information about all of us, but only those prepared to share RL ID information have a right to access to that information. (I assume the latter).

I'm sure that's all legal according to British law. But it goes against the ethos of the site IMO. AFAIK there is nothing to prevent an organisation doing more than the minimum legal requirements.

>>>So if someone wants to access data held about them, they have to supply their RL ID. Does this mean that that NPL is *only* holding information about people whose RL IDs they have? Or that they hold information about all of us, but only those prepared to share RL ID information have a right to access to that information. (I assume the latter).


Thank you for requesting clarification Kea. We'll add that to the privacy FAQs.

The interesting thing is... I haven't provided NPL with my real life id, and nor has Kea. So what's to stop me sending off my two bits of identity and asking for what info is held on me. Oh and by the way my screen name is kea and my User number is 212656. How do they know I'm not her, because she hasn't proved who she is previously and nor have I!?

>> The interesting thing is... I haven't provided NPL with my real life id, and nor has Kea. So what's to stop me sending off my two bits of identity and asking for what info is held on me. Oh and by the way my screen name is kea and my User number is 212656. How do they know I'm not her, because she hasn't proved who she is previously and nor have I!?

Think if through Mina: the short answer to your question "how do they know I am not her..." is that you cannot send an email from kea's email account. There may be a longer answer, but I've not worked it out yet.

Keep the questions coming and if it's approprite, we'll cover the answers in the Help Pages and FAQs. One word of warning; the list of questions at the moment is still growing faster than Happy Nerd and I have time to organise and write the answers.

B

You can't use email address to corroborate, if I have to write in? Also I've got email addresses I can't access anymore, but that's still my information.

>> You can't use email address to corroborate, if I have to write in?

Making it up on the fly here, yes you can. You write in by post saying you are kea; we send an email to kea asking her to confirm she has written in.

Erm.... where did the writing in by post come in? The DPA requires requests to be in writing but says email is acceptable.



Well, this isn't a new or unique problem, we just need to define a process and document it, and I'm afraid those two things take time.

This post has been removed.