memorials changing we remember honor through time culture

Historical Evolution of Memorials: Shifting Forms of Remembrance

The design and purpose of memorials have undergone radical transformations, shaped by technological innovations, religious doctrines, and historical traumas. Early civilizations prioritized permanence and divine connection, while later eras emphasized collective identity and public mourning. Wars, revolutions, and industrialization further redefined memorials as tools for propaganda, reconciliation, or social critique. Below, the chronological trajectory of memorials is examined, followed by a comparative analysis of pre-modern and modern forms, and case studies illustrating ideological adaptations.

Ancient Civilizations and the Birth of Memorial Architecture

"The monument is not merely a tomb; it is a bridge between the mortal and the divine, a testament to the pharaoh’s eternal reign." — Inscription from the Temple of Hatshepsut, 15th century BCE.

Chronological Shifts in Memorial Design and Purpose

1. Prehistoric to Classical Antiquity (c. 3000 BCE–500 CE)

2. Medieval and Religious Memorials (c. 500–1500 CE)

3. Renaissance to Industrial Revolution (c. 1500–1850)

4. Industrial Revolution to World Wars (c. 1850–1950)

5. Post-War to Contemporary Era (c. 1950–Present)

Comparative Analysis: Pre-Modern vs. Modern Memorials

Ideological Transformations in Memorial Design

1. Egyptian Pyramids to Coptic Churches (c. 30 BCE–1400 CE)
   
2. Original Purpose: Tombs for pharaohs, aligned with solar deities.
3. Transformation: Under Christian rule, pyramids were demoted to quarries (e.g., stones reused for St. Sergius Church, Cairo), while new memorials like the White Monastery (5th century) incorporated cross motifs into desert landscapes.
4. Symbolic Shift: From pharaonic eternity to martyrdom and divine salvation.
5. Stalinist Monuments to Post-Soviet Memorials (1930s–
   

   

   Cultural and Societal Functions of Memorials: Beyond Commemoration

   Memorials transcend their role as static monuments dedicated to remembrance; they function as dynamic agents of cultural identity, psychological healing, and societal education. Beyond honoring the past, these structures shape collective memory, mediate grief, and serve as pedagogical tools that reinforce ethical and historical narratives. Their influence extends to national discourse, trauma processing, and even redefining public engagement with history through innovative designs. This exploration examines memorials as cultural artifacts that foster unity, address historical injustices, and adapt to modern forms of remembrance.

   Memorials act as mirrors reflecting societal values, often becoming focal points for debates on memory, justice, and reconciliation. Their design and placement are not neutral; they actively construct or contest national identities, as seen in conflicts over symbolic representation (e.g., Confederate monuments in the U.S. or statues of colonial figures in former empires). By analyzing case studies—such as the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the Apartheid Museum—this section highlights how memorials embed historical narratives into public consciousness, sometimes polarizing while other times unifying communities.
   

   Memorials as Tools for Collective Identity and National Narratives

   Memorials play a pivotal role in defining and reinforcing collective identity by curating which aspects of history are prioritized, suppressed, or reinterpreted. Their design, location, and rituals associated with them shape how societies perceive their past, present, and future. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., exemplifies this function by challenging traditional heroic narratives of war. Designed by Maya Lin, the memorial’s reflective black granite wall, etched with the names of over 58,000 fallen soldiers, invites visitors to engage personally with loss rather than glorify conflict. This approach shifted public discourse from Cold War-era patriotism to a more nuanced acknowledgment of war’s human cost, particularly for veterans and their families.

   Similarly, the Apartheid Museum in Johannesburg, South Africa, serves as a site of national reckoning with a divisive past. Through interactive exhibits, personal testimonies, and archival materials, the museum does not merely document apartheid but forces visitors to confront its legacy—systemic racism, state violence, and resistance. Its design, which includes a mirrored walkway where visitors confront their own reflections while learning about atrocities, underscores the museum’s role in fostering empathy and collective responsibility. Studies on post-apartheid reconciliation suggest that such memorials help bridge generational divides by providing a structured space for dialogue about trauma and healing (Ashley & Seidman, 2012).

   In contrast, memorials can also become battlegrounds for competing narratives. The Reichstag Dome in Berlin, while not a traditional memorial, serves as a symbolic space where German unification and democratic values are commemorated. However, its proximity to the Holocaust Memorial (Denkmal für die ermordeten Juden Europas) creates a tension between national pride and the unresolved guilt of the Holocaust. This juxtaposition reflects broader societal debates about how to reconcile collective memory with contemporary identity in a post-Nazi Germany (Huyssen, 2003).
   

   Psychological Impact: Memorials and the Processing of Grief, Trauma, and Healing

   Memorials are not passive symbols; they actively participate in the psychological processes of grief, trauma, and communal healing. Research in psychology and anthropology demonstrates that memorials provide structured spaces for individuals and communities to confront loss, articulate pain, and eventually integrate trauma into a broader narrative of resilience. The Japanese ohaka (gravesite rituals) illustrate this function, where families visit ancestral graves during Obon festivals to honor the dead through offerings, prayers, and storytelling. These practices facilitate intergenerational transmission of memory, allowing descendants to maintain emotional connections to the past while processing grief (Kondo, 1992).

   In Indigenous cultures, burial mounds and sacred sites, such as the Native American Medicine Wheels (e.g., the Bighorn Medicine Wheel in Wyoming), serve dual purposes: as memorials to ancestors and as sites for healing ceremonies. These structures often align with celestial events, reinforcing a spiritual connection between the living, the dead, and the natural world. Anthropological studies indicate that such sites enable communities to reconcile historical traumas—such as displacement or cultural erasure—by reaffirming ancestral ties and continuity (Duran & Duran, 1995).

   Modern memorials also incorporate therapeutic design elements. The National September 11 Memorial & Museum in New York integrates waterfalls into the footprints of the Twin Towers, creating a space where visitors can reflect, leave tributes, and engage in collective mourning. The memorial’s design encourages sensory participation—sound, movement, and touch—mirroring therapeutic techniques used in trauma recovery (e.g., exposure therapy). Similarly, the Australian War Memorial in Canberra features a Roll of Honour that allows visitors to search for individual soldiers, fostering a personalized connection to history that aids in processing collective grief.
   

   Memorials as Public Pedagogy: Teaching History, Ethics, and Social Justice

   Memorials function as outdoor classrooms, imparting lessons in history, ethics, and social justice through their design, narratives, and visitor experiences. Unlike traditional education, which often relies on textbooks or lectures, memorials employ embodied learning—engaging visitors physically and emotionally to convey complex historical truths. The Holocaust Memorial (Denkmal für die ermordeten Juden Europas) in Berlin, with its undulating concrete slabs (Stelae), creates an immersive experience where visitors navigate a disorienting maze. This design mirrors the dehumanization and loss of identity experienced by Holocaust victims, while the underground Information Center provides historical context, ensuring that the emotional impact is paired with educational rigor.

   The National Memorial for Peace and Justice in Montgomery, Alabama, takes public pedagogy further by addressing systemic racism through a Lynching Memorial. The memorial’s hanging steel columns, each inscribed with the names of counties where lynchings occurred, forces visitors to confront the geographic and structural persistence of racial violence in the U.S. The accompanying Community Remembrance Project encourages local communities to erect identical columns in their own towns, turning the memorial into a decentralized network of education and activism. This approach demonstrates how memorials can serve as catalysts for social justice movements (Eyal, 2010).
   

   Memorials are not merely repositories of memory; they are active pedagogical tools that shape how societies interpret history, confront injustice, and envision ethical futures. Their effectiveness lies in their ability to merge emotion with education, ensuring that lessons of the past are not abstracted but felt, questioned, and internalized by each visitor.

   Modern Memorials Challenging Traditional Forms of Remembrance

   The evolution of memorials reflects broader societal shifts toward interactivity, sustainability, and participatory engagement. Three contemporary examples illustrate how memorials are adapting to digital and ecological imperatives while preserving their core functions of remembrance and reflection.

   1. Digital and Interactive Memorials: The Holocaust Memorial’s Online Extension
   The USC Shoah Foundation’s Visual History Archive and its companion Dimensions in Testimony project represent a digital memorialization of survivors’ testimonies. Using AI-driven holograms, visitors can ask survivors recorded questions in real time, creating a dynamic, personalized encounter with history. This approach democratizes access to traumatic narratives, allowing remote audiences to engage with stories that might otherwise be inaccessible due to geographic or emotional barriers. The project’s success in schools and universities underscores the potential of digital memorials to educate future generations about complex historical events (Bearman, 2017).

   2. Living Memorials: The Avenue of the Baobabs in Madagascar
   In response to environmental degradation and deforestation, the Avenue of the Baobabs in Madagascar has been transformed into a living memorial dedicated to the memory of a local guide, Rajaonarison, who died in a landslide. The site, where seven ancient baobab trees stand, now includes a community-managed reforestation project that plants new trees in his honor. This memorial blends ecological stewardship with remembrance, framing conservation as an act of honoring the past while securing a sustainable future. Similar initiatives, such as the Vietnam Veterans Memorial’s Living Wall (a vertical garden with names of fallen soldiers), merge biological life with commemorative symbolism (UNESCO, 2019).

   3. Participatory and Decentralized Memorials: The Empty Chair Project
   In response to the disappearances during Argentina’s Dirty War (1976–1983), the Madres de Plaza de Mayo initiated the Empty Chair campaign, placing white chairs in public spaces to symbolize the missing. This decentralized approach allowed communities across Argentina—and later globally—to create their own memorials, adapting the symbol to local contexts (e.g., chairs in schools, parks, or squares). The project’s flexibility ensured that remembrance was not confined to a single site but became a grassroots movement, reinforcing the idea that memorialization can be a collective, ongoing process (Jelin, 2003).

   These innovations highlight a broader trend: memorials are increasingly
   

   Technology and Memorials: Digital and Interactive Innovations

   The integration of technology into memorial design has fundamentally transformed how societies remember, honor, and engage with collective and personal histories. Digital innovations such as augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and blockchain-based records have introduced immersive, interactive, and decentralized methods of remembrance, enabling deeper emotional connections and broader accessibility. These advancements address the limitations of traditional memorials—such as physical constraints, static narratives, and geographic exclusivity—by creating dynamic, participatory, and scalable platforms for commemoration. Below, the discussion explores technical implementations, emerging technologies, and the role of social media in redefining memorial practices.
   

   Augmented and Virtual Reality in Memorial Design

   AR and VR technologies have redefined memorial experiences by blending physical spaces with digital storytelling, enabling visitors to interact with historical events in ways previously unimaginable. For example, the Pocket History app for the 9/11 Memorial & Museum in New York utilizes AR to overlay historical footage, survivor testimonies, and interactive timelines onto the physical memorial site. Users can scan QR codes or use their devices to access firsthand accounts, architectural reconstructions of the Twin Towers, and real-time data on rescue operations, creating a layered narrative that evolves with the visitor’s perspective.

   VR war memorials, such as the Imperial War Museum’s We Were There project, transport users into reconstructed battlefields (e.g., the Somme or D-Day) through 360-degree immersive environments. These experiences incorporate archival audio, reconstructed visuals, and AI-driven character interactions to simulate the experiences of soldiers, civilians, and veterans. Technical specifications for such projects often include:
   

6. High-resolution 3D scanning of historical sites or artifacts (e.g., using LiDAR or photogrammetry).
7. Motion-tracking sensors to synchronize user movements with virtual environments.
8. Haptic feedback systems to simulate tactile experiences (e.g., the weight of a rifle or the texture of a trench).
9. Multi-user VR platforms to enable shared experiences for groups, fostering collective remembrance.

The emotional impact of VR memorials is further amplified by procedural generation techniques, where algorithms dynamically adjust environmental conditions (e.g., weather, lighting) to reflect historical accuracy, while AI-driven avatars deliver personalized narratives based on user input (e.g., selecting a specific soldier’s story).


Emerging Technologies Reshaping Personalized Remembrance

The convergence of digital technologies with memorial practices has introduced tools that personalize remembrance, ensuring that individual stories are preserved and shared with precision. Below are key innovations and their applications:


"The future of memorials lies not in static monuments but in adaptive, participatory systems that evolve with technological advancements and societal needs." — UNESCO’s Re|Memory Initiative (2022)

• Blockchain for Verifiable Records
  Blockchain technology ensures the tamper-proof documentation of historical events, personal tributes, and memorial contributions. Projects like the Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Names Database use blockchain to store and authenticate survivor testimonies, ensuring their integrity across generations. Technical implementation involves:
  
• Smart contracts to validate submissions (e.g., verified family records).
• Decentralized storage (e.g., IPFS) to prevent data loss.
• NFT-based memorial tokens (e.g., The Memorial Project by Mausoleum) that represent digital certificates of remembrance, tradable or displayed in virtual galleries.
• AI-Generated Personal Tributes
  AI algorithms analyze textual, audio, or visual data (e.g., letters, photographs, voice recordings) to generate customized memorial content, such as:
  
• Automated eulogies using natural language processing (NLP) to synthesize speeches from fragmented personal archives.
• Deepfake reconstructions of historical figures or loved ones, created via GANs (Generative Adversarial Networks) to simulate conversations or readings.
• Dynamic digital portraits that evolve based on user interactions (e.g., a hologram that adapts its expressions to reflect the visitor’s emotional state).
Example: The Japanese Eternal Memory project uses AI to reconstruct the voices of tsunami victims from audio clips, enabling families to "hear" their loved ones through generative speech synthesis.
• Holographic Memorials
  Holographic projections create life-sized, interactive representations of individuals or events, bridging the gap between physical and digital remembrance. Key applications include:
  
• 3D holograms of historical figures (e.g., Martin Luther King Jr. at the National Civil Rights Museum or Anne Frank in Amsterdam’s Anne Frank House).
• Volumetric capture of survivors or witnesses to preserve their likenesses indefinitely.
• Augmented reality overlays in public spaces, where holograms appear when users scan specific locations (e.g., a soldier’s hologram materializing at a battlefield site).
Technical requirements:
• Volumetric video cameras (e.g., Microsoft Azure Kinect or Intel RealSense) for 360-degree capture.
• Edge computing to process real-time holographic rendering.
• LiDAR-based spatial mapping for precise placement in physical environments.
• Biometric and Sensory Memorials
  Innovations in biometric feedback and sensory storytelling enhance immersion by engaging multiple human senses. Examples include:
  
• Olfactory memorials that release scents associated with historical events (e.g., the smell of cherry blossoms for Hiroshima remembrance).
• Electro-tactile suits that simulate physical sensations (e.g., the cold of a battlefield or the texture of a fabric from a lost artifact).
• Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) to trigger emotional responses (e.g., NeuroSky’s EEG headsets paired with VR to measure and amplify empathy during memorial experiences).

Designing a Hybrid Memorial: A Step-by-Step Framework

A hybrid memorial—combining physical infrastructure with digital interactivity—requires careful planning to ensure cultural relevance, technical feasibility, and community engagement. Below is a structured approach for designing such a project, applicable to local or national historical contexts:


"A hybrid memorial must serve as both a physical anchor and a digital gateway, ensuring that technology enhances—not replaces—human connection." — ICOMOS Guidelines for Hybrid Heritage Sites (2021)

1. Stakeholder Engagement and Needs Assessment
   Identify key participants, including:
   
2. Historical experts (archivists, oral historians).
3. Local communities (descendants, survivors, cultural groups).
4. Technologists (AR/VR developers, blockchain specialists).
5. Government/cultural institutions (funding bodies, heritage agencies).
Methods:
6. Conduct participatory workshops to define memorial goals (e.g., education, healing, activism).
7. Use digital surveys (e.g., Google Forms, Typeform) to gather public input on desired features.
8. Establish an advisory council to oversee ethical considerations (e.g., data privacy, cultural sensitivity).
9. Conceptualization and Narrative Design
   Develop a multi-layered story arc that integrates:
   
10. Physical elements (e.g., a plaque, sculpture, or landscape feature).
11. Digital layers (e.g., AR triggers, VR environments, interactive kiosks).
Example: A memorial for a local Indigenous community might include:

12. A stone circle representing ancestral gathering sites.
13. AR-activated stories when users scan the stones (e.g., oral histories in the original language).
14. A VR journey reconstructing a displaced village.
15. Technical Infrastructure and Workflow
    Define the technical stack based on project scale and budget. Common components include:

    Component	Technologies	Purpose
    Physical Layer	QR codes, NFC tags, LiDAR-marked surfaces	Triggers for AR/VR content
    Digital Layer	Unity/Unreal Engine (VR), ARKit/ARCore (AR), Web3.js (blockchain)	Develop interactive experiences
    Data Management	IPFS (decentralized storage), Firebase (real-time databases)	Store Controversies and Ethical Dilemmas in Memorial Design Memorials serve as contested sites where historical narratives, political ideologies, and collective memory intersect. Their design, placement, and maintenance often spark ethical debates, reflecting deeper societal tensions over representation, justice, and historical accountability. Controversies arise from conflicting interpretations of memory—whether to honor, critique, or erase specific legacies—and involve complex negotiations among stakeholders with divergent interests. These dilemmas underscore the role of memorials as both symbols of remembrance and battlegrounds for memory politics, where ethical considerations extend beyond aesthetics to questions of power, identity, and reconciliation. Ethical challenges in memorial design frequently emerge from the tension between commemoration and critique, particularly when memorials glorify figures or events widely regarded as oppressive or violent. The process of memorial "repurposing" further complicates these debates, as spaces originally intended for solemn reflection may be reclaimed for activism, protest, or alternative narratives. Such transformations highlight the fluid nature of memory and the ethical responsibility of designers, policymakers, and communities to balance historical accuracy with contemporary values. Comparative Analysis of Controversial Memorials The ethical debates surrounding memorials often center on their symbolic meanings and the legacies they perpetuate. Two prominent case studies—the Confederate monuments in the United States and the Genocide Memorial in Rwanda—illustrate how memorials can become focal points for conflicting historical interpretations and ethical dilemmas. Confederate Monuments in the U.S. The proliferation of Confederate monuments, primarily erected during the Jim Crow era (late 19th to mid-20th century), has sparked intense controversy over their role in glorifying slavery and white supremacy. Ethical debates revolve around: Historical Accuracy vs. Symbolic Legacy: Critics argue these monuments celebrate a racist ideology tied to the defense of slavery, while supporters claim they represent "heritage" and Southern history. The 2015 Charleston church massacre and the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville reignited calls for removal, framing the issue as one of public safety and moral clarity. Funding and Public Space: Many monuments were funded by private organizations like the United Daughters of the Confederacy, raising questions about state complicity in preserving divisive symbols. Legal challenges, such as the 2021 Supreme Court ruling in Caroland v. Brandan, allowed local governments to remove monuments without violating the First Amendment, provided they did not discriminate based on viewpoint. Repurposing vs. Removal: Some cities, like Richmond, Virginia, have relocated monuments to museums or cemeteries, while others, such as New Orleans, have removed them entirely. The ethical dilemma lies in whether contextualization (e.g., plaques explaining their history) suffices or if physical erasure is necessary to dismantle harmful narratives. Genocide Memorial in Rwanda The Gisozi Memorial Centre in Kigali, dedicated to the victims of the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, represents a deliberate shift from trauma to reconciliation. Ethical debates here focus on: Memory and Justice: The memorial’s design—featuring mass graves, survivor testimonies, and a "Wall of Names"—aims to preserve individual identities while confronting collective grief. Critics argue it risks victimization without accountability, as it does not explicitly address the role of international inaction or Hutu extremist ideology. Tourism and Exploitation: The memorial’s popularity among tourists raises ethical concerns about commodification of suffering, where grief is monetized for educational or economic purposes. Local activists debate whether the memorial serves justice or exploits trauma for foreign visitors. Balancing Remembrance and Reconciliation: Unlike Confederate monuments, which often exclude the perspectives of the enslaved, the Gisozi Memorial incorporates Tutsi, Hutu, and Twa narratives, reflecting Rwanda’s post-genocide emphasis on unity. However, some survivors argue the memorial lacks sufficient acknowledgment of perpetrators’ roles, complicating its ethical mandate. Key Ethical Contrast: Confederate monuments embody selective memory and ideological preservation, where ethical dilemmas stem from honoring oppressive legacies. In contrast, the Rwandan Genocide Memorial exemplifies restorative memory, where ethics revolve around truth-telling and collective healing. Both cases highlight how memorials either perpetuate harm or facilitate reconciliation, depending on their design intent and stakeholder engagement. Process of Memorial Repurposing: Legal, Cultural, and Emotional Considerations Memorial repurposing—the transformation of commemorative spaces for new purposes—reflects shifting societal values and often triggers legal, cultural, and emotional conflicts. This process involves physical alterations, symbolic recontextualization, or functional reimagining, each carrying distinct ethical implications. Legal Frameworks and Challenges Repurposing memorials frequently clashes with historical preservation laws, First Amendment protections, and property rights. Key legal considerations include: Public vs. Private Ownership: Government-funded memorials (e.g., war memorials) may be subject to public land-use regulations, while privately maintained monuments (e.g., Confederate statues) face fewer restrictions. The 2020 Virginia v. American Legion case demonstrated how courts weigh free speech against public safety, often favoring removal when monuments incite violence. Heritage vs. Progress Laws: Some U.S. states have passed "heritage protection" laws to block removals, framing memorials as cultural artifacts. Conversely, anti-racism legislation in cities like Boston mandates the removal of symbols tied to systemic oppression, creating a jurisdictional tug-of-war. International Precedents: In post-conflict societies like Bosnia (where the War Memorial in Sarajevo was repurposed into a park) or Germany (where Nazi-era monuments were removed or recontextualized), legal frameworks prioritize reconciliation over preservation, often requiring public referendums or international oversight. Cultural and Emotional Dimensions Repurposing memorials disrupts collective memory, often leading to: Generational Divides: Older generations may view repurposing as historical erasure, while younger activists see it as necessary justice. For example, the Emancipation Memorial in Washington, D.C., originally a tribute to Lincoln’s role in slavery’s end, was reclaimed by Black activists in 2020 as a symbol of ongoing struggle, sparking backlash from conservatives. Sacred vs. Profane Spaces: Memorials like Arlington National Cemetery or the Vietnam Veterans Memorial are considered sacred grounds, making repurposing (e.g., turning them into protest sites) ethically fraught. The 2020 Black Lives Matter protests at the Confederate Soldiers Monument in Richmond exemplified this tension, as activists staged sit-ins while veterans’ groups condemned the desecration. Emotional Labor of Reclamation: Communities often bear the psychological burden of repurposing. In South Africa, the Voortrekker Monument (a symbol of apartheid-era Afrikaner supremacy) was reclaimed by anti-apartheid activists but remains emotionally charged for descendants of its original honorees. Ethical Decision-Making Framework A structured approach to repurposing involves evaluating: 1. Historical Context: Does the memorial’s original purpose align with contemporary values? 2. Stakeholder Consent: Are affected groups (e.g., descendants of honorees, marginalized communities) consulted? 3. Alternative Uses: Can repurposing preserve memory while serving new functions (e.g., turning a war memorial into a veterans’ resource center)? 4. Long-Term Impact: Will repurposing heal divisions or deepening them? Repurposing memorials is not merely a physical act but a cultural negotiation that demands balancing legal feasibility, emotional justice, and historical integrity. The process often reveals how memory is not static but actively contested, requiring ethical frameworks that prioritize inclusivity over preservationism. Stakeholder Mapping: Conflicting Interests in Memorial Controversies Memorial controversies involve a multitude of stakeholders, each with competing interests that shape public discourse and policy outcomes. Below is a flowchart-style breakdown of key stakeholders and their conflicting priorities, structured to illustrate the complexity of ethical decision-making. Stakeholder Interests in Memorial Controversies Governments and Institutions Legal Authority: Regulate memorials through land-use laws, heritage preservation acts, or anti-discrimination policies. Political Legitimacy: May use memorials to reinforce national identity (e.g., Russia’s "Unknown Soldier" memorial) or distance from controversial Memorials remain a dynamic intersection of history, art, and ethics, where every iteration—whether a carved stone, a virtual reality experience, or a social media hashtag—challenges society to confront uncomfortable truths and redefine honor. As technology reshapes how we remember, the debate over whose stories are preserved and how they are told grows ever more urgent. The evolution of memorials is not merely a reflection of the past but a mirror of our collective capacity to heal, question, and reimagine the narratives that bind us. In this continuous dialogue between memory and meaning, the act of honoring becomes an ongoing negotiation between tradition and innovation.

    • cultural heritage
    • digital remembrance
    • ethical design
    • historical preservation
    • memorials

    Leave a Comment

    Name

    Comment

    Post Comment

    Comments are moderated before appearing. The data you submit is processed according to the Privacy Policy of partner.football.org.il.