⟡ “You Have the Right to Your Records. But Only If You Can Solve the Password Puzzle.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Data Disclosure. It Was Procedural Camouflage — Texted in Pieces and Filed in Contempt.
Filed: 30 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/SAR-ACCESSBARRIER-PASSWORDGATE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-30_SWANK_Email_RBKC_SubjectAccess_PasswordObstruction.pdf
Email from RBKC responding to Subject Access Request Ref. 15106629 with a restricted message link and a separately texted password — bypassing accessibility, clarity, and urgency.
I. What Happened
On 30 May 2025 at 15:04, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) responded to a subject access request submitted by Polly Chromatic.
Instead of simply releasing the records, the council:
Sent a “secure email” portal link requiring separate log-in
Texted the access password (Acentleg65!) to her mobile device
Provided no accompanying explanation, accommodation, or confirmation
Ignored all previously stated disability access requirements
Created an unnecessary digital obstacle to formal data disclosure
The password was not included in the email, nor was the file decrypted or downloadable without navigating the encrypted system.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
RBKC created an artificial barrier to personal data access
No reasonable adjustments were made despite known written-only needs
The data controller responded in a way that mimicked access — without delivering it
The use of password-split delivery serves no data protection purpose beyond procedural delay
The strategy weaponises technical friction to discourage subject access
This wasn’t compliance. It was interface theatre designed to wear out resistance.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because no one should have to decode a breadcrumb trail to receive what the law guarantees.
Because secure portals are not lawful if they exclude the disabled on purpose.
Because a password isn’t privacy if it’s also policy-based resistance.
Because this wasn’t secure delivery — it was strategic obscurity disguised as compliance.
IV. Violations
UK GDPR, Article 15 – Right of access obstructed through inaccessible delivery
Data Protection Act 2018, Section 94 – Breach of clear and transparent processing
Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to make reasonable adjustments for written disability access
UNCRPD Article 13 – Denial of accessible remedy for disabled data subject
ICO Guidance on SARs – “Unreasonable delay or complexity is not an excuse”
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t secure disclosure. It was technocratic gatekeeping with a password and a smirk.
This wasn’t lawful access. It was digital detour designed for exhaustion.
This wasn’t neutral. It was hostile architecture, archived in velvet.
SWANK hereby logs this password-protected non-delivery as a case study in encryption-based procedural evasion.
The password was “Acentleg65!”
The message was: “We control what you see.”
And the archive?
We file what you tried to fragment.
⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped.
Every sentence is jurisdictional.
Every structure is protected.
To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach.
We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence.
This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation.
Because evidence deserves elegance.
And encryption deserves exposure.
© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved.
Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.