Example of sensitive data – should I be worried?

Fay Dehr

### Here's a link to a high-quality version of the above form: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AmCrvJcXI6M6a2mdhYsJDLL3M00 ###

The attached image is the rear of form A-27; this is just example of many forms that contain personal data. I’d like to know: should I be worried?

Seeing that the local elders are free to write the own personal opinions, and publishers are forbidden access to this data, should a publisher just trust that their local elders will only write positive and accurate things? Are the 3 men making up the Service Committee always impartial and objective - in every congregation? Is it healthy for the subject (the publisher) to be denied access to see what has been written about them, and available to view on the new Publisher ID global JW database?

Here’s some examples of the data that local elders are asked to record:

7. How would you frankly describe the applicant’s background (education, drugs, moral standing, homelife, etc.)?

8. (a) Describe any difficulties you have had with the applicant: ˛

Personal rating of the applicant:
Emotional stability: A - Excellent | B - Good) | C - Average (qualifies) | D - Poor (may not qualify) | E - Does not qualify. [Comments: ]

Some posters on this forum are expressing their opinion that such data is not “sensitive”. I think it is, but what are the thoughts of some of you here on this forum?

### Here's a link to a high-quality version of the above form: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AmCrvJcXI6M6a2mdhYsJDLL3M00 ###

Drearyweather

should a publisher just trust that their local elders will only write positive and accurate things?

If the individual doesn't trust the elders, he would not sign it. By signing, he gives his consent that the elders are free to write what they want. The form is given to publishers in good standing. If the elders write inaccurate or negative things about the publisher, they are making a jackass of themselves as the branch would ask them why did they even give the form to the publisher who has questionable habits.

The following para appears on the A-27 form before the applicant's sign:

I further consent to the branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses that administers the activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses in my geographic area processing and retaining for its use the information found on this application and any additional information that may be submitted in connection with my application by individuals serving as elders of Jehovah’s Witnesses

Are the 3 men making up the Service Committee always impartial and objective - in every congregation?

That the individual has to decide how his service committee is and then decide if he wants to fill the form and submit the data. If the service committee if filling negative data about the individual, the branch or the CO directs the elders to speak to the individual why his application has been rejected.

Is it healthy for the subject (the publisher) to be denied access to see what has been written about them, and available to view on the new Publisher ID global JW database?

Sorry didn't get this question. What information is collected on the new database which the publishers are denied access to?

I’d like to know: should I be worried

The WT has been collecting information like these since decades. Do you have any evidence where WT has misused this information for commercial or non-commercial gain? If yes, it would be interesting to know.

If billions have chosen to trust Mark Zuckerberg with their personal data, then I don't think 8 million witnesses who trust the FDS more than their life will doubt the WT (when more then 75% of the member's data would be only name, address, and dob.)

Fay Dehr

Hi Drearyweather. If only life were that simple. Sadly, for many, they only found out about the negative comments made about them months or years later. I personally have been on "review committees" that review such forms; I've personally seen forms come through with dire character comments - but strangely the grade was "D - Poor", preventing the Service Committee from having to confront the individual. Nevertheless, that data is held on file - regardless of the accuracy.

For clarity about what data is held on the new Publisher ID system, it is significant that S-21 data (name | DOB | baptism | phone | email | service record | "OS/anointed") is going to be held regardless of signed consent. The signed consent if for additional data, such as on this form, to be stored about you.

PS. About the CO or branch responding to negative reports: they don't. In one case, myself and the other brother reviewing the forms were shocked by what one Service Committee wrote about a sister who we knew well. This brother, who was in Special Full Time Service, was so moved that he contacted the CO. The CO said "it's nothing to do with me - it's a local congregation issue". Since all COs are on annual review, they don't want to rock the boat with local bodies of elders; they don't want to get their hands dirty unless absolutely necessary. Sad but true.

_Morpheus

This is what your worried about? You do know that everyone has an opinion of you, right, whether they share it or not...? For instance i think your a paranoid overreacting tin foil hat wearing kook. What about that opinion of you is “sensative” or “ private”? How is the cults view of you somehow a sensative thing? This is so bizzare to me. Is this a snowflake millennial thing, that somehow peoples view of you is your business to control? Why do you care one iota what the cult thinks of you? If someone signs up for meteo witnessing (the form you posted), they obviously dont mind the cult assessing their cultiness. Why is that sensative? Please help me see this...

Drearyweather

I've personally seen forms come through with dire character comments

That's the strange part I feel. The BOE letters clearly state that these construction/volunteer forms are for exemplary baptized publishers. In my congregation, the BOE has given forms only to those who qualify.

The signed consent if for additional data, such as on this form, to be stored about you.

This additional data is the subjective evaluation that the individual himself permits the elders to do regarding him when he signs the form. The individual himself permits the elders to rate him and store information on him. If he leaves the WT then he can ask the WT to erase the data on him under the Article 17, I guess.

Why would a person who doubts the WT reach to the point of filling up a Volunteer Program Application?

it is significant that S-21 data (name | DOB | baptism | phone | email | service record | "OS/anointed") is going to be held regardless of signed consent.

The Baptism date and the service record data, OS/anointed is of zero value to anyone than the WT.

The only data they will have is the name, DOB, phone/email and the address, which pretty much dozens and dozens of entities other than the WT have about me.

My view is that you are overthinking about this issue. But you are entitled to an opinion.

_Morpheus

Dreary, you phrased it better than I. Everything you said is exactly my point. Who cares about any of this so called “data” outside the cult. Its useless pointless and not “data” at all.

St George of England

Ask the JW's in Russia and similar bastions of freedom how keen they are to contribute their useless, pointless "data" such as name, address etc to a database that obviously will never be hacked because HS is looking over it!

George

St George of England

Is Fay Dehr a reincarnation of WiFi Bandit? He/she joined about 3 months ago, just when WFB disappeared! Whatever/whoever, great posts and leaks.

George

Fay Dehr

Hi St George of England. No, but I did originally use the username "Anthony Morris DeTurd" until Microsoft were instructed that it was a violation of an actual named person...I wonder who?

Fey Dehr (fader) sums up my current predicament - fading...

_Morpheus

Ask the JW's in Russia and similar bastions of freedom how keen they are to contribute their useless, pointless "data" such as name, address etc to a database that obviously will never be hacked because HS is looking over it!

Sigh... lets try this again, again.... name address phone number etc are all public info, at least here in the USA. There is NOTHING to hack. Its already public. How much more clear can that be? Its not hackable. Its already public. Take any of that info from the metro witnessing form and plaster it all over any russian hackers web site, the dark web as a whole and googles home page.... so what? Its all pointless cult drivel. Its not private. Its not confidential. Its nothing.

Example of sensitive data – should I be worried?

Share this