Improvements to borrower privacy

[Guest]

.

[Ali]

• Why are expired loans going to be treated differently to refunded loans?
• Why are repaid loans going to be treated differently to refunded loans?  (Especially in the cases where the loan was simply refunded because of an error in the original repayment schedule, even though the borrower has made all their repayments so far in accordance with that "incorrect" schedule, and only has one repayment left to make.)
• Are the Ts&Cs of Kiva going to be changed to state that lenders must remove borrower's names from their own records (which may, in some cases, be searchable via the internet) when a loan is delinquent or defaulted?  Or will lenders only be required to remove details of refunded loans from their own records?
• Will the various internet "time machines" be modified to ensure that they do not display the earlier pages showing the borrower's actual name?

We are treating refunded loans differently because loans are often refunded because there is an issue with the loan or because the borrower didn't know that he/she was on the website. When loans are refunded, lenders no longer hold a share of that loan, so information about that borrower doesn't need to be shared with them.

We haven't changed the terms to require that lenders remove borrowers' names from their own records. This is something that we can talk about as we continue to roll out these borrower privacy improvements, but right now, we aren't asking lenders to make any changes to their own records of their loans outside of Kiva.

In the same way, we are still working on figuring out the best way to anonymize these loans. We've changed what we have control over, but we'll certainly work to be more thorough in making changes to internet "time machines" if possible.

Therefore, I have urged Kiva to explain to the MFIs, the probability that omitting location information will deter lending to the clients of MFIs that make that choice.  I don't believe MFI personnel are, in general, equipped to take that into account when they make their decision, if it is presented to them in the way it was to us -- as "improvement to borrower privacy" -- without any mention of the costs to the borrower/lender relationship or the financial cost to lenders.

I should have messaged this aspect of borrower privacy a little bit differently. MFIs actually do have, and have had for some time, the ability to anonymize the location of the borrower. This isn't new, and it isn't something that is widely used right now. We simply give MFIs the option to anonymize the location if they think it's appropriate to do so. I spoke with one of my co-workers who works directly with many of our partners, and she said that, if anything, MFIs will likely use this feature to name the nearest city, rather than listing the tiny town that borrowers live in. We weren't planning on messaging anything more about this option to MFIs, but if we do, I'll make sure that our field staff understands that lenders really value being able to see the borrowers' locations.

[YowieFreak]

... When loans are refunded, lenders no longer hold a share of that loan, so information about that borrower doesn't need to be shared with them. ...

When loans expire, lenders no longer hold a share of that loan.

When loans are repaid, lenders no longer hold a share of that loan.

Not wishing to repeat myself, but:

• Why are expired loans going to be treated differently to refunded loans?
• Why are repaid loans going to be treated differently to refunded loans? ...

In all three cases, the lender made a loan, and now they are no longer owed anything.

[waywardcats]

If you disagree with me, please explain how I am overlooking or failing to perceive the magnitude of the risk the borrowers are running, if their first name and town of residence are on the Internet.  To suggest that I am wrong because I have claimed that omitting location information would be mandatory (which I did not say) is not fair.

My apologies Amy, I did not mean to suggest that you were saying that it would be mandatory.  What might have been better for me to say was that it seems as though you feel that because the Field Partners have a choice that they will use it in all cases, or at least more often than you are comfortable with.  I do not believe that will be the case, I believe that they will use it selectively.  I believe that the Field Partners have the best interests of their clients in mind when they post loans on Kiva and I am in favor every option that they are given to protect their borrowers privacy and safety. 

I disagree with you so far as I can tell, only in the sense that I think options for privacy are a good thing.  As far as the magnitude of risk that borrowers are facing, I would direct you to this old thread: Is Kiva respecting the privacy of its borrowers? which covers a lot more than I can in the short time I have to compose this post.

