Olive Cooke does not show that charities should stop data sharing, just do it smarter
The Olive Cooke case is a striking example where an individual who cares enough to take any interest in charities can end up being bombarded with mail. The case became more dramatic with claims that Olive Cooke was actually killed by this, although the family vociferously denies this.
There has been much soul searching since, and Third Sector magazine has pointed out that 99 charities had Olive Cooke's contact details, of which 16 failed to provide any opportunity to opt out, 56 required her to proactively contact them if she wished to opt out, and only 14 provided an opt-out tick-box.
It is natural to want to curb the data sharing that led to Olive Cooke receiving so much mail, and I don't want to discourage the valuable measures that help people better understand what happens with their data.
However, the use of data by companies and non-profits is an unstoppable force. Instead of trying to hold this back, if the data were shared better to give a more holistic view of the person, then a charity could better understand whether someone was being bombarded with messages from other charities, and understand whether someone has a specific cause they are interested in, in which case they wouldn't want to hear from other charities in other areas. Or indeed whether someone is just not interested in giving to charity at all. This is good for the charity, because it can reduce their costs by requiring them to mail only those people who are interested, and good for the Olive Cookes of this world too.