Personal Data Permission (Spain)
They have previously also told Secretaries to Insist that copies of the Blood Cards be handed to him for "safe-keeping" on File ......
They don't OWN you and they cannot Strong-Arm you - Don't allow them to walk all over you.
Sometime soon you will have to Walk the Talk re: their 'shite' wheelings and dealings - and DO your activism against them -
When they served me with a final deadline to appear before their JC "or we will me without you", I served them with an Attorneys letter informing them the she would be representing me at the JC etc and nothing in the way of actual DF action occurred however the congregants were obviously told privately to shun me - but its not on record ~
Don't give into their greatest weapon ..............FEAR !!
Note very carefully the necessary language which the org had to use in their INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE OF PERSONAL DATA letter to elders:
When inviting an individual to complete the consent form, the elder should explain the purpose of the form
REFUSAL TO CONSENT
An adult publisher might initially refuse to sign the Notice and Consent for Use of Personal Data (S-290) form........ However, the publisher should not feel pressured to sign the form.
"Requesting," "inviting," "consent," & "not feel pressured."
If elders start brow-beating individual/s regarding this, they're asking for trouble. Human Rights are at the core of this.
As I suggested the other day, just say, "I'll take the form and give it some thought."
If approached again, say, "I gave it some thought and decided that it's not something I'd want to do at the moment. If I change my mind, I can get back to you."
As @"The Fall Guy" says - they have no right to demand you fill in the form, the information can't even travel between the elders or the JW organization in written form. All they can do is say "some people don't want to" to the organization, without giving names.
They say you won't get privileges (I'm assuming you don't want those anyway) but it's an easy way out. They can't collect information on you, they can't disfellowship you (because that would be keeping a record) although they can give a nice browbeating to the congregation about "certain people" not filling in their forms, they can never announce your name from the platform, any parts you do cannot be recorded or broadcast.
they can't disfellowship you (because that would be keeping a record)
That sounds pretty enormous.
Is that based on directions from the WTS branch and/or GB? Or is it a legal interpretation from elsewhere?
If that is really the case, are JWs in countries where this is in effect aware of that?
And again, if that really is the case, it leads back to my question earlier on this thread: What about data the WTS already has? In this case, what about people already DF'ed? The WTS has "data" on them - and they are not likely to be given the chance to sign the form. Do people in such a position have some sort of legal recourse?
The Canadian system allows individuals to demand access within 30 days to any files, data, records etc etc which have been formed regarding yourself.
You may demand to know who has shared them and for what purposes they were shared. Someone in every company that keeps such records has to have a person on staff to accommodate your access to it all. (some exclusions for national security etc.)
I tried to access my records from Canada bethel using the approach above and was refused access (by letter) -the reason given for non compliance was that religions are not for-profit organizations (although they can and do generate enormous profits).
Europe may be forward thinking enough to include religions in their desire to protect an individuals access to his/her own information.
The WT is turning its new legal responsibility (to provide open access) into a data bonus for themselves by coercing members to quickly sign away their personal control of their own data to the Borg, thus giving the individual less not more rights to privacy and protection....seems pretty devious
This sounds like it might be a good thing for JWs wanting to leave. It could mean that all the individual needs to do is to withdraw their permission for holding private information. The Elders will not be able to access phone numbers or home addresses. The might know them already but using them in official JW business might be illegal.
I wonder if it could also mean that they cannot publicly announce you as being dfd or da'd once you've withdrawn your permission for holding personal info.
Sorry, didn't quite get the point here.
Do we have any evidence where WT has previously used personal data for commercial profit or for illegal purposes?
If the person wishes to become a publisher or get baptized or become a pioneer, etc, the WT is fair in collecting and maintaining personal data from them. How can a person work for the WT without giving any of his details to them?
If a person who has past of child abuse cases on him asks the BOE to delete his personal info, is the WT obligated to delete all his previous record of child abuse cases, including all his files and letters?
Drearyweather: "If a person who has past of child abuse cases on him asks the BOE to delete his personal info, is the WT obligated to delete all his previous record of child abuse cases, including all his files and letters?"
That would probably make it too easy for the abuser to "get away" with his acts. I believe there are some who are wrongly categorized and that the pressure is on the WTS to hand over the files on anybody and everybody who is still a part of the organization or not, who abused any children. People think in black and white when it comes to this subject. I have wondered in behalf of a friend of mine, whether he will face legal consequences from an issue that he got toasted for many years ago. As much as I despise anybody who would abuse a kid, this guy doesn't deserve any trouble.
Just had this point sent to me. It's in the ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REMINDERS APRIL 2018, and says this;
"Secretary: Inform the body of elders if any publisher refuses to complete the consent form."
Refuses? "Shepherds" - shouldn't that be, "Doesn't wish to complete the consent form?"
Can't you see how autocratic your self-proclaimed "theocratic" organization is? Wake up and smell the coffee!