I don't think that you are failing to understand the risks these borrowers may be taking, but I feel that the borrowers themselves, and the Field Partners that are managing their loans are in the best position to determine what level of privacy each borrower requires. I think it is perfectly fine for you to ask them to post locations on the majority of their loans, but I also hope that you will understand that in some cases it may be in the borrowers best interest for them not to do so. 

-Kerry-

[Ali]

When loans expire, lenders no longer hold a share of that loan.

When loans are repaid, lenders no longer hold a share of that loan.

Not wishing to repeat myself, but:
In all three cases, the lender made a loan, and now they are no longer owed anything.

Sorry I didn't address expired loans directly. That's actually something we didn't talk much about when discussing borrower privacy, but I think we should, and I will bring it up with the rest of the team.

We think of refunded loans differently than repaid loans because refunded loans are refunded because of an error in the profile or with the disbursement, and we think it's important for lenders to be able to look back on their portfolios and share their repaid loans with others. If a loan has been repaid, it will be visible to the lenders to the loan and to other Kiva lenders. Our concern is that we don't want borrowers who were unable to repay their loans or borrowers whose loans had been refunded to have their reputations tainted in any way by allowing their profiles to remain publicly accessible on Kiva.

Does that answer your question? If not, let me know! I'll be glad to give it another shot.

[Peter S]

I'm kind of on the fence about the withholding of the borrower's location.  Easy enough to see the justification in places like Iraq, but not so easy to see why, for example, Grameen America's loans so far are all "location undisclosed".  It would help to make an imaginative connection with the borrower if we at least knew which of the 50 states they reside in.

One other point to make about this.  Quite a few times, we've seen "location undisclosed", and then the loan write-up goes straight ahead and states the borrower's location.  In this one, just as an example, the location (a tiny village with a population around 1,000) is given away in the loan description.  If it really is important that the location is undisclosed, perhaps that's something Kiva's volunteer editors and translators could be asked to look out for? - assuming they're aware when editing / translating that the loan is to have a "location undisclosed" status when it goes public on the site.

Peter

[DoubleR]

If it really is important that the location is undisclosed, perhaps that's something Kiva's volunteer editors and translators could be asked to look out for? - assuming they're aware when editing / translating that the loan is to have a "location undisclosed" status when it goes public on the site.

Peter

Peter,

The volunteer editors and translators are required to flag loans that disclose the name or location in the description if these fields are marked as "private".  This gives either the Field Partner or Kiva staff an opportunity to review the loan to determine if the privacy flags need to be turned off or the compromised information be removed from the description.  It appears the example you provided was one that slipped through the cracks during the review process.

Regards,
Ronan

[JohnAtKiva]

MFIs actually do have, and have had for some time, the ability to anonymize the location of the borrower. This isn't new, and it isn't something that is widely used right now. We simply give MFIs the option to anonymize the location if they think it's appropriate to do so. I spoke with one of my co-workers who works directly with many of our partners, and she said that, if anything, MFIs will likely use this feature to name the nearest city, rather than listing the tiny town that borrowers live in.

Hello all - just wanted to re-iterate that as Ali mentioned, nothing is changing with regard to our Field Partners' ability to show or hide a borrower's location on their borrower profile!  They've had the ability to anonymize the location of borrowers for quite some time.

I agree that seeing the location helps encourage lending (at least, it does for me!).  If we see a dropoff in the number of posted locations, we can definitely reach out to our partners and let them know that our lenders tend to prefer seeing borrower locations!  (Great idea, Amy.) They can balance that with their borrowers' privacy needs, and make a decision which honors both of those important needs.

John

ps If there are particular MFIs that you noticed that are consistently not showing locations, please let us know and we can check in with the partnerships team!

[Visitor Number 1]

Ali, I have a comment about the borrower's location. I think leaving that off the loan information is unnecessary, especially when the borrower's surname is omitted. And I think leaving off the location is a mistake, because that will deter lending in many instances.

