Today the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether or not to uphold Vermont’s law against selling prescription info to data mining companies. It’s a privacy issue with parallels to nonprofit fundraising – or is it? SCOTUSblog has a wonderfully readable account of the case.
In Vermont, when drug stores fill a doctor’s prescription they are required to record the doctor’s name and address, the name, dosage and quantity of the drug, the date and place where the prescription was filled, and the patient’s age and gender — but not patient name and address. Drug stores are required to keep this digital information and they make money selling it to data mining companies who sell it to the pharmaceutical industry who use it for marketing drugs. But the information is also available to insurance companies, medical research institutions, and law enforcement authorities. Vermont law keeps the information from the data mining companies, but not others.
So once again we have personal data, which many in the public perceive as being ill-used or over-used by huge corporations like big pharma, but which is also being used for important public benefits like disease tracking, clinical trials and law enforcement. Can we say no to one user and not another? Do we give up the benefits to keep the info completely private?
Although this case might seem far removed from the world of not-for-profit fundraising, it isn’t. Blackbaud is a huge corporation with the dominant market share of donor database software – Raiser’s Edge. And they are moving their customers online, which means Blackbaud holds the keys to your donor data. They conduct lots of useful fundraising industry research including their Index of Charitable Giving. Where do they get the info?
“Each month, we draw actual giving statistics from the databases of thousands of participating organizations using a variety of fundraising systems to determine how much revenue was raised in the prior month.”
I’m not sure if that means that they use their clients’ data with permission or whether they collect data from clients and non-clients. Does it matter? Nonprofits are providing their donor information to Blackbaud for research – but stripped of identifying information. Is it restricted to freely available research studies or do they also use it for commercial purposes? Does that matter?
In March of 2010 I wrote about Google’s use of “data dust”. I suggested we should be able to use our own “donor dust” to help create a better experience for our donors. But it makes me uncomfortable to think of the possibility of Blackbaud sweeping up our collective donor dust and then reselling it for profit or using it for their own marketing.
The question shares many similarities with the prescription drug case in Vermont. There will be good and meaningful uses for following fundraising trends gleaned from a corporation’s clients’ donor data, but is it legal and is it ethical?
I wish I had an answer – but one thing I know is that we need to be having these conversations. It actually makes me wish a bit that this case weren’t in court yet.
We are in a whole new world, data and information and connectivity-wise. One we could not have imagined just 50 or 60 years ago. The technology we are inventing is moving WAY faster than our society can keep up with. By that I mean societal norms. What is privacy now? We have to think about that basic definition in a way that we did not have to just 30 years ago. The internet was NOT the presence and force it is today in just 1980. I remember it well (I’m 40 years old).
SO, imho, we need to explore this issue a lot more. There are big up-sides, like the in-depth personalization that we are capable of providing prospects – coming at them with programs and funding opportunities that we know they are interested in already. In annual funding – creating mailing and calling pools with very specific target goals. These things create a greater efficiency for all of us.
But, again, what is privacy? Most of the information we collect today is NOT something that anyone collected 40 years ago. And in the case of medical information – this can tremedously benefit our health, personally and as a society. The advances being made in medical research are tremendous!
I think that there is a LOT more discussion that needs to happen, and we need to redefine our norms. Change takes time.
Thanks for your comment Cara! I’m always remembering that ACLU fiasco where a best practices screening of the database was against their own privacy statement and the board of directors was not informed. It wasn’t that many years ago. More conversation means more public and internal education in the fundraising industry. Sometimes I think my own discomfort has to do with the newness instead of the actual commercial activity. Because it sure doesn’t bother me to get those Amazon recommendations…