Operation: Data Protection Shield

Discussion in 'Projects' started by Anonyunderpants, May 12, 2008.

  1. Lacelotte Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    Silent, the advise given by the ICO for requesting information held about you, is to request in writing to the company that holds your information with the required fee. Only when they fail to produce the required documents do you then contact the ICO to complain.

    Asagai, I have a solicitor friend who is taking a look at it for me. I'm happy to contact them myself but I run everything past him first.
  2. asagai Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    There's a point you might be missing about using a solicitor. It isn't only for advice, although that is useful.

    When we were researching this deeply with ICO and earlier on in this thread, the point is you can use the ICO, the data protection act and a solicitor to prevent the CofS from fair gaming or intimidating you!

    PM me and I can explain it fully, but basically you use a solicitor as your agent and use his address, not your own. He confirms to the CofS solicitor that he has proof of your identitiy. He insists that all communications come to him, at his address, as he is acting as your agent (ICO confirmed to me you can use a solicitor as an agent to act on your behalf as regards the DPA). He makes it clear that the CofS and their agents must not communicate with you at your private address. You get your solicitor to run through the two stages of the DPA - 1. that they confirm that they cease processing any data they hold on you & 2. that they send the solicitor copies of all info they hold on you.

    Now if they fail on the time limits (from memory it is 21 days for 1. and 30 days for 2 - check those periods) they are in breach of the DPA and you report them to ICO.

    BUT, but, but, by appointing a solicitor as your agent you have protection from harrasment. If they communicate with you at your home address or home phone, then that proves they are still processing your data (using your private address is processing your data) and again they are in breach of the DPA because you asked them to desist from processing your data.

    If they pass your info on to a private investigator they are processing your data, etc. So they can only communicate with you through your agent (solicitor) at the solicitor's address and you have your data protection shield in place.

    It should not be expensive, because the solicitor is only writing two or three letters on your behalf and maybe a couple of half hour interviews with him.

    Anything you get at home, just forward to your solicitor for him to file and fire off a warning to the CofS solicitor. You then file a complaint with the ICO that they are still processing your data and are in breach of the DPA.

    Using a solicitor as your agent IS your Data Protection Shield!
  3. Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield


    It is EVERY citizen's RIGHT to get information held on them. The govt agency is only there to support citizens who are denied that right, and to punish organisations who deny it. You can contact them before you are denied your rights, but only for advice. They aren't there to hold your hand through what should be a simple process with any law-abiding, responsible organisation.

    Simple steps:
    1) Try to get info
    2) Info comes back incomplete or not at all and lies are told
    3) Complain to govt agency
    4) ???
    5) Profit

  4. Lacelotte Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    Spoke to my solicitor tonight.
    He suggests that in most cases Hodkin will be sending these letters out for free and therfore no cost to Co$ at all. Where as if he knows that you are paying a solicitor to write to him on your behalf, he WILL drag it out and he WILL question every detail before any information is given up. He will do this to run solicitor costs up, hopefully enough to have you stop your request half way through.

    Conclusion, unless you have enough money to pay a solicitor to write on your behalf, or have a friend in the legal industry who is willing to write the letters or proof read yours, just do it yourself and that way the main cost is on Hodkin. In time, effort & resources.
  5. asagai Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    But they will still drag it out if you do it yourself. That is exactly what happened to Anonyunderpants earlier in this thread. They will use your ignorance of the law and your fear to prolong it. That's what the cult does. They will rely on you making a mistake in the way you handle it.

    I think your solicitor is incorrect in assuming the CofS is not paying Hodkin. The CofS have a huge legal budget. In Scn there is a policy against free services. A scientologist like Hodkin and the CofS will exchange money for services. Hodkin will not expect the CofS the be "freeloaders" and the CofS would not expect to be freeloaders. Your solicitor friend doesn't understand the cult and how it works, in my opinion. In the cult there are no free favours.

    The point of using a solititor is so that it is not dragged out. There is no reason to prolong this and incur high costs.

    You tell them they can only communicate through your agent the solicitor. Any delays and continuation of processing your data or using your home adress and you report it to the ICO. Bang Bang, then the ICO enforce the DPA legislation on the cult.

    The cult keeps procrastinating and using your home adress, bang bang another violation of the DPA and you report it to the ICO. etc.

    The more black marks reported to the ICO and the more likely they are to come down heavily on the cult. They have huge powers and you use the cult's own abuse of the DPA against them, by reporting it to the ICO.

    You and the solicitor don't do any legal actions yourself. You get the ICO to enforce the legislation that they are already empowered to enforce.