I have yet to see an instance when this has been the case. It's been about a year or so since Ameen decided to make borrowers "fully" anonymous. They previously posted the first name and showed the borrower's face.  Now the borrower's full name is withheld, the face is digitized, and the location is withheld and so far none of Ameen's loans have expired (to my knowledge). Also, the loans from Iraq follow the same protocol and they tend to get funded very quickly.

Even if the borrower is "fully" anonymous, we are usually provided with the following information:
- the gender of the borrower
- what the borrower does for a living
- why the borrower needs a loan
- the country where the borrower lives

While it would be ideal to have more information to create a greater connection, the MFI should be given discretion not to disclose certain pieces of information if doing so would put the borrower at risk.

Kiva's entire raison d'etre is that the clients of MFIs in developing countries do not have any other way of communicating their credit needs to the people who have the money they want to borrow [i.e., you and me].  If Kiva were not putting the info onto an Internet platform, the money would not be flowing at the rate of $1 million to $2 million-plus, per week.

Not necessarily true. Individual borrowers have maintained relationships with their local MFIs long before Kiva was ever conceived and without knowing the source of the funding.  MFIs have and need other sources of funding. In fact, they don't need Kiva but those that have partnered with Kiva have chosen to do so because the 0% interest is worth the effort required to post borrower profiles, journal updates, and borrower photos. Kiva's due diligence requires that its MFI partners have no more than 30% of their entire lending portfolio be funded through Kiva. If anything, the Kiva relationship is the other way around....connecting the lenders who have the money (and want) to assist someone in need with those who are seeking funding.

Many have tried to compare Kiva to Microplace. Both sites serve as crowdfunding channels for MFIs. However, Microplace does not post individual borrower profiles. It merely gives "examples" of borrowers that a potential investor could be helping. I would be curious to find out if the amount of capital raised on Microplace is comparable to Kiva's. Granted, the motivations of the target audiences are slightly different. Microplace investors are looking for a return, while Kiva lenders are looking for the connection and the "feel good" factor.

The risk to borrowers of revealing their first names and the names of the towns in which they live, even on the Internet, seems trivial to me.

That may be so, but the issue may not be trivial to the borrowers whose profiles are being posted.

(In fact, I have put my own first name, city of residence, and photo on Kiva's platform, because the risk of doing so seems trivial to me.)

That was your choice and there are hundreds of other Kiva lenders who have chosen to remain anonymous for their own reasons which may not be trivial to them. If the lender provides no name, photo, or location, then other lenders can't view his/her page to see what other loans that anonymous lender has made.

If you disagree with me, please explain how I am overlooking or failing to perceive the magnitude of the risk the borrowers are running, if their first name and town of residence are on the Internet.

I would encourage you read the journal entry that was posted for the following loan (last name and location were withheld) and let us know if you still feel the same way:
http://www.kiva.org/lend/269365




EDIT:  It appears the "Save as Draft" function does not work correctly.  When I posted from "Draft", extraneous characters were added that made some parts difficult to read (the draft does not like quotation marks in particular).  My apologies to those who had to read the various iterations while the post was being cleaned up of all the extra characters.

[carien]

I understand that sometimes lenders need to be protected I don't understand that there are two Ngo's in Lebanon one is working anonymous one is working with photo name and town. It is the same country a very small country and they have a complete different way of working.
Since last year I only made one loan with Ameen and only for the reason that the anonymous person was standing in front of a shop with my last name on it. As I happen to know where that shop is I felt I could do that loan.

I have  many Lebanese loans and I don't want to end up with only loans in the south because if trouble will come it most likely start there. So I try to make loans throughout the country.

I think I support Amy in here statement.

[Amy-in-PHX]

I would encourage you read the journal entry that was posted for the following loan (last name and location were withheld) and let us know if you still feel the same way:
http://www.kiva.org/lend/269365

I have read this, Visitor 1, and I observed that, first of all, it looks like the borrower's town of business operation was never posted in the first place.  This loan page says "Location Undisclosed, Israel."

I did not say that there are no instances where withholding the borrower's town is a prudent step to take, nor did I say that Kiva should require posting of the info in all instances.  This thread was started by Kiva staffer, Ali, who put out an announcement, about "improvements to borrower privacy," that made it sound to me as though there were going to be more MFIs in the near future, making a blanket choice to withhold town of business operation from all of their loan postings (the way Ameen does).  And this would occur, not because borrowers' safety is at issue, but merely for "privacy" reasons, in places like Mexico and Ecuador.  *That* is what I was addressing in my earlier posts in this thread.  I was pointing out the potential costs of making a change toward withholding information from loan posts, for reasons of "privacy" and not for reasons of safety, in countries where towns *are* currently included in loan posts.  Unfortunately, subsequent discussion in the thread separated some of my comments about "borrowers" and the risks of posting loan requests on Kiva, from that context, but all of my comments should be read and understood in that context, please.   

When I read the loan you pointed me to, I observed that, although the loan page itself has been supposedly "anonymized," the MFI in posting its "update" used the borrower's first name in its post.  In addition, when I clicked on the link to the "comments" on the post, the borrower's *picture* was displayed together with her first name.  (And, of course, the name of the MFI she worked with, and the location within Israel in which the MFI branch she dealt with is located.)

Kiva doubtless needs to improve its programming with regard to those situations where the borrower has safety concerns.  (When I say "situations," I don't mean to exclude the possibility that entire countries have safety concerns that would lead to posting no borrowers' town information.)  Yes, I believe the above loan is one of those situations - but I would call this a "security" concern rather than a mere "privacy" concern.  (I think safety is higher on the hierarchy of needs than privacy.)  I have observed, with respect to the delinquent loans in my own portfolio, the absurdity of having the caption changed to "Anonymous" when the borrower's name is still there in the body of the loan description - in many cases, the full name.  I hope Ali's announcement means Kiva has figured out how to do this better.  It would be great if they have also figured out a way to keep loans from showing up in response to Googling a borrower's name, or from being noticed by web crawlers and "way-back machines," and the like -- if they have done that, I applaud them.

My bottom line:  In cases where the MFI judges that borrower safety is at issue, of course that concern should trump all others.  Those lenders who are willing to lend based on those write-ups, I expect will continue to do so.  I am simply saying that Kiva should be taking the rest of us and our lending criteria into account, when it starts to make changes just to address "privacy," as distinguished from "security," wishes of borrowers or MFIs.

It's been about a year or so since Ameen decided to make borrowers "fully" anonymous. They previously posted the first name and showed the borrower's face.  Now the borrower's full name is withheld, the face is digitized, and the location is withheld and so far none of Ameen's loans have expired (to my knowledge). Also, the loans from Iraq follow the same protocol and they tend to get funded very quickly.

While you are probably correct that, so far, Ameen and Iraq loans continue to be funded (and it always surprises me that Ameen loans fund while many Al Majmoua loans, which are not anonymized, languish until they go red at the end of their 30 days, and have to be "rescued" from expiry by the LLL Team and its helpers), I think Kiva is hoping for continued growth, of Kiva as a whole.  But I am seeing, since I became a Kiva lender, a trend to make changes that come at the expense of lenders.  (First they forbid the MFIs to offer default insurance, despite the fact that MFIs are the only party in this loop that have the ability to do effective risk management, and now they seemed to be saying that lenders will get less information to help them with their personal risk management attempts in the future.)  I think it is reasonable for me to point out those things to Kiva, and I think it is reasonable to infer that such things will impact Kiva's future growth. 

Maybe Kiva has sufficient momentum now, to continue growing, regardless of how costly they make Kiva lending, and if they think that is the case they will ignore what I say.  We are called "patient capital" in Kiva's industry.  Personally, my patience is not infinite.  I think the posts in this thread expressing agreement with me, is evidence that there are others like me.