Data breaches by Mermaids exposed in the Times

[truthisarevolutionaryact]

Mermaids has apparently put lots of confidential data online including private emails, personal data and emails demonstrating the pressure they have put on the Tavistock.
Andrew Gilligan article - share token:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/parents-anger-as-child-sex-change-charity-puts-private-emails-online-tl0g5hwcg?shareToken=2f8ddc23419c61360023562a62e74d13

Random thought - what was before Mermaids? Where did Susie Green get the idea from to take her child abroad for hormones and surgery? Presumably the person / organisation must have had a very strong influence for her to take such drastic action?

Yeahnahyeah - Badly Fuckitt . My plan is to move there permanently. Come for a visit anytime!

twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1140132260471083009

Comment from Adam Wagner on that thread

"This will be a huge ICO fine - could be hundreds of thousands"

Jolyon Maugham (prominent barrister) on Twitter saying that this isn't the first Mermaids breach.

Didn't he donate money to Mermaids in a crass and craven cavilling when he dared to say he thought self-ID was a bad idea and got piled on?

Don't think I don't have a long memory, Jolyon. I still see your name and think fuck off, you woman-sacrificing coward. You're exactly the type of person who has encouraged Mermaids see themselves as untouchable.

I am having a bit of a data protection geek out

I am really surprised that Mermaids thought that sharing these parents' emails with the trustees was necessary / desirable (as stated in the Times I think?) I'm also surprised that this wasn't pointed out by the trustees.

New share token to yesterday's Times

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/parents-anger-as-child-sex-change-charity-puts-private-emails-online-tl0g5hwcg?shareToken=5b3cdc36d02b77699bc7b3692edacae6

Here is the thread about the Big Lottery Fund's review of its Mermaids funding. You'll notice how much "taking at face value" BLF did.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3512239-The-National-Lottery-Fund-will-fund-Mermaids-review-published

It might well be worth parsing the review against the Times article and the various correspondences with orgs such as EHRC.

Previous Maya Forstater thread on the BLF review of Mermaids funding:

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1135313084006961154

Jolyon has said:

twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1140159512663531521?s=20

"I do listen to women. I don't hear a single voice."

I think he meant to say that women don't speak with a single voice, not that he has not heard a single woman IYSWIM.

Pretty disgusted at his fence sitting though, I'm fairly sure he has the means and ability to do some basic research.

Exactly, itsall. What could that legitimate interest possibly be? And if they believe they have one, then it needed to be clearly laid out before one syllable of an email was shared.

The standard we all need to adhere to post May 2018 and the GDPR is data protection by design and default. Everything data related should be guided by that. This sort of activity fails miserably on that.

That article is very critical indeed. Probably the most damaging I've read about Mermaids.

I think he means there are many opinions rather than no woman sharing an opinin

Legitimate interest isn’t a basis for processing special category data.
Explicit consent is - wonder if they have that, or is there another basis available to them as a charity?

Not surprising, one of my first memories of mermaids was one of the mermaids staff coming onto MN to basically doxx a user who was complaining about them.

Debbie Hayton @debbiehayton
For too long, people have been scared to challenge them, partly for fear of being seen to be transphobic or bigoted.

Quite simply they need to be held to the same standards, and subject to the same scruitiny, as everyone else.

Jo Maugham QC @jolyonmaugham
I certainly agree with that. And, as you know, I try to pick my way through these really important questions.

I can not overstate how good it is to see Maugham saying all these things and very firmly on board with having 'serious concerns'. The same goes for Adam Wagner.

For those of you not familiar with them, both are lawyer who have a very prominent profile on twitter and are highly respected in liberal circles. Maugham has been highly involved in legal challenges to government over A50 and Adam Wagner is a human rights lawyer and activist who set up humanrights.org and is highly respected.

Wagner has asked about clashes of rights before on twitter and clearly has a few concerns but is generally very even handed.

My point being if these two are not publicly saying there is a massive issue here with Mermaids then I do think the dam has well and truly broken on them.

I am also aware of how the ICO handled the Bounty Data breech and how they view harm from data breeches. In that case they viewed even potential harm as a bloody big deal. This in comparison with the level of detail there is and the nature of it, is off the scale in comparison. They don't muck about and their head is woman who has impressed me in her manner which seems to serve women well.

Remember Susie Green is an IT Consultant. I think this needs repeating frequently. This is stuff she SHOULD be good at and SHOULD know. If she can't safeguard in her own field then everything else is going to crumble around her ears pretty damn fast.

No one should be above criticism or even questioning. Anyone who is/tries to be is deeply sinister.

Why do people not see this? Why is this topic so toxic?

I did think that too, angrylama, but you can rely on it. From the ICO:

“You can still consider legitimate interests as your lawful basis for processing special category data, but even if it applies you also need a special category condition under Article 9. If you are unable to meet a condition you are not able to process the special category data, even if legitimate interests applies under Article 6.”

And on children’s data:

“The GDPR does not ban you from relying on legitimate interests as your lawful basis if you are processing children’s personal data. However Article 6(1)(f) specifically highlights children’s personal data as requiring particular protection.

If you choose to rely on legitimate interests for processing children’s personal data you have a responsibility to protect them from risks that they may not fully appreciate and from consequences that they may not envisage. You must ensure their interests are adequately protected and that there are appropriate safeguards.

A legitimate interests assessment may be a useful tool to help you ensure that you properly consider the children’s interests. However, you need to give extra weight to their interests and you need a more compelling interest to justify any potential impact on children on this basis”

I wonder if they have done a legitimate interests assessment?

Who is the top Mer-dog then?

And another thing - I was shopping for some clothes for my little niece and avidly avoid bloody rainbows and mermaids (and unicorns). Jesus there’s a lot of shit little girls clothes out there ramming his whole nonsense iconography.

I presume the buck stops with Susie Green?

Can I put a different view - I don’t think the world at large gives a damn what Maugham or any other QC thinks. In today’s post expert world having the letters QC after your name is a reason to discount not listen to your opinion. If he steps out of line he’ll be shredded like everyone else, which is why he’s so mealy mouthed.

Pretty disgusted at his fence sitting though, I'm fairly sure he has the means and ability to do some basic research.

He picked the wokebro side long, long ago.

He donated to Jen James's crowdfunder about AWS. Got shouted at by TRAs. Retracted the donation, issued a grovelling apology and bought off the TRA onslaught by announcing a standing order donation to a transgender charity/lobby group. And had no qualms whatsoever about throwing women who dared to be non-compliant under the bus.

He can fuck right off with his pompous waffle about complexities and nuance.

Pretty disgusted at his fence sitting though, I'm fairly sure he has the means and ability to do some basic research.

As a lawyer, he needs to do a certain amount if fence sitting and point to issues where the law has been breeches or is weak for a specific reason.

If he does that I'll be happy because he effectively stays out of the more political side of things, which is actually what you want to see.

Focus on the issue and why it's bad rather than get into the emotional stuff and be pecieved as politically biased.

That way the grown ups can start to take control of the situation.