Cop out

On May 3rd 2018, Elizabeth Denham appeared on Channel 4 News as part of her long running commitment to generating headlines. Denham’s track record on the programme is not great – it was on the same programme in March that she adopted the interesting tactic (uniquely, as far as I can see) of informing an organisation in public and in advance that she planned to apply for a warrant to raid them, losing what might be a useful element of surprise in order to look tough in front of Jon Snow.

In the more recent interview, the Commissioner claimed that she had the power to fine directors and had done so. I made an FOI request about this, and the ICO admitted that “we do not have the power to directly fine directors“, directly contradicting what Denham said. You can tell me that ICO has the power to go after directors in limited circumstances that can result in a court issuing a fine and that must be what she meant (ICO did) but that’s not good enough. The DP regulator went on the telly and claimed to have a power she doesn’t have – it’s surely part of Denham’s job to increase understanding of Data Protection, not to muddy the waters.

In the same interview, Denham cheerily announced that she saw herself as a Sheriff of the internet. Arguably, she should be a Mountie but let’s leave that to one side. I assumed that the statement was a throwaway, not a serious statement of how Denham sees herself and her office. I was wrong. There’s a pattern. In a fawning profile by the Observer’s Carole Cadwalladr a few weeks ago, the Commissioner delivered a soundbite that I suspect is intended to epitomise the Denham Era: “Data crimes are real crimes“. And in the recently leaked DCMS Committee report into Fake News, she was at it again:

For the public, we need to be able to understand why an individual sees a certain ad. Why does an individual see a message in their newsfeed that somebody else does not see? We are really the data cops here. We are doing a data audit to be able to understand and to pull back the curtain on the advertising model around political campaigning and election

I think the misleading impression being created here could attract the label ‘fake news’ just as much as any of the internet nonsense Denham and her fanbase are supposedly against. Data crimes are usually not real crimes, and in most cases, the ICO are not the cops. The GDPR doesn’t make anything a criminal offence, and the offences under the Data Protection Act 2018, like those in its predecessor the 1998 Act, are specific. It’s a criminal offence to take, procure or sell personal data without the permission of the data controller; it’s an offence to re-identify depersonalised data (in circumstances so tightly defined I doubt there will be a successful prosecution), and it can be an offence to oblige someone to make a subject access request. Admittedly, the DPA 2018 is stricter in this area – offences under the DPA 1998 were not recordable so you wouldn’t get a criminal record if you committed them, a position that is sensibly reversed in the new version.

However, in some circumstances, the DPA 2018 is less oriented towards offences than the  DPA 1998. A breach of an Enforcement or Information Notice is no longer subject to prosecution, being punishable by a penalty instead. That might result in stricter punishments, but that depends on Wilmslow showing a willingness to use the powers, and in any case, it’s not a criminal sanction. The much-vaunted criminal prosecution of SCL by the Commissioner over David Carroll’s subject access request is doomed in my opinion, but if it goes ahead, it will almost certainly be the last prosecution for a breach of a notice. None of the DP offences are punishable with prison, and for all Denham’s bluster about being a data cop, she never publicly applies the pressure for custodial sentences. For all his faults, her predecessor Christopher Graham never missed an opportunity to do so.

If Facebook willingly shared its customers personal data with Cambridge Analytica, it would not be a criminal offence. If they reused their customers’ data and sold it to list brokers, it would not be a criminal offence. As drafted, the ‘victim’ of most data protection offences would be the data controller, not the person whose data is misappropriated, sold or misused. Denham wants to conjure up images of cops and robbers, but she’s misleading the public. Who knows, maybe she doesn’t want people to realise that the only sanction for the majority of data transgressions are monetary penalty that she has the power to approve. Maybe she means ‘data crimes should be real crimes‘, but if that’s the case, that what she should say instead of giving the wrong impression.

There’s another problem. By setting herself up as the Internet Sheriff, Denham is creating expectations I don’t believe she’s prepared to meet. In all her public appearances, the Commissioner is clearly trying to mark out the internet and new technology as her manor. Supporters like Cadwalladr are only too happy to play along. The Observer piece contains a brief but devastating verdict on thirty or so years of ICO work and four previous Commissioners: “a somewhat dusty regulator dealing in a niche topic“. I’m the last person to defend the ICO, but this writes off Wilmslow’s endeavours on phone hacking, union blacklisting, the lost HMRC data disks and many DP and PECR fines which even I can’t deny have changed behaviour for the better in many sectors. I can’t say that Denham endorses this trashing of her predecessors’ efforts, but she hasn’t repudiated it either. What must her staff think of it?

