Publisher ID - I Saw It In Person & It Was Terrifying!

by thedepressedsoul 39 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  FatFreek 2005

  Capture 2

  
  
• 

  FatFreek 2005

  Capture 3

  
  
• 

  FatFreek 2005

  Capture 4

  
  
• 

  FatFreek 2005

  Capture 5 (the final one)
  
  
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  You can be sure all the same data for US publishers is being collected and uploaded into this system as they do not even need consent authorizations. This will prevent them losing track of inactive publishers (faders) that cause them problems down the line so that judicial action can be meted out.

  In countries where this Consent is now required, I assume it has been difficult to stay under the radar if you refuse to sign. There is NO WAY I would willingly give consent to anything like this.
  
• 

  fastJehu

  If "joe publisher" don't allow the org to save his data, his name is no longer listed on the info board in the publisher groups. The same as when he no longer submits his monthly report. Easy to imagine what the rest of the congregation thinks about him. It's his social death within the congregation.
  Group pressure at its finest.
  
• 

  road to nowhere

  I like the " invite" part. The only invitation they really give is to leave your brain outside. You will lose privileges. How cruel
• 

  Diogenesister

  It just occurred to me that if a person either wished to avoid having to continue in a position such as ministerial servant, pioneer, "sound guy" etc etc a good way to get out of this, and generally become "less useful" to the society & cong would be to refuse to allow JW.org to store your data.

  Naturally your loyalty will be questioned, but you can simply say you fear your data falling into the "wrong hands such as the state during the great tribulation", since your address, telephone number and many other particulars are stored on the new publisher I.D. system.

  JW.Org has been ramping up the fear lately, broadcasting videos portraying persecution and publishing articles about arrests and torture in Russia.

  It's the perfect time to 'slip the noose', citing data protection issues, as a way to become less active in the congregation without sparking anything but the (useful) suspicion that you may be becoming a little 'loopy'.
• 

  Socrateswannabe

  Hello everyone,

  As a congregation secretary of about 20 years running (PIMO), I’m certain that “Joe or Jane Publisher” has little to worry about respecting their data. Congregations do not routinely provide an individual’s data to the Org. The Org doesn’t know your birth date, your baptism date, your publisher status, or your field service stats. In fact, as far as I know, it doesn’t know (or care) that Joe or Jane Publisher exists, other than as a number (your secretary reports the sums for the congregation, including the number of active publishers).

  The exception to this is when a publisher “reaches out” for special privileges, such as:
  

  Regular pioneer

  Ministerial servant

  Elder

  Temporary or permanent Bethel service

  Special Metropolitan Public Witnessing

  School for Kingdom Evangelizers

  LDC

  Etc., etc.

  In addition, you can show up on the Org’s radar (and thus have a file with data) if:
  

  You are disfellowshipped (though not if you are simply reproved)

  You write or call the Org, complaining about something or indicating skepticism regarding a JW belief. This will generate a letter or phone call to your congregation elders, along with a request for some of your data.

  In the past few years, the LDC has asked congregations for the addresses of all active publishers in their territory for the purpose of rearranging congregation boundaries, etc., but (at least in the US) they have never asked for publisher’s names. Each visit, the circuit overseer gets a list of active and inactive publishers in the congregation along with their contact information, and it is possible that this information is shared with the Org, but I doubt it. It looks to me that the Org, for liability purposes, wishes to know as few details as possible of the congregation, its members, and their activities.
  

  If you don’t want your data shared with the Org, my suggestion is to fly under the radar. Don’t request or accept any privileges and don’t create a kerfuffle, and you shouldn’t have anything to worry about.
  
• 

  St George of England

  I refused to sign the Data Protection disclaimer. I never received any hassle for this whatever but I am not an MS or Elder these days. I am an odd ball however.

  George