hi all.
just speaking to a sister about the royal commission.. she said they they have now changed their guidelines so that they now report all to the police.. really?
does anyone know if this is true?.
No, they have not.
Their policies has always been to never report, unless it's required by law.
In some cases they have tried to get out of the obligation to report by claiming clerical privilege.
So wherever JW claim 'we are now reporting' they actually mean to say 'we do the bare minimum as required by law' and 'the law on reporting child abuse has changed in this region'.
But wherever the law doesn't require it, they're still not reporting..
if i go to the jw website and then afterward to say this website, is it likely that the jw website has then tracked what websites i go to after visiting theirs?.
i don't know how cookies work btw .
@Onager, @Tenacious,
To be technical: websites that (appear) to know what you looked at or searched for earlier, are collaborating.
When you search on Google/Amazon/whatever, this website stores information on that and/or share it with advertising companies.
Then when you visit some other site, the advertising company displays ads they think are relevant for you.
Not the key word here: collaboration.
Without collaborating, all a website can know is what you do on their website(s). They can't see what you did or do on other websites.
The only thing they can see is where you came from if you arrived by clicking a link (not if you type in the address yourself).
Now do you think JW are of the collaborating kind....?
the flemish parliament has opened an inquiry into the child abuse policies and cover ups of jehovah's witnesses.
the investigation is collecting complaints, not to make their stories public but to start an official investigation into the child abuse policies of jehovah's witness groups.
if you are a victim or have any stories regarding children of jehovah's witnesses in belgium having been or being abused or pedophiles being protected by the organization, send your stories to [email protected] - they will treat these stories confidentially and with utmost care, so even if you're still "in", you could send them a note..
Any official source that supports this report? Like a government website or reputable newspaper?
does anyone know what it means to be "securely wrapped up in the bag of life"?
is this a new special wt terminology?
they said it or a slight variant of it, several times in the broadcast, perhaps 3?
if i go to the jw website and then afterward to say this website, is it likely that the jw website has then tracked what websites i go to after visiting theirs?.
i don't know how cookies work btw .
Maksutov is correct: they can only see which website you came from, and only if you appeared on their website by clicking a link.
They can't see wherever you fo after you visit them, nor where you came from if you just type in their url in the address bar.
Cookies cannot be shared between website (unless the websites work together on that, which seems very unlikely since WT doesn't work together with anyone but lawyers)
get your data from the uk branch now, before gdpr kicks in on 25-may-2018.
use this free template letter, which has been tried and tested.
under uk law they can (and will) delay their reply if you miss out any of the important points in the template letter - for example they are allowed to ask for "costs" from you (£10 is an established fee in the data industry), or if you fail to prove your identity by means of passport or driver's license.
Why the rush? Under GDPR it is still mandatory for organizations to provide (at no cost) a copy of any and all data they have collected about a person...
It appears to be more strict for organizations than the DPA is?
2018-03-31-general data protection regulationhttps://we.tl/z1g1kyveqg2018-04-01-assisting in seldom worked territorieshttps://we.tl/vjspmlzrag2018-announcements and remindershttps://we.tl/hz9omncxib2018-consent for personal datahttps://we.tl/wnlmxqfp7n2018-instructions-for-use-of-personal-datahttps://we.tl/c1ftcszyk22018-oclam-may-7--28--answer sheethttps://we.tl/ieggkojrsyatlantis!.
For those wondering about the data protection/privacy letters: those are the result of Watchtower trying to adhere to new European laws.
These laws apply to any organization and company that collects, processes or stored data about people.
Google GDPR for more info.
Nice extra: it appears European courts will opine that even personal field service notes of JW are subject to these laws.
roll call for the benefit of newbies and lurkers.
in one sentence tell why you left the org.
not 2 sentences.
I started a research project to find objective evidence to strengthen my faith in Jehovah and the Bible, found a lot of evidence that disproves major parts of JW theology, and found no evidence that supports the idea that any gods actually exists.
what i don't understand:.
with a jw.org app on your cellphone governments can follow you continue.
is this - in country's with a different type of democraty - not a big security risk for the user of the app???.
Addition:
I do think Watchtower uses the statistics and search phrases used in the app, JWorg and their online library to see which topics are researched and might need to be addressed.
what i don't understand:.
with a jw.org app on your cellphone governments can follow you continue.
is this - in country's with a different type of democraty - not a big security risk for the user of the app???.
@Gorby,
That's not how any of that works.
If (a) government(s) want to identify JW in their population by that method, they need either
The latter is ridiculously time consuming and expensive, the former might be remotely possible for the USA but hardly for anyone else.
Of course, if a government were to confiscate an individual's phone and find the JW app, that's a different story. But that's hardly a scalable method of mass identification of JW.
Interestingly though, Watchtower might be able to track users who have installed the app if they would build that possibility into their app. Right now the app doesn't seem to be able to send some data back to Watchtower; the app doesn't have any permissions from the phone's operating system...