    All you solicitor/agent will have done is a couple of letters to Hodkin. You just report it to the ICO from then on. A copy to the cult every time that you report them to the ICO and every time they try to contact you directly, you just report them again to the ICO.

    That's the best advice I can give based upon extensive conversations I've had with the ICO and my personal experience of how the cult works.

    Don't underestimate the cult. Use the ICO to enforce the DPA against them. Use a solicitor as a shield from personal harrassment and fair gaming.

    I think the problem non-exes have is that they underestimate the cult. The CofS will tie you up in legal actions if they can and apply their Hubbard policy to lie to you, to cheat and to destroy you utterly.

    Put a solicitor between you and them and use the ICO to enforce the data protection act. Take them on yourself and they will trick you, capture you in a legal web and you will back down due to finances. This is what Hubbard relied upon when he developed his policies of how to handle critics.

    Handle it yourself and I assure you they will do everything they can to tie you up in legal action against them - that's what they want you to do. Instead of using legal actions against them, you use the ICO to apply their powers against them.

    There's nothing else I can say. Thinking you can take them on yourself is a huge mistake, in my opinion. I will say no more.
  6. Shifter Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    Asagai is wise. It's worth taking his advice.
  7. Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    Hi guys,

    No updates for 2 reasons. Firstly I've taken some time off protesting - IRL reasons and the like. Strangely enough almost having a Northern Rock style run on your workplace and then getting taken over by another bank does tend to play merry havok with your schedule...

    Secondly, I've been debating how much to say on this subject. I don't want to say too much because Scientology is now under investigation. At the moment, they're picking holes as they do mainly to do with signatures and dates. If anyone else is doing this, make sure you put a recognisable signature on your letters and definitely include dates (my whoopsie on the first letter, but either way they still majorly breached the timescales).
  8. Silent Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    Great to hear from you again, never tell us anything that will hurt the case, but thanks a bunch for letting us know stuff is happening!

    To other name/facefagged anons in the EU: DO EET!

    It has been done before in many countries, and by the very nature of scientology they will break this law, so go go go!
  9. Silent Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

  10. frettchen007 Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield



  11. Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    Uh... you must not be an "ex". I am. CofS will screw you for your fees any day of the week. It's written by L. Ron Hubbard to delay payments for a long time and pay on a stupid schedule called "dateline paying" (you pay your OLDEST bill first; all others wait in line; datelines are often over 1 year long). MANY vendors (suppliers and workmen) have been screwed by CofS. CofS will gladly take your services and products for FREE.

    However you, as a member of CofS, are encouraged to require others to pay for YOUR services. That puts money into your pocket... which they then pick clean.

    Scientology dateline paying: Scientology Finance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    scientology dateline paying - Google Search
  12. Lacelotte Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    Asagai is an ex. Though I'm still not convinced they pay Hodkin
  13. Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    The ICO has now decided that I need to contact the Scilons again since my signature does not obviously state my full name.

    So anyone making DPA requests, make sure that your signature is easy to read. The scilons care very much about protecting peoples personal data when I made a DPA request, yet they didn't seem to care so much when GRAEME WILSON SPOKESPERSON FOR THE UK was telling everyone in earshot about how much I am an inbred neo-nazi terrorist.

    I suspect that Hodkin is just kept as a front for their legal department


    Draft of next letter:
  14. Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    Schweeet! Things going on!

    Mad props to you for pushing this, 'pants.
  15. Lacelotte Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    I owe you a big man hug Anonypants...
    I'm glad you kept pushing at this and I hope you manage to get it sorted soon
  16. Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    Many people have illegible signatures. That doesn't make them invalid signatures. Read any letter written from a CofS staffer and you won't be able to "read" the signature. That's why people TYPE their names below their signature.

    What kind of kooky administration practices does CofS think this world operates on? The English-speaking world has only been writing letters like that for... oh... 60-70 years -- since the days of secretaries, secretarial pools, and typewriters! Doofuses!
  17. Sponge Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    Oh FFS! What is this clerical faggotry with signatures?!!!!111!!!!oneone11
    As previous poster says, signatures are often illegible. If I made my scrawl legible then it wouldn't be my true signature (as in the one I sign cheques and official documents with).
    There's always the belt'n'braces approach like when I sign for registered mail and parcels where t usually says "Signature" and underneath "Print Name" plus you could use blood as ink, include a urine and stool sample. Excuse the rage, lol.

    BTW, Anonyunderpants, regarding video footage/ohotos. do you have to even specifcy where the viideo was taken?
    You put:
    Would it be better to add:
    "... plus any and all other video footage and photos that you hold of me, whether taken covertly or in pubic, at any location, whether taken by yourselves, your repesentitives(client?) or by any 3rd party hired by yourselves or your representitives(client?)."

    or something like that? I dunno.
  18. Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    Thanks Lacelotte - we'll have to have a go at the York Dianetics place n taunt them with "Ner ner ner ner ner you cant legally do anything with those photos". Let me know what happens with your requests as I think you've got more of a leg to stand on than I do :) It'll be very interesting to find out where they got your details from...

