Question the United Church privacy statement
If this were happening physically it would be called 'stalking', a criminal offence.
Appreciate the church is involved with evangelism, but question the means by which we evangelize when it adopts marketing practices which compromise privacy.
A public washroom posted notice that activity within the stalls was monitored with wireless cameras and communicated over the internet to a secure location which blurred facial recognition removing personally identifiable information, and that if individuals using the facilities objected they could hang something over the camera while using the stall.
- despite no "personally identifiable information" saved, the use of cameras was unacceptable;
- people expected and assumed privacy;
- most people never read the notice and were unaware of the camera or of hanging something over the camera;
- the raw information before facial recognition was blurred was potentially available to anyone over the internet; and
- ignored that other means could be used to link the person with removed personally identifiable information [the time stamp of security cameras outside the washrooms would identify the person by their unblurred clothing similar to the ip address saved by the cookie would trace to the ip address of an email received from the person].
It's that "people expected and assumed privacy" and finding the church isn't that much different from the world we live in.....