A couple of words meanwhile
Some news as we go along
Nov. 5, 2020
Hi there!
I’ve been working on the fourth part of the biggest issue I haven’t ever had to deal with.
It’s really exciting but it takes quite a long time to prepare it.
As the things stand, I don’t know when it will be published.
That’s why you will get here a few pieces of information that can be unveiled from 17 November 2020.
Nov. 17, 2020
Silence
As reported a few months ago, the Cnil switched from an expected position to a fully surprising one.
In 2008, the Cnil mentioned that the data collected within the framework of LCB-FT should only be used in this field (Deliberation 2008-581).
3 years later, it enigmatically enabled banks to use them for commercial purposes.
What’s going on with the former minister of the Economy Christine Lagarde when asking her a question on that regard ? She doesn't want to reply.
Must be a good idea to get back in contact with her in the future and reiterate that question.
Jan. 5, 2021
Deliberation 2008-581 online
While Christine Lagarde is burying her head in the sand, anybody can henceforth check out the deliberation that the Cnil had been preventing from public consultation over 11 years (!)
Needless to say that I had to lodge a complaint with the Cada to get it public.
Feb 24/Apr 4, 2021
Bribes make compliant
Despite around 150 people were working for the Cnil between 2009 and 2011, it turns out that none of them questioned the President Alex Türk when he allowed commercial canvassing from LCB-FT data.
How could these people have accepted that so easily?
Let’s roll back time a little bit...
In January 2011, the newspaper Le Monde disclosed that the Court of Audit blamed Alex Türk for getting 51 000 euros unfairly. Controllers, commissioners and associates got their piece of cake too 1.
According to the Cnil, it was all about miscellaneous allowances they deserved. According to the Court, some of their works appeared “uncertain”.
Alex Türk and his staff were required to give that money back.
The website Europe 1 reported that story too and pointed out that Alex Türk refused to require its associates to reimbourse the overpayments they got (about a hundred people were involved) 2.
One year later, A legal debt collection order was issued against two public accountants who had irregularly granted them more than 600 000 euros 3.
May 15, 2021
The ridiculous smokescreen
The Treasury is a famous department of our ministry of the Economy that deals with banks amongst other.
It proudly claimed in its website that loyalty towards citizens would be one of its values. It “leads us to seek above all the general interest, to show transparency, deontology and impartiality in our works.”
Sure... but mainly in theory.
In 2012, it unsuccessfully tried to cover the bank Ing the same way as the Acpr. I’ve tried to find out who was behind that ever since.
Today, I send a letter to the former director of Treasury, he surely has the answer
Aug. 7, 2021
Don’t be shy Christine Lagarde
Last year, I asked our former minister of the Economy if she held sway over the French data authority to allow commercial purposes from LCB-FT data.
To put it another way, did she want an infringement to be turned into a right for the sake of banks?
I asked her that question again in springtime.
Hopefully, Christine Lagarde will show some transparency one day and name all those who were involved in this process.
Jan. 27, 2022
The best friend of Alex Türk
In a movie, the former president of the Cnil Alex Türk (2004-2011) would have probably played the role of a fireman setting fire to a big forest. I still can’t believe he devised a specific entitlement to allow banks to hijack personal data.
Which role would fit for the following president Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin as she indifferently maintained it afterwards.
Last year, I wanted to dig a little deeper and asked her a question about her previous allowances as she worked for the Cnil from 2004.
At the time, a good relationship was established between Alex Türk and the members of the Cnil. They were reimbursed for miscellaneous expenses beyond what they could claimed for. As I pointed out in a previous note, they irregularly got some moneys back estimated at a total of hundreds of thousands of euros under Türk’ s presidency.
I wondered if Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin got some undue compensation that possibly made her less objective.
Alongside this, can we just expect an apology for deceitfully allowing the banking sector to hijack personal data? I think that all those who got some public moneys in an unfair way should also give them back. A proportionate donation to the State is one way to do so.
Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin left the Cnil since then. She has been heading the French gambling authority since 2020. She has to oversee the gambling companies (online bets, sport bets, casinos…) and may be some issues to clarify too.
Oct 8, 2022
if you want a fake consent to re-use data, please call the Cnil again
We all would have liked to protect our data in a simple way when we had to fill out a LCB-FT form.
Unfortunately, the dice were loaded from the beginning.
The Cnil did not compelled banks to get a proper consent for re-using our data when issuing, in June 2011, the deliberation 2011-180 (Autorisation Unique AU-003). If you did not ask your bank to stop commercial processing from your data, you got trapped. Your bank claimed that they got your consent through their terms and conditions.
Now, please imagine that I was asked to make some recommendation back in 2011.
Below is what I would have suggested:
" The persons shall be able to deny commercial purposes from their data in a simple and a non-ambiguous way when their data are being collected".
" When data are being collected through a form, a simple means such as a click box shall be included to get the prior consent or to express opposition".
Denying commercial processing would have been incredibly easy and many customers would have obviously clicked on that box.
Would you trust me if I told you that these measures stem from a norm issued by the Cnil in 2005? Private companies were subject to applying them for sending canvassing messages 1. Similar measures were enforced when that norm was updated in 2012 2 and 2016 3.
They could have indisputably been adapted and required for re-using LCB-FT data for any commercial purposes too.
This shows how the Cnil proceeded to help banks divert our data without seeming to.
1. delib. 2005-112 of 7 June 2005 (art.7)
(link)
2. delib. 2012-209 of 21 June 2012 (art. 6)
3. delib. 2016-264 du 21 July 2016 (art. 6)
Feb. 15, 2024
Welcome back
In July or may be earlier, I’ll put out some more information here.
Stay tuned.