Strip away the recent headlines for prosecutions and £500,000 fines that haven’t actually happened yet, and Denham’s record is hardly the Data Protection equivalent of Wyatt Earp taking on the Clantons. When dealing with the misuse of 1.6 million people’s data by the Royal Free Hospital and the AI company owned by Google (exactly the kind of tech territory we’re supposed to believe she wants to police), Denham’s ICO asked the Royal Free to sign an undertaking. There is no automatic sanction if they go back on it. Faced with multiple instances of charities profiling potential donors in secret (not a million miles away from the kind of surreptitious data gathering that attracts her current ire), Denham’s response was reportedly to cut the originally proposed fines, such that Oxfam was fined just £6000. Late in 2017, Sheriff Denham issued an enforcement notice against the Ministry of Justice over shameful and long-running subject access backlogs that doubtlessly affected many people in desperate legal circumstances. She gave them eight months to comply and sneaked the notice out on the last working day before Christmas without a press release.

You can tell me that the ICO has consistently issued monetary penalties on Denham’s watch but so did Graham, though the double whammy of £400,000 CMPs on both TalkTalk and Carphone Warehouse weigh against my argument to some extent. But beyond those, Denham has done nothing revolutionary or interesting in enforcement. There has been no action on accuracy or retention, and little on the vital first principle beyond the charity cases that were obviously started under Graham.

Outwardly, Denham seems poised and plausible. Fate has dealt her the biggest data protection story in a decade and some overly sympathetic press coverage, so maybe she’s right to milk it and build up her part. There’s no question that she has a higher public profile than any of the Commissioners who have gone before her, and I know a lot of people in the DP world who think that this is automatically a good thing. I’m not convinced. I think ‘data crimes are real crimes’ could become as unhelpful a distraction as the pervasive ‘GDPR = consent’ myth, and nothing about the past two years convinces me that Denham really has what it takes to round up the internet’s outlaws. As always, I will delighted to be proved wrong; some eyecatching monster scalps is what I have spent years of blogging asking for, and it will make my job easier for the next few years. But unless she really pulls out the big guns, the Commissioner’s legacy may be less Gunfight at the IT Corral, and more Denham’s Last Stand.

 

“masterclass in not answering questions”

Just about a month ago, I had a little Twitter disagreement with Paul-Olivier Dehaye, patron saint of subject access requests. He said his tool for making subject access was brilliant and revolutionary, and I said it was shit. There was a bit more to it than that, but I was hoping to make this a short blog.

The use of third parties to make subject access requests on one’s behalf is not new – solicitors have always done it, and companies have made batched SARs at least since the bank charges furore of the last decade. The problem with a third party – or automation of the process – is that it gives the Data Controller something to play with. Dehaye admitted to me that in all the time he spent developing his SAR tool, he didn’t speak to anyone with any experience of dealing with SARs from the controller’s perspective, and it shows.

Even though one of Dehaye’s tedious cheerleaders told me that SARs were going to be “frictionless” post-GDPR, there are inevitably some bumps in the road when asking for data even in this Brave New World. The Data Controller needs to identify the application properly, and the involvement of a third party might complicate that – or might be exploited to complicate that, as anyone who has ever dealt with a poorly-written solicitor SAR can probably tell you. If there is a lot of data, the controller can ask the subject to narrow the scope of their request. If they believe that the request is unfounded or excessive, they can make a charge, or even refuse. An automated third party doesn’t make any of this easier.

Ironically given his status as pro-DP activist, I think Dehaye wants SARs to seem difficult. “In my own experience, SARs are complicated to do in a way that properly defends data subject rights” he said, but given that he’s building a business based on data, he kind of would say that. When I first encountered him, Dehaye told me that he was planning to charge subjects for using his tool; while that plan might have changed, he gets evasive when you ask whether he might charge for add-on services in the future. One of the main advantages of GDPR for the subject is that SARs are now free – the best way to exercise the right is to ask for the data direct, without the involvement of a politically-motivated middleman whose company isn’t even in the EU. I voted Remain and I think Brexit is moronic, but that doesn’t mean that weaponising SARs is a good idea. After all, someone might turn round and do it to you.

I decided to make a SAR to Dehaye’s company on the 25th May. His response, though admirably swift, wasn’t exactly the zenith of transparency that one might have hoped for. One might even describe it as a masterclass in not answering questions. I provided a variety of different email addresses and phone numbers that the company might hold in relation to me – the purpose of this was to allow the data controller to identify whether any of my data was held. I did the same thing with my request to Experian – I don’t know what data Experian holds on me, so I provided all the possible identifiers that I could think of. I don’t know what, if any, data Dehaye or his company might hold, so I needed to provide a variety of different identifiers.

EDIT: in response to a request from the data controller, click here for the full text of my request (redacted only to remove personal data that is not in the public domain) and the full text of their reply.

Article 12 of GDPR states that “The controller shall facilitate the exercise of data subject rights under Articles 15 to 22” and shall answer requests unless it “demonstrates that it is not in a position to identify the data subject” – it is plainly correct for the controller to want to know who the applicant is, in order to avoid giving data to the wrong person. However, Recital 64 says that the controller’s measures to identify the subject must be “reasonable“. Dehaye demanded that I send a separate request from each of the email addresses I specified. This means that he thinks that if an organisation has harvested emails from a variety of sources, the controller only has to disclose data if they receive confirmation from that account that it is linked to the subject. So if a person applies from a Gmail account, and the controller has harvested a work email address, even if they have linked the two together, Dehaye doesn’t think that the subject is entitled to the work-related data unless they make a separate request.

Similarly, I provided my home address, my 2 mobile numbers (business and personal) and my landline. Bear in mind, a data controller may have harvested all of this data, so the SAR applicant might need to provide it in order to say this is me, this is my data, do you have it? Dehaye’s response to this part of my request was to demand copies of phone bills for each account, and a recent utility bill for the home address. Clearly, this is the approach he would advocate for any data controller faced with such a request. As it happens, my girlfriend’s name is on the landline account, so I cannot prove that the landline is my personal data, even though it is. One of my mobiles is pay-as-you-go, so I don’t get bills, and the work mobile is on my website, and so can be linked to me without the need for unnecessary proof. As with most people, I receive electronic utility bills, and do not have them immediately to hand. Dehaye’s approach seems to be that if a Data Controller has harvested your data, subject access requires the applicant to provide a lot more personal data in order to get access.

The point of the ID check is to ensure that the person is who they say they are – once that’s done, if the controller has doubts about whether an identifier does link back to the subject (i.e. an email address), they can check, or just send any relevant data to that separate identifier. If Dehaye thinks that his approach is legally correct, there is no reason why Leave.EU, Vote Leave or any other organisation shouldn’t do exactly the same thing if they receive a SAR from now on. When I asked him in April how his tool would deal with the ID element he said “Let’s set the standard” – now we know what that looks like. It looks like giving huge quantities of personal data to someone you don’t trust.

This is a no-win – either Dehaye’s approach is right, and I have to go through an administrative nightmare when SAR-ing organisations that grab data from anywhere they can get it, providing them with a fat dossier of extra information before I can get access, or Dehaye is a hypocrite who complains about hurdles to subject access but builds a wall when asked to practice what he preaches. In any case, if Dehaye’s obstructive and unhelpful approach was correct, it would still be easier to handle without the added complication of a middleman.

UPDATE 28/5/18: Mr Dehaye has admitted that he deliberately adopted an obstructive approach because he thinks I am a trouble-maker. I believe that this is a clear breach of the GDPR; if the Data Controller Personal Data.IO is capable of playing these kinds of games, and deliberately discriminates against data subjects, I think this seriously undermines their credibility to act as an agent for other people’s SARS. The company is setting a cynical, obstructive example, and it would be catastrophic for subject rights if other controllers followed their lead.

Zero Gravity

In March, I received an unsolicited email from a company called Gravicus. It was scaremongering nonsense, touting their data management software via the threat of director liability for data breaches. So far, so what: I get a lot of spammy junk from GDPR people to my 2040 Training email address, but this was to a personal Gmail address that I don’t give out all that often. The email claimed that it had been sent to me because I was “registered on Leadiro”, who I have never heard of. Under PECR, email sent to an address for which I am an individual subscriber can only be sent with consent (or soft opt-in), and given that I had heard of neither Gravicus or Leadiro before the email arrived, they had neither.

I contacted Gravicus to make a subject access request on 20th March, asking how they had obtained my data, what Leadiro had told them and for any other personal data about me that they held. Separately, I contacted Leadiro and asked them why they were selling my data. Leadiro got back to me, and confirmed that they had not supplied my data to Gravicus.

Having had no reply from Gravicus beyond an automated acknowledgement, I emailed them again on April 2nd, asking for confirmation that my request was being dealt with, and also passing on what Leadiro said. A week went by with no acknowledgement, so I wrote to the company’s registered office address and business address, chasing them up.

Gravicus finally reacted on 16th April via a letter from their lawyers, Keystone Law. Keystone admitted on behalf of their clients that the Leadiro story was false, and that my data had been harvested from the “business oriented and professional website” LinkedIn. I apparently connected “voluntarily” with a named Gravicus consultant, who then exported her connections to obtain contact details of “relevant professionals in the sector”. Nearly a month into my request, Gravicus wanted a copy of my passport and utility bill, certified by a lawyer, accountant or similar professional, as well as the £10 fee. I paid the £10 and sent an uncertified copy of my passport. The lawyers still demanded the utility bill as proof of my address, despite the fact that Gravicus’ own version of events shows that they would have nothing to compare it to – they have only ever dealt with me via email or Twitter. In any case, Keystone had already named the individual who harvested my address, so if it was wrong to reply to my subject access request without proof of address, why was it right to give me the name of the consultant? I threatened to complain to the Information Commissioner, and they backed down. I have no doubt that Gravicus took this approach to obstruct my request, which when they had already breached PECR and Data Protection isn’t the best way to resolve a problem.

It is a breach of LinkedIn’s terms and conditions to

  • “Disclose information that you do not have the consent to disclose”
  • “Copy, use, disclose or distribute any information obtained from the Services, whether directly or through third parties (such as search engines), without the consent of LinkedIn”
  • “Use, disclose or distribute any data obtained in violation of this policy”

Harvesting and using email addresses from LinkedIn in breach of their terms and conditions, without transparency and a legal basis is a clear breach of Data Protection. Gravicus did not have my consent, and by misrepresenting the source of my data in the email that they sent me, they blew any chance of relying on legitimate interests. Their use of my data was unlawful. Gravicus’ lawyers claimed that the confusion over where my data came from was understandable because Leadiro was one source that they were using. But that isn’t true. The CEO of Leadiro told me explicitly: “Gravicus are not a Leadiro customer, and have never been a Leadiro customer“. Added to that, sending a marketing email to an individual subscriber without consent is a breach of PECR, and Gravicus knew I was an individual subscriber because their records had my address marked as ‘Personal’.

Despite the fact that Gravicus’ original spam email touted data breaches as being the personal responsibility of directors, one of the shabbiest things about their response is the way they sought to throw their consultant under the bus. They named her straight away, and claimed that the company didn’t know that she was harvesting emails from LinkedIn, even though their lawyers continually stressed that I had voluntarily made my email available to her. In other words, you asked for it, but we didn’t know it was happening. I don’t believe this, but it doesn’t matter whose idea it was. The directors are responsible for what their company does, not some consultant who blocks people on Twitter when they ask awkward questions. Instead of dealing with me like a human being, Gravicus lawyered up and tried to obstruct my subject access request with bogus demands for unnecessary personal data, itself an additional breach of DP law.

This might seem like a lot of fuss for a spam email. But look at what Gravicus is selling as a data processor. Their product works like this: “Tell Osprey your data sources, provide your access credentials and it will connect automatically to analyse your data“. As a data processor, they will have access to a huge amount of sensitive and possibly special categories personal data held by their clients. The GDPR states that data controllers “shall use only processors providing sufficient guarantees to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures in such a manner that processing will meet the requirements of this Regulation and ensure the protection of the rights of the data subject“.

Gravicus harvested my data unlawfully, they gave me false information about where personal data has been obtained from, they demanded excessive personal data when dealing with my subject access request, and they sent me unlawful unsolicited emails in breach of PECR. They claim that they’ve stopped gathering data in this way, but it never should have happened in the first place, and suggests that the directors don’t know what’s going on in their company. In any case, when caught out, they hide behind their lawyers and consultants instead of dealing direct. Any organisation thinking of using them as a data processor should think long and hard about whether Gravicus can offer the kind of guarantees that GDPR requires.

Checks and balances

A while ago, I was asked by a prospective client to provide a criminal records check before getting a big piece of work. Given that I wouldn’t be handling any personal data or getting access to children or other vulnerable people, it seemed like overkill. The awkward part of me wanted to suggest that the requirement was close to being an enforced subject access request, which would be a criminal breach of Data Protection law. Enforced subject access requests occur where a person is obliged to provide a data controller with the result of a subject access request for criminal records in return for employment or a service.

Then I looked at the number of days’ work they were offering and the pragmatic part of me kicked in. I don’t have a criminal record, so I applied for and sent them a disclosure certificate saying so. It occurred to me that if I tried to make an issue of principle out of it, it might look like I had something to hide. I imagine it’s a terrible situation to be in if you have got a record and are trying to move on, but to be selfish, I don’t and it seemed odd to create the impression that I might have. And I wanted the work.

Last week, a prosecution by the Information Commissioner against the insurance company Hiscox for the enforced subject access offence collapsed. A customer, Irfan Hussain, was attempting to claim on a £30,000 watch he had lost, and Hiscox wanted to see his criminal record before paying out. He refused, and complained to the ICO. The case collapsed when the unlucky horologist was too unwell to give evidence.

I can’t help thinking that this was an odd choice for a prosecution. Even if Hiscox tried to force their customer to provide his information, was this unreasonable? He had already stated that he had no criminal record (according to the FT), so all Hiscox were apparently asking him to do was prove that what he had said was true in the light of his claim. The means by which they proposed to do it might technically have been an enforced subject access request, but there’s surely a difference between something technically being an offence and it being worth mounting a prosecution on it. The provisions contain a public interest defence, and Hiscox’s public comments after the trial suggest that this was their strategy. I suspect it might have worked. Especially as this seems to be the ICO’s first attempt at an enforced subject access case, was this really the best place to start?

The business of criminal records checks overall works in mysterious ways. Hiscox are reported to have asked Mr Hussain to make a subject access request to the Criminal Records Office, which is run by the National Police Chief’s Council. This is not the same as applying to the Disclosure and Barring Service or Disclosure Scotland for a certificate or a disclosure, but having been through the process, I have to admit that I am somewhat confused at the difference.

To get my disclosure, I made a written application, proved my identity and then paid a fee to receive a copy of personal data that related to me, or confirmation that no such information was held. The basic check comes through faster than a subject access request (about 2 weeks, although mine came in matter of a few days) but it’s also more expensive (£25). In my case, nothing was held but that’s neither here or there. There is statutory provision for access to this information via the Criminal Records Bureau set out in the Police Act 1997, replaced by the Disclosure and Barring Service in 2006 via the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. Someone is going to tell me that applying for a certificate is different to applying for subject access, but that raises some questions. If Hiscox had told Mr Hussain to apply for a certificate like I did, it’s exactly the same outcome – a person is obliged by a data controller to obtain information about their criminal history and then cough it up – but if it’s not subject access, no prosecution could be possible.

An individual can obtain a basic check that shows their unspent convictions and cautions, both of which are listed as a relevant record in the DPA section that creates enforced subject access. The ICO’s guidance doesn’t explain the position if a person was forced to ask for a basic check. That check might not give everything that a data controller might want, but it’s full information about a person’s recent criminal history. If obliging someone to ask for a basic check isn’t enforced subject access, it’s a loophole. But if a basic check is essentially a subject access request by another name, it shouldn’t be £25 now, and it should be free after May 25th.

It’s clear that the DBS doesn’t think that forcing an individual to ask for a basic check would be enforced subject access or illegal in some other way because their website says this:

You can’t carry out a basic check as an organisation – you must ask the person to request their own basic DBS check. A basic check shows unspent convictions and cautions.

This implies that asking a person to carry out a basic check when you can’t make an application yourself is acceptable, even though these are very likely to be circumstances where a person can’t meaningfully refuse. There are no warnings about compulsion during the application process via the DBS website. So why is a subject access request to ACRO magic, acceptable only when uncontaminated by duress, but a basic check isn’t? The amount of data disclosed isn’t exactly the same, but the outcome – being forced to disclose your criminal history when it might be unnecessary or excessive to do so – might be identical.

It took a long time (from 1998 to 2015) for enforced subject access to be fully enacted. Now it’s in force, the Hiscox case doesn’t give cause for optimism that anything will change. I have doubts about whether it was a good idea to prosecute Hiscox, but I have heard first hand terrible stories over the years about data being demanded when it should not have been. Having used the system, the way in which criminal records are made available gives me little confidence that such unnecessary and unfair demands for personal data are properly prevented. After the failure of the Hiscox case, even if only because of an ill-timed illness, the ICO needs to go in again and draw a line somewhere.

Stinking Badges

The list of things that annoy me about the explosion of hype and bullshit around GDPR is long and boring (NOTE TO SELF: this list should be a blog post of its own). I cannot say that top of the list are those badges that folk give their products, boasting about being “GDPR Ready”, or “GDPR Compliant” when nobody actually knows what being ready or compliant looks like, but they’re top five.

Screen Shot 2018-01-16 at 21.45.42.png

I was complaining about this on Twitter, and lovely people who enjoy seeing me annoyed started to send me examples of these badges from across the internet. It is via this route that I came to Emailmovers, a data broker who make luxurious claims about their data and its relationship to the GDPR.

Not only do Emailmovers have a badge, they claim to have been working closely with both the Direct Marketing Association and the Information Commissioner’s Office on GDPR issues. Indeed, until someone kicked up a fuss about it, Emailmovers had the Information Commissioner’s logo on their website. The logo has gone now, but if you work out where it was and click, there is an invisible link to the ICO’s website where it used to be.

Emailmovers certainly put up a strong case about the nature of the data they’re selling:

1) We are clear with individuals why we need their data at the point of collection
2) We always use clear and concise language appropriate for our target audience
3) We give individuals control over their data. They are always able to decide whether to share their personal data with us or not
4) Under the GDPR principle accountability, Emailmovers is able to demonstrate that we are compliant. We always record the legal grounds for processing an individual’s personal data

I can’t say that any of this is untrue, although I am sceptical. Generally, I think that the data broking industry is irredeemable, incapable of operating lawfully either now or in the future. The data broker acquires data, accumulates and appends it, and then sells it to clients. This is the opposite of fair. However, and wherever the data was obtained from, whatever transparency or fair processing was given to the subject, it would be vague. It could not say which specific organisations would receive the data, and often, it could not even say which sectors. The data broker does not know – they sell to whoever is buying. This kills consent – which was supposed to be informed and specific since 1995 – and it kills legitimate interest. How can you assess the effect on the subject if you don’t know when obtaining the data what you’re going to do with it? If a data broker obtained individual email data under legitimate interest, they couldn’t sell it on for marketing purposes, because the client will not have consent to send the marketing in question by email.

None of this will stop the data broking industry from carrying on – when some of the biggest brokers are ICO stakeholders whose activities have gone unchecked for decades, it’s hard to imagine that the GDPR will make much of a difference.

Nevertheless, there was one thing about all this that I was able to check. I made an FOI request to the ICO asking about contact that Emailmovers had had with the Commissioner’s Office, particularly with the policy and liaison teams. If Emailmovers really had been working closely with the ICO, there would be evidence of this, right? The ICO’s response was revealing:

There was no direct contact between Emailmovers and our Strategic Liaison/ policy department concerning advice about GDPR.”

Emailmovers had made a couple of enquiries – ICO was too cautious to tell me what they asked, but they supplied the replies which offer no more than a simple (but accurate) explanation that business to business communications are covered by the GDPR, a brief observation that the ePrivacy Regulation is coming but we cannot be sure what it will say, and separately, a straightforward note that even corporate subscribers need fair processing. This is not working closely with the ICO – they asked a couple of questions and got short polite answers. There are no meetings, no detailed correspondence, nothing at all to suggest anything approaching the relationship they boast about here:

Screen Shot 2018-01-16 at 21.47.35

I can honestly say that I am in regular contact with the ICO about a variety of matters. It sounds good, but it’s true only because I nearly gave evidence in one of their prosecutions (they didn’t need me in the end), I make a lot of FOI requests to them, and I tweet at them almost daily.

I don’t accept that making a couple of enquiries equates to working closely with someone. The fact that Emailmovers make this claim on their website, and displayed the ICO logo prominently until recently makes me very uneasy about the other things they say. The GDPR sector is full of bullshit and exaggeration, fake certifications, hokey badges and bluster. As we near the supposed cliff edge of May 25th, we should all take the time to check every claim with great scepticism, and to treat the badge-toting hordes with the same caution that Humphrey Bogart treated a certain bogus Federale: