by cofty 113 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The public doesn’t want to be bothered by JWs. These are the same Dubs who attempt to convert people at cemeteries...they respect zero boundaries.
The public doesn’t want their info shared, which is funny because there’s no such thing as privacy if you’ve touched the Internet.
At any rate, the Dubs lost and Doubter is obviously butt-hurt about it..
DD
Doubter - Personal House to House notes are not accessed by anyone other than the individual publisher. What I mean by “accessed” is that they are not handed over to the elders.
Really the only thing they all have access to is the don’t not calls. This is necessary as calling when you’re told not to come back is trespassing.
Doubter has a point about the law of Trespass, but I am not sure if the Do Not Call list would be considered as necessary by the Act covering Data protection here in the E.U? Perhaps someone could give us "chapter and verse" on this point.
But, if the DNC list has to be done away with, then those of us who do not wish to be called on can invoke the Law of Trespass, interestingly, my understanding is that, even the delivery of a leaflet can be construed as Trespass if you have requested that it not happen.
Someone in org will be working out a way to circumvent this ruling. It was done before, S8 forms were discarded and only personal notes were used to work round UK data laws about 25 to 30 years ago. If someone demands that they are not called on again that has to be noted and stored in an accessible way for all publishers in order to comply with the householders wishes.
Since going door to door is neither biblical nor is it effective, why not simply cease the practice and save everyone a lot of wasted time, money, and annoyance.
Then this whole issue resolves itself.
I'll try again, I lost half my post
Doubter - Personal House to House notes are not accessed by anyone other than the individual publisher. What I mean by “accessed” is that they are not handed over to the elders.
Really the only thing they all have access to is the don’t not calls. This is necessary as calling when you’re told not to come back is trespassing.
BTW, Doubter will likely not return to this thread.
He backed himself into a corner by inadvertently admitting that when the dubs get home they will proceed to write down records that would violate this legislation, as though waiting until you get home to write them down is somehow different from sitting in your car and doing the same.
He reminds me of the guy who goes by "thirdwitness". I've talked him into backing himself into a corner on Topix concerning the blood issue and once he realized what he wrote (you cannot edit your posts there to hide the evidence even if nobody has seen it yet) he abruptly left and was gone for some time until he thought nobody remembered. But I did :)
Listener
From my understanding of the legislation, if you wish to make a record regarding someone then you must get their permission. If you don't want to get their permission then making records about another person is none of your business.
This is true only in relation to sensitive data (i.e. revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, concerning health, sex life or sexual orientation etc.). Processing of other personal data, according to art. 6(1)(f) of GDPR, is allowed without consent of the data subject when "processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject". Taking into account that The Article 29 Working Party mentioned exercise of the right to freedom of expression or information, conventional direct marketing, and unsolicited non-commercial messages, including for political campaigns or charitable fundraising, as possibly being legitimate purposes of data processing (Opinion 06/2014, p. 25), it will likely be necessary for national supervisory authorities (aka departments of 'it depends') and courts, CJEU and other national and international bodies to determine whether and to what extent this provision is applicable to JW door-to-door ministry and similar activities (e.g., political canvassing).
carla
The public should know that potential pedophiles are knocking on their doors and keeping records about their home and members of their family.
Preaching JWs are no more potential pedophiles than anyone's relatives, friends, neighbors etc. The org's mishandling of CSA doesn't justify portraying adherents of the religion as dangerous criminals and incitement of moral panic.
Simon called me a liar but did not prove it.
Just a blind assertion by him.
Of course, “NOT AT HOMES” are shared. But that’s not what I was saying. We all know that when you have a PERSONAL call, the only time it’s turned over is when you relocate from the territory or die. And even then, its not always the case.
But even so, this is really all moot. The law won’t have that large an impact jw ministry. They’ll simply adapt as always.
When under ban, they went underground. In the concentration camps, they still preached. Christianity as a whole, no matter what group one belonged to, never had their obligation to preach, totally snuffed out.
