“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Showing posts with label GDPR noncompliance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GDPR noncompliance. Show all posts

Still No Data. Just a Portal.


⟡ They Received the Request. They Sent Encryption. ⟡

Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/2025-SAR-DELAY
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-21_SWANK_RBKC_FCS_SARDisclosure_Delay_EncryptedReply_NoDataSupplied.pdf

I. A Portal. A Password. And Still No Records.

This document marks RBKC Family and Children’s Services’ acknowledgement of a Subject Access Request (SAR) under the UK GDPR and Equality Act 2010.

But let’s be clear:

  • No data was disclosed

  • No timeline was confirmed

  • No explanation for prior failures was included

Instead, they sent:

  • An encrypted email

  • A vague assurance

  • And an electronic shrug, stamped “secure”

When the portal opens and nothing’s inside,
you haven’t complied — you’ve stalled with style.

II. When Delay Becomes Doctrine

This is not administrative lag.
This is a tactical interval, used to:

  • Avoid accountability

  • Rebuild institutional defences

  • And run down the clock on pending litigation

They received:

  • A lawful request

  • A legal deadline

  • A disability notice

And replied with:

Encryption and zero actual disclosure.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because encryption is not transparency.
Because delays in data are delays in justice.
Because SARs are not inbox ornaments — they are legally binding demands from individuals demanding what’s already theirs.

Let the record show:

  • The request was made

  • The deadline clock began

  • The file was empty

  • And SWANK — filed that too

This isn’t a response.
It’s procedural static disguised as security.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit digital deflection to stand in for legal compliance.
We do not consider a password an answer.
We do not believe that “portal access” meets the standard of disability-informed disclosure obligations.

Let the record show:

They received the request.
They encrypted the silence.
And SWANK — decrypted the stall for public record.




No comments:

The Agencies That Breached My Data Rights — and My Health


⟡ They Missed the Deadline. Then They Lied in the Records. ⟡

Filed: May 2025
Reference: SWANK/ICO/SAR-VIOLATIONS-2025
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05_SWANK_ICO_Complaint_SARViolations_InaccurateRecords_CrossAgencyDataBreach.pdf

I. The Agencies That Breached My Data Rights — and My Health

This formal complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) sets out a pattern of:

  • Delayed and unlawfully incomplete Subject Access Request (SAR) responses

  • Data protection breaches spanning councils, NHS Trusts, and policing authorities

  • Inaccurate and defamatory attributions — notably including false mental health assertions

  • Systemic refusal to correct known errors despite formal notice

They didn’t just miss the deadline.
They used the delay to mischaracterise the patient.

II. When the Data They Hold Becomes the Harm

SWANK documented:

  • Mislabelled diagnoses that never existed

  • Entire reports omitted from SAR returns

  • Evidence of retaliation through internal notes

  • Failure to notify the data subject of onward disclosures

Some entries implied conditions I do not have.
Some erased disabilities that were documented.
All were processed with clinical illegality.

This isn’t a data breach.
It’s narrative vandalism in official format.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because data law is not optional when reputations — or tribunals — are on the line.
Because you cannot summon “safeguarding” with one hand and falsify records with the other.
Because institutional memory is a weapon, and the only countermeasure is archive.

Let the record show:

  • The SARs were submitted

  • The returns were late

  • The data was false

  • And SWANK — filed every page with timestamped malice

This isn’t just a breach.
It’s the foundation of procedural abuse — and now it’s under ICO review.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit institutions to pathologise parents on record to defend their misconduct.
We do not accept passive aggression hidden in file metadata.
We do not redact inaccuracies. We correct them — in PDF, in complaint, in archive.

Let the record show:

The data was false.
The motive was reputational.
The harm was real.
And SWANK — filed for legal correction and citation.

This isn’t just about GDPR.
It’s about who controls the truth — and who files it with citations.




No comments:

Documented Obsessions