Why people want to donate anonymous?
Though it seems that the majority of people in the modern world are not interested in privacy at all, others, especially wealthy people, do care. And they should! Interesting is this respect is the article from Deborah L. Jacobs member of the Forbes staff ; “How To Stay Anonymous When You Give To Charity” She is writing about donating on a regular basis and the possibilities of tax deduction and starts with why people want to donate anonymous: “Still, many other wealthy people (and ordinary folks too) may prefer to keep their giving a secret -for example, because they shun the limelight, are concerned about kidnapping attempts if people find out they are wealthy, or want to avoid hostility from people philosophically opposed to the causes they support. One of the few surveys on anonymous giving concluded that the primary reason donors like to keep their identities a secret is to avoid getting badgered by fund-raising requests.” You will undoubtedly recognize yourself in some of the reasons we hear, which are sometimes similar to the above quote:
- The donor wants to be able to choose who or which institution and how much and how often it donates without (future) obligations and is not waiting to be approached again and again after this donation.
- The donor is very fond of his or her privacy.
- Many people are concerned about their (lack of) privacy and find it undesirable that organizations know everything about them. They try to prevent organizations from collecting all kinds of data about them.
- In the case of large donors, it often also means that one does not want to be put in the spotlight, even if one is very involved in an organization.
- The generous donor does not want to display his wealth. This can be risky with a chance of future robberies, extortion or kidnappings or an annoying stream of begging letters.
- Or because the personal belief of the donor and economic or social interests are in conflict with each other
- Or they are afraid of hostile reactions from people who are philosophically opposed against the ideas the donor beliefs in.
- The donor wants to make his own choices and doesn’t want to choose from a preselected number of charities on a website
- Whether or not the donor wants to save large amounts than the recipients feel obliged to the donor and / or to avoid the impression that they want to acquire control in the institution of their choice.
- The donor wants to avoid comparisons with others on, for example, a fundraising with other possible acquaintances from his environment.
How to donate as secure and private as possible?
”Still, giving anonymously isn’t easy, especially for the superrich. Here are the pros and cons of various philanthropic vehicles, which may be used separately or in some cases in combination with each other.” She is referring in the underlined remark to a combination of trustworthy entities and persons or companies needed to make it as watertight as possible. What we miss is the attention for private online communication and data storage and the fact that a combination of several solutions to donate anonymous, makes it also more vulnerable because more people are involved and more online data traffic and storage and communication are generated.
We offer the alternative or addition for all those (offshore) foundations and other entities which offer a vehicle for philanthropy.
A small overview of the weaknesses in general will help you understand what we mean:
- Someone and probably more people than one know you personally or by name. Because you have to rely solely on their discretion this involves a certain risk.
- Somewhere and probably in many, documents, emails, chats, telephone calls your name or that of a company, entity or party involved in all this can be linked to you, is mentioned, written down, logged and stored in many computers and servers along the internet. This digital trail is risky.
- Remember the Panama Papers, Paradise Papers and Liechtenstein affair and the many breaches in online security of web shops and large tech companies like Facebook and you understand our concerns.
- And is your own (online) behaviour and communications in general and concerning your donations in particular really private?
- There is a cash flow between your bank account or a company you own and the bank account of the entity which is a liability which is well documented in bank statements.
- Some of these entities have a fundamental lack of flexibility and continuity. The arrangements made are often irreversible, only are suited for one purpose or have a limited lifespan. Changing them costs a lot of effort and money or is impossible.
Even the best (offshore) foundations and other entities wealthy people use, have these flaws to a certain extent. We can’t make it completely watertight either, but al least better. Interesting is the conclusion of Deborah L. Jacobs in this respect: “These limitations means that not every charity is suited for tax deduction and also means that private foundations are not watertight in respect to you privacy”.
What more can we say? Well this: Use our donations codes!
These weaknesses and flaws like the lack of flexibility are one of the reasons for us to start the GIVEPRIV and GIVESAFE Foundations in the first place. Though we realize we cannot solve all the possible leaks mentioned, we can make it more secure. That is why we use no online donations and have eliminated the human factor as far as possible in the donation process, encrypt all sensitive information and use private communication software which we recommend to the donor as well.