Replies: 5 comments
-
Do we want to hold it at all? A lot could be pushed out to a 3rd party to handle (ie; meetup), this could even be left to the organiser to pick which would save having to find a solution that works in all jurisdictions. Also using some form of federated auth (live.com, github, facebook, etc) removes that from scope as well |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I would propose that each data element be discussed as an issue to be sure that we appropriately decide to hold or not hold it. At the very least, we will need some PII to contact individuals and relate their digital registration to a particular individual. I would be against allowing organizers to pick and choose, as the issues are complex and the respect for privacy varies dramatically. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Agree with Steve, We need a secure by design approach, it would take only a single breach to violate trust. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Pivoting to the user point of view (attendees and speakers), I'd like to propose the following capabilities please. As an attendee and/or speaker, I can:
For items 1 and 2, the granularity would require a good balance of what makes sense for users (too many options to subscribe and unsubscribe would not be great from usability) and for organizers. Thoughts? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Accessibility Links: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
We will be handling a lot of PII data.
How to make sure we keep the data safe?
How do we make sure that both attendees stay in control of their data?
And give them a way to share as much or little as they want with the sponsors?
What do we do with indirect PII data?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions