Path: bogie.dyn.ml.org!xs4all!xs4all!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed.ecrc.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master From: inFormer@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,misc.legal Subject: Re: UK NEWS: OSA activities to be outlawed? Date: 05 Oct 1998 16:22:51 PDT Organization: inFormer Ministry [a 501(c)3 non-profit, religious organization] "... in service of cult victims and their families." Lines: 92 Message-ID: <361b5652.4504612@news.concentric.net> References: <0C$jDNAYWSG2Ew3o@lutefisk.demon.co.uk> Reply-To: informer@informer.org NNTP-Posting-Host: ts034d48.lax-ca.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes Xref: bogie.dyn.ml.org alt.religion.scientology:122452 misc.legal:2331 Chris Owen : >Unless exempt, every "data controller" (a person processing data) is >legally required to register. This involves a set of defined >registrable particulars, "including the controller's name and address, a >description of personal data being processed and categories of 'data >subject' (the person about whom data is being stored) to which they >relate, the purposes for which data is to be processed, and a >description of the recipients to whom data is to be disclosed. There >must also be a general description of the security measures to protect >data." > >Exemptions include health and social work, crime detection, journalism, >research and domestic purposes. > >Data must be processed according to eight specific principles which >define the obligations of data controllers and the rights of data >subjects. These principles are that personal data shall be: > >- processed fairly and lawfully; >- obtained only for specified legal purposes; >- relevant to the purposes for which they are process; >- accurate and up-to-date; >- not kept for longer than is necessary; >- processed in accordance with the legal rights of data subjects; >- protected against unauthorised processing; >- and not transferred outside the European Economic Area [the EU plus > the old European Free Trade Area] unless adequate controls are in > place in the recipient country. > >The data subject has significantly more rights than before. He has the >right: > >- of access to information about him or her, and must then be given a > description of the personal data held, its purposes, and the > recipients to whom it may be disclosed; >- to prevent processing likely to cause unwarranted damage; >- to prevent processing for direct marketing; >- to receive compensation for damage; >- to correct or destroy inaccurate data; >- to ensure that no decision is taken solely on the basis of automatic > processing. This is a brilliant piece of legislation, but I still think you could move a whole cult compound through the loopholes. >This will have implications for Scientology in three areas - as >mentioned above, though, possibly not until October 2001. > >The first area affected is that of Scientology's mailing lists, which I >would imagine are relatively uncontentious and could be registered. Would be ~required~ to be registered. >Scientology already has a policy of removing peoples' names if they ask >for that. Having a policy and actually carrying it out ... two complete differences. (a joke for the auditor trained to finger out) >The second is that of preclear files. This will be a massive problem >for Scientology; it's an iron rule of Hubbard's "tech" that preclears >never, ever under any circumstances have access to their own files >(although he is said to have casually violated this rule for his own >files). This applies to past and present Scientologists. Presumably a >current Scientologist would not ask for access to a pc file, as he would >be in violation of the tech by doing so. However, if a former >Scientologist wanted access to his personal file, he would have an >automatic legal right to do so. He should already, but the legal expense required to force the scienos to admit they already destroyed (lost, they say) it, are prohibitive. That's the big difference between having a right, and actually attempting to use it. >If it does not already do so, >Scientology may decide simply to destroy pc files when people leave, so >that it never has to be put in the position of giving an ex-member >access to his file. That's what they do now. 3-card monty with whatever they want not to have to produce. >This puts Scientology in a quandary: breach the law, breach Policy or >(worst of all!) breach Tech. Chris, I never realized you were so naive as to think this would be a quandary for them. Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * *