Data breaches by Mermaids exposed in the Times

Agree ItsAllGoingToBeFine. Now the information is out you can't undo it. That's why this breech is bad.

This is a charity with a high profile and inability to govern itself properly. It's grown beyond its means and has sort to do this at a speed which it has deliberately sought without regard to its basic duty of care to those it was already serving. That's definitely a trustee issue. This is without considering the controversial nature of its work, which those running the charity absolutely should have considered.

What if some very genuinely transphobic individual or group got hold of that information with the intent of harming those children or their families? This is where vigilantism should be considered.

This, considering where the data is being shared, is now a very real concern.

What information is in those emails seems to contain a fair amount which is in the public interest for us to know and is stuff that I would love to discuss in terms of transparency, accountability, conflicts of interest, legal questions, manipulation of data for propaganda purposes and the political and commercial aims of the charity coming before those of the children concerned and it seems potentially at their expense due to their inability to give informed consent without duress to any of the things done in their name, on their behalf or to actually to them.

However, its mixed up with such personal information it makes me deeply uncomfortable as there isn't a public interest argument about a large amount of what has been leaked. And this exposes vulnerable people to all sorts of risks (not just transphobic abuse but also other Internet related crime).

I also think there is a certain degree of a problem in reporting anything in the emails, due to the nature of their source.

I think it's likely its been looked through at length but only certain things picked up - I note most of what was in the press related to a previous article and Mermaids response, so is possibly easier to argue the public interest case over. The rest perhaps will form background to future questions about the conduct of this charity and other organisations which can be researched from others sources, rather than be reported direct from this leak.

This is where I feel much more comfortable with journalists on a professional level who take an ethical and legal approach, rather than 'citizen journalism'. This is information which was not in the public domain with the consent or by the hand of those involved. 'Citizen journalists' and MNetters perhaps need to be careful over where they stand legally in these circumstances discussing what's in that data leak. I suspect there may well be legal questions over retention and storage of information you know to have been part of a data leak which has been reported to the ICO.

I don't know.

It's in someways a very frustrating situation, and I think a certain degree of caution needs to be exercised by anyone who says more than is in the Sunday Times article, for your own sake.

The argument on MN has always been very much about safeguarding of children, so this certainly needs to be reflected on too. The wider interest might be relevant, but at the expense of vulnerable children who have already been caught up in this horror show. A public interest argument isn't particularly strong if you place those you seek to help at risk because of your actions even if the intention is to help them in the longer term, unless you have the legal knowledge, professional experience or some kind of legal status to do so. Its one for professionals who know what they are doing, rather than anyone just well meaning and concerned as far as I'm concerned. It's a situation where more harm could be caused intentionally or unwittingly.

The Sunday Times has done the whistle low on this, and there are clearly follow up leads from this, which Mermaids aren't going to be able to avoid in the long term. I doubt it's just going to get left at what's been reported so far. Mermaids response really is the thing to keep a close eye on.

They were TOLD it was available by someone with integrity, had the chance to fix it and STILL couldn’t, or didn’t. Or didn’t care to.

Much as I hate to say it, that isn't something Mermaids could have done. They have presumably fixed the original leak, but all that data is out now in various locations and there is no way to magically recall it.

This is just horrific. The breach of confidentiality, the breadth of their influence ... it’s awful.

Just another voice saying to not post anything that would breach anyone’s medical privacy or identify any child or family.

I hope the times have all of it archived, and I hope they expose the entire web of corporate influence and lies (while keeping children’s data private.)

Thank you Jo (and ArcheryAnnie and SparticusAutisticus)

But my greatest anger is towards Mermaids who, even after being warned by The Times, couldn't be bothered to do their job competently and remove all the data properly.

Quite. It was clearly more importasnt to put out a bullshit statement claiming the times is transphobic and hate trans kids..rathe than clearing up the mess they made

Exactly. They were TOLD it was available by someone with integrity, had the chance to fix it and STILL couldn’t, or didn’t. Or didn’t care to. It’s horrible that the data is out there. I would hope that the main reason for doing so is to demonstrate evidence of Mermaids lying about what was visible, rather than anything dodgy.

My greatest anger is towards Mermaids who, even after being warned by The Times, couldn't be bothered to do their job competently and remove all the data properly.

HandsOffMyRights that retweet by SG is disgraceful. She should be well aware of The Samaritans guidelines around the discussion of suicide. She’s so incompetent and unsuitable to be running a children's’ charity.

I've reported any posts which other people would be able to use to track down the leaked information. I know it's part of the discussion, and posted with good intent, and that it's Mermaids, and not MNers or third parties who put all this information out in public, but none of us here should make it any easier, even accidentally, for people to find this information.

Once that data is out there, it’s out there. That’s why this whole affair is such a spectacular GDPR fail. That’s why you need to have robust systems in place. I feel so badly for anyone that is having their private correspondence put online for all to see. Mermaids have spectacularly failed them. I guess the only thing we can do is not go looking for it... If there are any serious issues within the content we should leave it to journalists to investigate further. Andrew Gillian must be on the case surely?

Emails are labelled Discrimination, Judgement, Hate Crime etc. The language these orgs use becomes a culture. The repeated mantras of 'transphobia' 'hate' 'suicide' are embedded from the top down.

The peddling of suicide is a consistent theme. SG and co. mention it in so many tweets, interviews, videos, even when tweeting about something completely different (see attached example).

Mermaids' email to 'Corporates' confirms that they are using suicide as a weapon, exploiting this 'angle'. I don't know how low you can sink.

What was more interesting was an email seemingly copied to SG (and then shared with the trustees I assume) from an EHRC solicitor advising a teenager - to the point of drafting a letter for them - on how to lobby their school about transition. The same EHRC solicitor is in touch with SG about the case reported in the Times where the female child was ‘getting themselves wet’ in order to wear boys clothes (it transpires they were later discharged from the Tavi after the parent obtained underage hormone treatment from USA, and the EHRC solicitor is dealing with their complaint/case).

Why is an EHRC solicitor apparently routinely cc’ing Susie Green into correspondence to trans youth/parents? That seems a potential data protection breach in itself.

Indeed. Another serious issue that needs highlighting.

Creating a study into suicide to make you more 'persuasive'.

This needs highlighting to the appropriate people. It’s really quite serious to be admitting this.

Thank goodness.

I was shocked, as it appeared in a sequence with stuff from Lush and Lloyds, linked to the Susie Green thread. Hence my post. I would not have drawn attention to the material had that not been in the middle.

Is this a typo? Because MAP usually stands for Minor Attracted Person aka paedophile

Not a typo, but a poster misunderstanding the archive. The archive linked to from KF is any archived page from groups.io

Many, many different individuals / orgs use groups.io

Some of the archived material is obviously Mermaids, some is not. The MAP group is not.

I've only just delved into one email and saw this from SG when talkung about working with Stonewall on research into suicide: 'Doing this is collaboration would give us a level of kudos, and make the study more persuasive.'

Creating a study into suicide to make you more 'persuasive'. This is on an email about reaching out to more corporates.

No I agree, I edited & thought a lot but it’s stable door, horse bolted. The cc’ing of personal data from EHRC straight to Susie Green is a concern for me not seen discussed elsewhere.

Just making a point here:

If your data had leaked, how would you feel about people on the Internet telling others where to find that leaked data? Never mind discussing content.

Think about it.

It's the shift from a child centred approach to an approach led by an agenda.

Most parents of teens will have adopted "watching waiting" in some form or another. Too much gaming, too much partying, not enough homework, whatever. You advise, steer and maintain reasonable boundaries, but you stop short of absolute confrontation in order to maintain communication, whilst crossing your fingers tightly. If things become serious, you seek help from experts, who you also hope will have the child's welfare absolutely as the priority.

10 years ago this seems to have been happening.

Now....

All sorts of people running their own agendas. We all guess at Susie Green's need for justification. Then there is the "brave and stunning" brigade who need trans-children to justify their claims that they were always in the wrong body. And, quite possibly, others with darker agendas. Then the woke crew: Lloyds, the BBC, Lush, etc who want the image, the brownie points etc for supporting the mutilation of children.

So the approach became more prescriptive, and watchful waiting goes out the door. Unhappy teenage girls being offered hormones within months of announcing their dysphoria. Parents being told "better than a dead child". Medics lobbied on treatment approaches. Teachers and social workers working against parental instincts, with virtually no support for parents who resist.

I hope the Sunday Times have found the key stone in this crap, corrupt edifice and the whole lot comes tumbling down.