Two subject access requests for the same email may return different data.
You cannot trust a subject access request to reveal the truth; the responses may be reformatted to represent the author’s self-interests.
Question if your elected member representative puts the wider membership or your interests, before their own ukrac-member-representatives.html.
Visiting a company to hand over a subject access request in person and then taking a photograph of oneself in front of that company’s logo in a publicly accessible place to some constitutes harassment?
sar response from sender (Netistrar Ltd):
SAR response from the sender of the Email
sar response from recipient (Domain Registrar Services Ltd):
SAR response from a recipient of the Email
sar response from other recipient (TwentytwentyMedia Ltd)
sar response from other recipient (Nominet UK Ltd):
Failed to search its own systems and those of its data processor and supply.
analysis:
The sender of the email, an elected member representative:
Monitors the social media of member employees and reports them to the organisation.
Deliberately removed the inconvenient data whereby they had a personal opinion that my lawful actions as “and boarding on harassment.” and so provided a false subject access response.
Obfuscated the origin by redacting their own emails address but not those of the recipients.
A recipient of the email, another elected member:
Correctly provided the full factually accurate copy of the data relating to my person.
Chose to redact the full email addresses of both senders and recipients.
Another recipient of the email, the member organisation:
Failed to search its sub-processors.
Failed to search its own systems.
Failed to protect the member representatives by searching and supplying the information or advising them to not use systems subject to SAR.