    TinctureOfXenu - My signature's little more than scribble but yeah plenty of people are like that. I know one of my old teachers signature was just an X. I'm fairly sure that legally you can put any mark you want on a document as a signature but I need to find the Dox for that to present to the ICO. I've also got evidence that they've directly lied to the ICO already but I want to hit them with a double whammy ;)

    It was so tempting to reply to the Scilon solicitor with "Please provide a legable signature as well"...

    Sponge, you don't HAVE to specify where the videos and photos were BUT I've been bending over backwards so that they can't claim that I've been unhelpful with the request.
  19. Cachapoal Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    Any news on this action?
  20. genome Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    /r/ updates
  21. Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    I've been facefagged as of a few months ago. The cops namefagged me in front of all the Anons and also once in front of Scilons as well.

    DPA Request letter will be in the post tomorrow morning.
  22. Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    It's back with the ICO again, here's the update as I've given to the ICO. Had confirmation back that they will now take this up with the Scilons:

    Dear sir,

    After your recommendations I sent the attached letter to the Church of Scientology's representatives. I signed it both on the first and second page with a clearly legible signature of (mod edit). They have responded with the following on 11th November 2008;

    Dear Sir,

    Re: Data protection Act Requests

    Thank you for your letter of 24 October 2008 informing us that you wish to proceed with the request you made under the Data Protection Act in April 2008.

    We are instructed that at the time of your request our clients held no personal data on you, though it is possible that there may be a photographic image or images. We understand that you claim to have no photo ID, but it is still a requirement of the Act that our clients are reasonably satisfied as to your identity. In the circumstances we suggest that you send us a photograph of yourself certified by a medical doctor who knows you. Our clients can then check to see if they have a photograph of you which is disclosable under the Act.

    We await to hear from you.

    The letter does not respond in any way to my request to cease processing of information. They have once again breached the 21 day timescale.

    In addition, you have stated that they have recieved suitable identification with my credit card statement and that they should proceed with the requests upon recieving a legible signature. Taking time of work to visit a doctor and have a photo of myself signed, at an additional cost to myself as doctors do not carry out these requests for free, in order to protect my right to protest peaceful without fear of retaliation is unnacceptable. Also note that I have still not recieved my credit card statement back.

    They are also either lying to yourselves and me or have lost my personal information. On 22/04/08 when I attended a peaceful protest against Scientology in Leeds, a man who I have now identified as Graeme Wilson Chief UK Spokesperson attempted to have me fined and arrested for said protest. When this failed, he came over to speak to us. During this he inadvertenly called me a terrorist ("The ones who organise your protests are terrorists" "I organise the protests in York." "I didn't say you!") and then begun talking about the supposed terrorist threats levelled against Scientology by Anonymous. In January 2008, the online group Anonymous launched a campaign against Scientology sparked by Scientologys blatent attempt to censor free speech. Anonymous declared its intentions to peacefully campaign against Scientology by way of a video posted on youtube. Shortly after this, another video appeared on youtube stating that Anonymous was going to bomb Scientology "Churches". I do not, and no other member of Anonymous that I know, support this video and I have worked with the police to have this video removed from Youtube.

    Scientology released a DVD entitled "Anonymous: Hate Crimes". This video makes dozens of unsubstantiated claims about threats recieved by Scientology culminating with the bomb threat video. The video on Scientologys DVD is of higher quality that the one released on Youtube. Therefore, the video that they have did not come from Youtube despite their claims on the DVD. During the discussion with Graeme Wilson, I asked if he could find out where the higher quality video came from. He said yes, and offered to take down my details to contact me back. As Scientology had not yet confirmed that they would cease processing of information, I gave him my name and address after confirming that my personal information would only be used by him with relation to this enquiry. This video was taken of him confirming as such: [[Removed to prevent DMCA takedown]].

    Note the yellow pad of paper in his hand has my name and address on it and some notes regarding our discussion. So, Scientology is either lying to me and yourselves, or they have lost my personal information.

    In addition, after Graeme had taken down my personal information I continued to protest with other members of Anonymous. Members of the public who went into the cults recruitment tent quite often came up to me and had a conversation along the following lines:
    Joe Bloggs: "Are you (mod edit)?"
    Me: "Yup"
    Joe Bloggs: "The guys in there are saying that you're a terrorist/communist/nazi supporter/inbred/being paid to protest".

    Since Scientology is such a respectable organisation, it is quite obvious that they would not make up slanderous comments in order to discredit me. Sadly is appears that their file on me is incorrect and I wish to correct this information. I also wish to know why they are holding such information and what their sources are.

    I am going to speak to my MP as the cult is also getting several books banned by way of lawsuit simply because they are critical of Scientologys criminal actions, including abuse of personal information. If you decide that I need to have a photo of myself certified, I will ask my MP to do so.

    Yours faithfully,
  23. nonnonanon Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    Ah, I realise you might have done it on purpose and/or the name you use above may be a pseudonym, but if that is your name, I'd edit the post. Not that autonamefagging is necessarily a problem but if that is your name you may not want it picked up by Google. (If I'm missing something obvious... cocks)
  24. genome Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    indeed mask your identity dude
  25. Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    They know who I am and I aint afraid of them. The second they try something on me and I sue for breaches of the DPA.
  26. Cachapoal Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    thanks for the update.
    I will try to do this. They definitely know who I am and have PC files, Ethic files and much more.

    Wish me luck!
  27. Cachapoal Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    Ok. This letter is being sent to the church this week. I just have to sort out an international cheque.
  28. Lacelotte Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    I got a reply from Hodkin whilst I was away. I'll put it up at lunchtime. Prick has tried to fob me off but I'm not stupid enought to roll over and let him tickle my tummy.
  29. Silent Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    *joyed at the thought of all the hours scifag lawyers are spending lying, dragging out time and sweating to make this go away*

  30. Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    /r/ transcript of letter (curious minds are curious)
  31. Lacelotte Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    My DSAR request
    Hodkin & Companys reply
    So as you can see he has blatantly tried to fob me off and it wont do. My request blatantly states who the client is i refer too and I even provided him with his own reference number from his origional C&D letter which states that he is "acting on behalf of volunteers at the Church of Scientology".

    Needless to say I have sent a complaint into the ICO and will be sending in a complaint to the body which regulates legal firms.
  32. Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    That is, as you so rightly point out, total BS. Especially the claim you DON'T make about being unconnected with Anon.

    Let's see if the ICO's willing to grow a pair on this...
  33. Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    What the bloody feck?

    The ICO is waiting for a reply from the Scilons regarding my last update...
  34. Cachapoal Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    I read the letter they sent you as a reply, question, did you send it to the church of scientology or directly to the solicitors?
    I can't believe they are trying this on. It's obviously just to get you to pay another £10. They probably had a good laugh about that.

    Does anyone know if the data held by solicitors is not accessible by law or is that another lie?
  35. 3rdMan Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    The plot thickens. Looking forward to seeing how this could turn out. Darnit, why doesn't the U.S. have a protection law like this?
  36. Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    The data held by solicitors thing does seem to hold water in my mind - it would be a method of someone finding out all the information that a lawyer intends to bring to court otherwise. He did address it to the solicitors, but considering that the solicitors contacted him AND they seem to be the designated DPA officers then they are being deliberately obstructive. I can see the ICO wanting Lacelotte to send a letter clarifying who he wants the info from, but I do not see them siding with the solicitors.

    3rdMan, You do have some data protection laws - specifically regarding license plate registrations misuse of data. The Scilons tracking down Anonymous via license plate registrations is illegal under US law. Sadly, you do not have a government body which oversees this, and it would be up to you to take them on with full court proceedings. In the UK, the ICO has our backs and if we do have to take them to court then it is via small claims court which is an entirely different ball park and is not open to corruption. Richard and Bonnie Woods have been providing legal advice and assistance to ex-Scilons and critics in the UK. I spoke to them in London a few months ago and they said that they have never seen the Scilons even bother to turn up to small claims court.

    Not only does myself and Lacelotte have a slamdunk case in small claims court, even if they did bother to travel all the way up north to take us on, they will lose and they'll be out a lot of cash for traveling expenses. For reference, a return train ticket from East Grinstead to where we are will cost them about $250-$300 not including hotel expenses.
  37. vegnej Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    The small claims court used to deal with sums of a few thousand pounds has that limit increased to £5000 or is it even greater. ??
  38. wolfyrik Member

    Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    Indeed. The ICO should have moved by now surely? They have plenty of evidence and information from you that shows the Cof$ stalling and being long passed the date of the request.
  39. Re: Operation: Data Protection Shield

    ICO = Civil Service branch.

    Civil Service branches have targets for 'turning round' letters/complaints/etc.

    Complaints and enquires explained - Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)

    Our commitment to you - Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)

    No doubt there will be more specific "internal" timeframes for the various sub-processed involved, but I don't know if those are available online. But hopefully, some of this info will be of use in gauging 'how long is too long'

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins