Conflicts and Coordination of Privacy Protection in Charity Fundraising

doi:10.13766/j.bhsk.1008-2204.2016.0215

Abstract

Abstract:

Charity fundraising may infract donors' privacy in the circumstances of the information disclosure, information sharing with other charitable or commercial organizations. These three kinds of circumstances are different in the juridical basis and legal relationship. The information disclosure involves conflicts among donors' privacy, free speech and the right to know of the public. The information sharing among charitable organizations involves conflicts between the interest of charitable organizations and the donors' privacy. Besides, the information sharing between charitable organizations and commercial institutes involves the problem of the fundraising measures. Now, China has not laid down donors' privacy protection regulations concerning charity fundraising. This situation is unfavorable for the protection of the donors' rights and interests, and also for the healthy development of the charitable industry. Therefore, in order to solve this problem, China shall study this division as soon as possible, and introduce the Opt-in/Opt-out regulations and create the related information-administration authority. Meanwhile, the first infringement and secondary infringement should be distinguished. For the secondary infringement, the protection directory rules should be introduced, and specialized authority for privacy protection should be established.

Key words: right of privacy, fundraising, information disclosure, conflict of rights, infringement of privacy

CLC Number:

D912.29

CHU Ying. Conflicts and Coordination of Privacy Protection in Charity Fundraising[J]. JOURNAL OF BEIJING UNIVERSITY OF AERONAUTICS AND A, 2017, 30(3): 41-47.

References

[1] 章轲. 慈善组织公信力追问:透明为何那么难?[N].第一财经日报,2011-07-15(A06).
[2] 王克勤.慈善组织需要全透明[EB/OL].(2012-11-21).http://gongyi.hexun.com/2012-11-21/148189364.html.
[3] LEVY E R, SILBER N I.Nonprofit fundraising and consumer protection:A donor's right to privacy[J]. Stanford Law And Policy Review, 2004(15):519-583.
[4] LOURIE D. Rethinking donor disclosure after the proposition 8 campaign[J].Southern California Law Review, 2009,83(1):133-172.
[5] GARRETT E. Voting with cues[J].Richmond Law Review,2003(37):1011-1042.
[6] MCKINLEY J. Theater director resigns amid gay-rights ire[N].New York Times, 2008-11-13(C1).
[7] Internal Revenue Service, Schedule B, From 990[EB/OL].(2011-05-01).http://www.irs.gov/uac.
[8] HOPKINS B R.The law of fundraising, fourth edition[M].New York:John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2009:73.
[9] JONES P. Permission-based marketing under Canada's new privacy laws[J].Franchise Law Journal, 2004,24(2):96-139.
[10] EMERSON R. Social exchange theory[J]. Annual review of sociology, 1976(2):335-362.
[11] PRIGDEN D. How will consumers be protected on the information superhighway?[J]. Land and Water Law Review, 1997(32):237-255.
[12] RICHARDS N M. Reconciling data privacy and the first amendment[J].UCLA Law Review, 2005(52):1149-1224.
[13] THOMSON M. Ontario releases draft privacy legislation[EB/OL].(2002-04-03).http://www.ehlaw.ca/.
[14] HOCHHAUSER M. Lost in the Fine Print:Readability of Financial Privacy Notices[EB/OL].(2002-04-11).www.privacyright.org/ar/GLBReading.htm.
[15] 吉朝珑.网络隐私权私法保护之框架构建[J].河北法学,2008(5):113-116.
[16] ZUFELT F R. National federation of the blind v. federal trade commission:the forth circuit's uncertain scrutiny of the telemarketing rule[J]. North Carolina Law Review, 2007(85):1241-1273.
[17] CAIN R M. Nonprofit solicitation under the telemarketing sales rule[J].Federal Communication Law Journal, 2004(57):81-103.
[18] BENNEIT C J. Regulating privacy:Date protection and public policy in europe and the United States[M].New York:Cornell University Press, 1992:31.
[19] FLAHERTY D H. Protecting privacy in surveillance societies[M].Durham:UNC Press Books, 1989:22.
[20] GELLMAN R. A better way to approach privacy policy in the United States:establish a non-regulatory privacy protection board[J].Hastings Law Journal, 2008(54):1183-1226.