[LINK] survey confidentiality boilerplate

[Eric Scheid]

On 1/3/07 1:50 PM, "Roger Clarke" <Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au> wrote:

> There's something badly missing here.  Boilerplate text that creates a
> pretence that privacy is protected is of no use to mankind.
> 
I agree, but that wasn't really what I was asking for.

When I said boilerplate, I wasn't using the word in the pejorative sense,
but rather that I'm sure that others have trod this path before me and have
developed and refined much better policies and the commensurate wording
which explains and communicates those policies.

Hmmm .. 28 words vs 2 words, no wonder the intended meaning went astray.

> [caveats regarding specific words, and their underlying assumptions]
> 
Points well taken, and this is what I was looking for.

> (IP-address needs to be treated as identifying information, because it can
> easily become so).
> 

We only want the responses the give to the questions we ask. Although the
web-server will be doing it's usual logging as per the site's privacy
policy, none of that information will be tied to the survey responses.


> 'The designers believe that the questions are not privacy-sensitive, and the
> respondent may decline to answer any question that they have concerns about'.
> 
Much better :-) I did have the distinct feeling that my initial wording (of
which the wording in my email was only a paraphrase) was stilted at the
least, and likely quite dodgy.


> [various references]
> 

thanks, these will be helpful

e.