Interesting. I think if the preaching work was genuinely a personal ministry with no "controller" in the form of watchtower (as the Court so serendipitously puts it ) then I would feel inclined to back the witnesses on this one. But we know this is not the case, and I believe the courts know these are not merely random, personal notes.
JW Door-to-Door Notekeeping Attracts Scrutiny of EU Authorities
by Room 215 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
credulity
I found the following paragraph troubling...
"some of the data collected by the members of that community who engage in preaching are sent by them to the congregations of that community which compile lists from that data of persons who no longer wish to receive visits from those members. Thus, in the course of their preaching, those members make at least some of the data collected accessible to a potentially unlimited number of persons."
...to the extent that it might conflate "do not call" lists with the more sensitive information contained in the ministry notes of individual JWs. As is so often the case with the CJEU, the quality and depth of its legal reasoning leaves a lot to be desired.
On the other hand, taking into account the wider fact that JWs regularly share ministry experiences at meetings and conventions which often include details about the private lives and beliefs of householders (and although the name of the householder is not disclosed when recounting an experience, the name can easily be learnt through gossip or otherwise), I don't disagree with the Grand Chamber's ultimate decision. I expect most householders would to surprised and annoyed to learn that details they shared with JWs who called on them were noted by those JWs and, in particular, then shared with a (much) wider audience.
-
stuckinarut2
Great thread!
We KNOW how private information about house-holders has been used in the past. We did it ourselves. We kept details about their names, family members, dogs name, kids details, religious background, discussion topics etc... It was taught to us by the society. Such information can easilly be misused.
So, it is fantastic to see how the world has progressed to recognise that this is not appropriate anymore!
-
jonahstourguide
Oh yes, and here in Melbourne on weekdays the eldubs are tellin da muppets to take not homes and hand them in to the group conductor. then on Saturday the group conductor hands out not home slips scribbled almost illegibly to all and tell em to do em.
jtg.
p.s. I would love to record the direction and utube it
-
smiddy3
And this still goes on even now jonah ?
-
Anders Andersen
Smiddy,
That's standard operating procedure.
-
Room 215
There's an update in today's news: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2018/07/eu-court-order-jehovahs-witnesses-to-comply-with-data-protection-rules/
-
Anders Andersen
I sent in a tip to our national Privacy Authority to make sure they are aware of this verdict, and that JW in my country operate the same way..
-
Corney
Some interesting blogs about the judgment:
https://leidenlawblog.nl/articles/knock-knock.-whos-there-the-data-protection-directive-95-46
http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2018/07/is-data-protection-coming-home-cjeu-on.html
https://verfassungsblog.de/die-zeugen-jehovas-und-das-datenschutzrecht/ (in German)
-
Corney
On Wednesday, Jehovah’s Witness spokesperson Veikko Leinonen declined to comment on the ECJ’s ruling on the organisation’s information-gathering practices.
He told Yle that the community is taking the ruling very seriously, but wants to examine it thoroughly before adopting a position on it.
“At the moment we are in waiting mode. We are looking into what to do about the decision. We have nothing further to say on the matter,” Leinonen added. However he said that at a glance, he would describe the court’s ruling as “complex.”
“When you read the ruling, there are many arguments for and against. It is quite impossible and unnecessary to consider the matter on the basis of all these issues,” he declared.
The organisation has continued its door-to-door ministry.