NEW 7 WONDERS? COMMERCIALISING OUR CULTURAL HERITAGE--

NEW 7 WONDERS? COMMERCIALISING OUR CULTURAL HERITAGE(2)

2007-06-11 16:14:45 [ Big Normal Small ] Mark Berthold 　Comment

· Although the website solicits email addresses (i.e. to obtain the voter registration form) the website itself lacks a privacy statement defining what personal information is collected and the purposes for which they will be used. Does this mean the organizers do not consider email addresses to be personal information? For it is only the voter registration form which includes a privacy section stating that any personal information provided will be used solely for calculating votes. Unless and until the website provides a more explicit privacy statement specifically defining email addresses as included in their definition of “personal information”, voters wishing to avoid the risk of additional junk mail would be prudent not to email this company. Nor is it clear why the website itself does not provide the vote form, rather than requiring it to be obtained through email. By putting the form on its website it is not longer essential for intending voters to provide their email address.

· For reasons that are not immediately obvious, repeat voters may not email further votes. Instead they have to make telephone calls or SMS messages. This provides the organizers the opportunity to collect additional and also commercially valuable contact data i.e. telephone/mobile nos: even more valuable when combinable with email addresses. This requirement also generates telecommunications traffic which is also profitable for those receiving revenue accordingly.

· Also of concern is the “mandatory” requirement that registrants provide together with their name, their date of birth. Sure, it is a (perhaps arbitrary) stipulation that only those over 16 can vote, but need not the website therefore only ask if the registrant is 16 years or more? It is contrary to the internationally accepted data privacy principles to seek excessive personal data excessive for the relevant data purpose.

The site tells us that the entity behind the website is the New7Wonders Foundation. Actually, we have an official international body which on behalf of its 184 member countries is committed to the protection of the world’s cultural sites. Functioning under the auspices of the United Nations and implementing the relevant international treaty, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization- UNESCO- has carefully defines criteria which must be satisfied for a site to recognized as a World Heritage Site-unlike new7wonders which merely asks for vote(s) for “favorite” sites (this may be why its final 21 includes the Sydney Opera House which is not a World Heritage Site). Listed at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list are 644 cultural sites and 162 natural sites, together with (and in recognition of their interaction) 24 “mixed” sites. UNESCO World Heritage Sites need not be discrete monuments but comprise an entire “historic centre” of culturally significant cities. An example is that of Prague in the Czech Republic.

The new7wonders website’s description of its Foundation describes a similar mission to that of UNESCO regarding cultural sites but it nowhere acknowledges the work of the UN body, let alone provide a link to the highly informative http://whc.unesco.org/ Potentially new7wonders is competing for funds needed by UNESCO, as it specifically solicits donations “to help us with our running expenses”. It also proclaims that “fifty percent of all net revenue raised by the New 7 Wonders Project is to be used to fund restoration efforts worldwide.” UNESCO also solicits donations at http://whc.unesco.org/en/donate and certainly it already has an impressive record of achievement in preserving the world’s cultural heritage, as we would expect from a UN entity.
Mark Berthold Copyright 2007

| First | | Prev |

china.com