Overview
Title
Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Navy is changing how it keeps track of the races it organizes, like the Marine Corps Marathon, making sure it includes more events and people, and sometimes sharing information with others. They want to hear what people think about these changes until the end of January.
Summary AI
The Department of the Navy is updating the system of records known as the "Marine Corps Marathon Automated Support System" to the "Marine Corps Marathon Organization Event Records." This update includes expanding the types of events and individuals covered, adding medical treatment information, and integrating standard Department of Defense routine uses. Furthermore, the new system will allow more information sharing outside the Department of Defense and update various sections to improve clarity and accuracy. The changes will take effect upon publication, but comments on the Routine Uses are accepted until January 27, 2025.
Abstract
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of the Navy is modifying and reissuing a current system of records titled, "Marine Corps Marathon Automated Support System," MMC00010. This system of records was originally established to collect and maintain records to register and promote participation in Marine Corps Marathon Organization's race events. The system name and identifier are changing from "Marine Corps Marathon Automated Support System," MMC0010 to "Marine Corps Marathon Organization Event Records," M01710-2. Additionally, this system of records notice (SORN) is being updated to expand the events and individuals covered, include information regarding medical treatment provided at events, and incorporate the DoD standard routine uses and support additional information sharing of these records outside the DoD. The DoD is also modifying various other sections within the SORN to improve clarity or update information that has changed.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document addresses a modification to a system of records by the Department of the Navy, under the Privacy Act of 1974. Specifically, it updates an existing system, originally called the "Marine Corps Marathon Automated Support System," to "Marine Corps Marathon Organization Event Records." This adjustment includes expanding the system to cover more events and individuals, adding details about medical treatments during events, and allows for more extensive sharing of information beyond the Department of Defense (DoD).
General Summary
The notice signifies a change in how the Marine Corps Marathon Organization handles personal records. It updates the system label and expands its scope to include various running events and the individuals involved—participants, volunteers, responders, and more. A significant part of the update is the inclusion of medical information obtained during events and how these records can be shared with entities outside the DoD. Furthermore, the notice outlines how records can be shared with other agencies for routine functions.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One concern with this update is the expanded scope of data use, particularly regarding the medical data and how it might be shared with third-party entities such as select sponsors and media. This move, acknowledging that individuals' data might reach sponsors or potentially the general public, could present privacy challenges. Additionally, the language regarding social media data use, where the information lawfully accessible to the public may be shared, could raise questions about individual privacy protections.
An extensive list of routine uses for these records, including law enforcement and public disclosures, might seem intrusive, making individuals uncomfortable about how their information is utilized. Another concern lies with the storage and security provisions mentioned; while there are protocols cited, specific explanations of these measures are not detailed, which may not assure those affected about how secure their sensitive data will be.
Public Impact
From a broad perspective, the modification appears to streamline and clarify how data related to Marine Corps events is handled, which might improve efficiency and transparency. However, the breadth of routine uses and the potential for wider data sharing could leave individuals concerned about their personal information's privacy and security. The potential for broader reach through media and sponsors might be seen as a positive outreach effort or as a concerning overreach into personal privacy, dependent on individual perspectives.
People involved with the Marine Corps Marathon—such as participants and volunteers—stand to be directly impacted by this update. Positively, efficient record handling could lead to more seamless event management and possibly improved experiences during such events. Negatively, the update might make volunteers or participants wary of engaging with the organization given potential privacy intrusions or excessive data exposure.
Stakeholder Impact
For participants and volunteers: The changes promise a more organized system, potentially enriching user experience by streamlining event logistics. However, they also risk alienating those who are cautious about their data privacy, given the possible reach and sharing breadth of the records.
For the Marine Corps Marathon Organization: While the update promises an enhanced operational capability and a modernized handling of records, the overextension of privacy boundaries could prompt backlash or resistance from potential event participants.
For the public and wider community: While the community may benefit from better-organized and communicated events, concerns loom over how personal data is handled and how respectful the broader uses of such information remain within privacy norms.
In conclusion, while these updates bring an opportunity for increased efficiency and clarity, they also pose questions about the balance between operational needs and individual privacy rights. The broader implications, particularly regarding data handling beyond traditional boundaries, require careful consideration and perhaps further dialogue to ensure that privacy standards align with public expectations.
Issues
• The document is quite lengthy and may be difficult for an average reader to follow, especially with technical details and legal jargon commonly found in records systems notices (SORN).
• The system makes changes to record categories, but the potential impact on privacy is not deeply evaluated or communicated clearly to the affected individuals.
• There is expansive language regarding the use of data for marketing and by partners, which might raise privacy concerns among participants.
• The categories of routine uses are extensive, including sharing with law enforcement and media, which might seem intrusive to individuals whose personal data is being handled.
• The policy on storing records could benefit from additional context or examples on how secure 'secure servers or paper in secure facilities' are; it may lack specificity regarding the measures ensuring data protection.
• Language pertaining to 'publicly available social media information' could be clarified to define what 'lawfully accessible to the public' entails.
• Emergency contact and medical information storage practices could be a concern if not adequately protected, although this is briefly mentioned in the safeguards.
• The policy on sharing information with 'news media, social media channels, or the general public' may sound controversial if not thoroughly justified, considering the potential for privacy infringement.
• No explicit mention of potential for bias or favoritism in data handling or sharing practices, although listings of routine uses cover various broad scenarios.
• The inclusion of Social Security numbers or other sensitive information isn't addressed outright, raising questions about the policies governing such data.