I am not an elite player and I have received several emails from JJP. I think there was a thread from a while back where people were questioning the emails because they had not signed up for any JJP newsletter. Answer was JJP got the emails from IFPA.
2 Likes
I don’t know why people would be questioning emails, it states pretty clearly on the IFPA Privacy Policy that they may share or sell your information to third parties for marketing purposes. Shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that actually read that.
Just because I know it’s going to happen doesn’t mean I have to like it (shades of the Dialed In! camera thread). I just unsubscribe from the individual mailing lists as I receive emails, since the content isn’t relevant to my interests. (I assume that’s allowed and I’m not somehow unsubscribing myself from the IFPA by opting out of emails from their marketing partners.)
Don’t worry you’re still SCS and Women’s Championship eligible 
Oh you mean the privacy policy that was written after people questioned the emails.
5 Likes
Well, that’s not cool then. I didn’t know about that.
No, doesn’t fly… profit or not is not really relevant to the definition or scope. And intent does matter, when courts have to interpret the law because the law is written broadly, including the intent (as such big laws like the ADA do) helps steer the judge’s interpretation of the language.
For this particular case… from the bulletin linked I think this clip is probably most relevant:
“A non-profit organization that administers university entrance exams was found to be engaged in commercial activity. The OPC determined that the simple fact that the organization is non-profit and membership-based does not mean that it does not engage in transactions of a commercial character which would trigger the application of PIPEDA. In the circumstances, the organization’s core activities were found to serve, primarily, the administrative and organizational needs of its members and not educational or other public purposes and thus constituted an activity with a commercial character.
PIPEDA Case Summary #2008-389 - Report of Findings - Law School Admission Council Investigation”
So what is the organization’s prime purpose is a key driver in deciding if the excluded activities are in play or not.
Given IFPA is largely about promotion and marketing… not simply administration for its membership. I’d imagine it could be argued it is commercial activity.
1 Like
IFPA is a for-profit business. We just happen to be really bad at making profits 
6 Likes
Intent does not matter.
The whole point is that people have the option to not have their personal data (email address, IFPA member no., Name, etc. etc.) stored anywhere.
They also have the option to have it DELETED on their request (not just anonymised or hidden).
The point is that IFPA, or any other organisation, has the email and has the ‘potential’ to be hacked and the email then used for any purpose - against the will of the owner. Intent doesn’t come into it.
2 Likes
you also have responsibilities on people who feed you data, or people you feed data too. IFPA should be ok I think as they are not EU based. (see what facebook just did to avoid GDPR).
It does when you use words in the context of what they were written in. The “intent” quote here is about the language of the law and it’s relevancy to how it’s interpreted by the courts. The context is about what is contained in the law in the form of structuring what the law aims to protect verse language that specifically bans certain actions. Because the conversation --in context-- was about the ability of a lawyer to pick apart and throw out a violation because the specific action is not spelled out literally in the law’s language.
And what I was giving as an example is the ADA law in the US, which is written EXTREMELY broadly - and the courts interpret that… it’s not simply a punch list and if not in the punch list… it’s thrown out.
That was the context of “intent does matter” that you quoted and then misapplied. “Intent” here was about the people writing the language of the law… and what they included in the text of said law.
Yes, the guy you are replying to took your words out of context, but look up what Neil mentioned off-hand.
The intent of GDPR was to protect European people’s data and privacy. Facebook said ‘great, we will comply with the law’ and just moved all of the data to be stored in California, where GDPR can no longer be enforced, bypassing GDPR even if the data is for a European user. Tell me that the intent of GDPR is at all relevant when all the facebook legal team had to do was move data around without actually having to do better at securing data.
Yes, I did not comment on the facebook cite regarding GDPR (like the one earlier) because I have not researched it enough to form an opinion. Remember, it was Canadian law we were discussing, not GDPR. Talking about skirting the enforceability of a law is different from discussing what the law actually has in scope
Looking at the facebook example more… the thing is they aren’t really trying to avoid meeting GDPR limits for Europeans… the change excludes non-EU people from operating in the GDPR bound country. In effect, Facebook is eliminating the risk of artificially boosting how many people are operating under the GDPR limits… thus limiting their liability.
The complexity comes in where Facebook argues they will give everyone similar protections… but the move may be motivated by the GDPR penalties that are based on a company’s global size. This change limits that liability.
I’m not so keen on having my face and play on a video stream either, but that’s mostly because of performance anxiety. At this point I’m not playing at an elite enough level or in a venue that regularly streams its tournaments, so it’s not really an issue. When I did play in local tournaments where someone was streaming, they always gave the player the option of turning off the feed during their turn.
That won’t always be the case, but then I need to either accept I’m going to be on video or choose not to play. I know my name and tournament history is already openly published. It’s not terribly hard to figure out what I look like because I have a Facebook account with my real photo as the profile picture and a pinball cover photo. That’s a choice I’ve made and I’m comfortable with it. Appearing on video at a tournament isn’t going to provide the public with much more relevant information about me.
My email address, OTOH, is a portal into my daily life. It provides access to my personal (and work) electronic devices. I don’t want just anyone to have that. My first response when I got the JJP email was actually that I was being targeted for spear-phishing. Some people have more reason to be concerned about that than others.
So to answer your question: the impact of someone having my email address is far greater than someone knowing what I look like.
3 Likes
Have you considered creating a second email address (gmail, outlook, etc) to use just for pinball events, and reserving your “good” email for work/family/friends?
1 Like
My favorite player profile email address we have on file is “fuckIFPAspam@gmail.com” . . . but the guy REALLY wanted to qualify for the rewards program
12 Likes
Metallik hit the nail on the head here. Take two minutes, create a new email address, and you are good to go. I’m amazed that someone so concerned about sharing emails DOESNT have a dedicated email address for website registrations that generate spam. At some point, the onus is on you.
3 Likes
I do have different email addresses for different purposes. I was trying to address the question of why it’s worse to give up an email address than appear on a video stream.
If someone has my email address, they have access to my electronic devices, “real” address or not. And the more it gets shared, the more junk I need to wade through, thereby increasing the risk that I accidentally click on something I shouldn’t. I recognize that this has a flavour of paranoia, but…
Why is it so outrageous to ask that an organization use my contact information strictly to interact with me and not share it with 3rd parties?
5 Likes
Playing devil’s advocate, I’d turn that question around and ask two things:
- why can’t you take responsibility for the safety of your important email accounts and who has access to them?
- why do you expect an organization that needs to draw sponsors to not share your email with sponsors? That’s how you draw in sponsors.
Honestly it sounds like you need more paranoia. I never trust a company to not spam me. I have a spam email account, that I only use for websites that might spam me, and set a forwarding rule for anything from the IFPA, but it filters out any other riff raff.
2 Likes
My point is that even if I have “junk” accounts (which I do), those provide access to my electronic devices because I need to check them somehow. Yes, I can take precautions.
Setting up an auto-forward filter is one possible solution, but runs the risk of missing relevant messages, if they don’t match the criteria. But yes, a viable option. So is viewing all messages in plain-text to cut down on the tracking or possibility of accidentally clicking on a link, although that makes some messages unintelligible.
The matter still stands that it’s more junk to deal with.
Because I come from a culture where personal information is supposed to be protected. Many jurisdictions have enacted legislation enshrining this idea, so I don’t think it’s a fringe opinion.
If common practice is to ignore/delete unwanted or unexpected email, what’s the value for sponsors to send me something I don’t want in the first place? It certainly doesn’t make me think fondly of their brand.
Just because having my information exploited is the norm doesn’t mean I have to be happy about it.
7 Likes