Add parameters to control anonymization of requests, resource sharing and fines
We'd want to be able to control the anonymisation of requests, resource sharing requests and fines and fees in a similar way to loans. In particular we'd like to be able to set a parameter for days since user expiry and since the request or fine was complete.
This would allow us to create a clear policy for anonymising and purging data in Alma so that all data was treated in the same way i.e. could say that all data was anonymised or purged X number of years after user left. It would also allow us to be confident that we are only anonymising data that we no longer need.
Jenny Mc
shared this idea
As of July release you can define rules for all anonymization types, not just loans.
For more information please see Alma release notes:
https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Release_Notes/2020/Alma_2020_Release_Notes
-
Rachel Merrick
commented
I've added a new idea related to this fines could be anonymized based on type and amount.
https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/40813486-anonymize-i-fines-by-fine-type-and-fine-amount -
Daniel Sandbecker
commented
I agree completely. There is a similar request[1] that was closed due to "already being supported for loans" where Ex Libris failed to acknowledge that the need also pertain to Requests and Resource Sharing Requests.
To us it adds lots of uncertainty when closed resource sharing requests are anonymized way to soon. When a patron reaches out to us regarding a print copy request received (thus closed) by the library but yet to arrive to the patron through internal mail we have no record that the patron put the request at all. When a request was closed by staff for some reason and the patron reaches out to discuss it, we don't have an easy way to find the record.
Not anonymizing them at all which is the only other alternative is not an option under GDPR.
-
Manu Schwendener commented
"we generally only review ideas that get ... more than 200 [votes]"
That is interesting information, thank you.
-
Anonymous
commented
I recently discussed this with Ex-Libris who replied with "that we generally only review ideas that get a high number of votes- typically more than 200. If staff members at all WHELF institutions vote for it, that will help immensely. Alternatively, if it can be proven to be a GDPR issue, it will be dealt with through that workstream, and will be dealt with on a fast-track basis, separately from the Ideas Exchange".
I would encourage you to get your collegues to vote so that we can gain enough traction for a review.
-
Chris Jones
commented
Hi, We completely agree with this, currently the granularity of control of other fulfillment transactions is not as flexible at Loans and does not easily allow GDPR requirements to be met practically and systematically for all relevant users.
-
Alex Forrest
commented
Sounds like a great idea. We need to be consistent with anonymising all personal data.