We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Kent Madin please sign in and let everyone know.

All documents/email containing: "kent madin". All docs containing "ripley davenport"

We're waiting for Kent Madin to read recent responses and update the status.

Dear Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection,
I am seeking copies of all documents produced between January 1, 2020 to present time AND sent to and from the IMY which contain EITHER the string "kent madin" AND/OR which contain the string "ripley davenport". .

The information is sought for research on the subject of the IMY being intentionally deceived with false facts and allegations in support of a "request to be forgotten".

Yours faithfully,

Kent Madin
Bozeman, Montana

Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

Hej,

 

Tack för att du har kontaktat Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten (IMY). Vi
kommer snart att hantera ditt mejl.

 

Med vänliga hälsningar

 

Registrator

 

Registrator

Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten (IMY)
08-657 61 00, [1]www.imy.se ([2]www.imy.se)

 

IMY, tidigare Datainspektionen, arbetar för att skydda alla dina
personuppgifter, till exempel om hälsa och ekonomi, så att de hanteras
korrekt och inte hamnar i orätta händer.

 

Så här behandlar vi personuppgifter
([3]https://www.imy.se/behandling-av-personu...)

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/www.imy.se
2. https://www.imy.se/
3. https://www.imy.se/behandling-av-personu...

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

Dear Mr Madin,

IMY has recieved your request and are conducting a search in the archives and our e-mailsystems. I will get back to you.

Best regards,

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje
Senior Legal Counsel
Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY)
+46 8 657 61 10, www.imy.se

IMY’s role is to uphold the protection of personal data, for example your data about health and finances, monitoring that they are handled correctly and do not fall into the wrong hands.

This is how we process personal data

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Kent Madin <[Registrators #2591 e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 30 oktober 2022 21:40
Till: Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY <[IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]>
Ämne: Freedom of Information request - All documents/email containing: "kent madin". All docs containing "ripley davenport"

Dear Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection, I am seeking copies of all documents produced between January 1, 2020 to present time AND sent to and from the IMY which contain EITHER the string "kent madin" AND/OR which contain the string "ripley davenport". .

The information is sought for research on the subject of the IMY being intentionally deceived with false facts and allegations in support of a "request to be forgotten".

Yours faithfully,

Kent Madin
Bozeman, Montana

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[Registrators #2591 e-postadress]

Is [IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling] the wrong address for Freedom of Information requests to Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://handlingar.se/en/change_request/...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://handlingar.se/en/help/officers

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje,
Hi Sigrid, Just checking on the status of my FOI request.

Yours sincerely,

Kent Madin

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

Dear Mr Madin,

We have outsourced our IT department and therefore all inquiries must be directed to our IT service provider outside the agency - I shall check how work is coming along with my request. Last week was a national holiday in Sweden and that may have slowed down things a bit.

Do you wish to take part of the e-mails that you yourself have sent IMY or are you just interested in what other parties may have submitted to IMY?

Best regards,

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje
Senior Legal Counsel
Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY)
+46 8 657 61 10, www.imy.se

IMY’s role is to uphold the protection of personal data, for example your data about health and finances, monitoring that they are handled correctly and do not fall into the wrong hands.

This is how we process personal data

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Kent Madin <[Registrators #2591 e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 4 november 2022 19:15
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: Freedom of Information request - All documents/email containing: "kent madin". All docs containing "ripley davenport"

Dear Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje,

Hi Sigrid, Just checking on the status of my FOI request.

Yours sincerely,

Kent Madin

show quoted sections

Dear Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje,
It would be convenient to have all comms, including those I sent to IMY. Thanks.

Yours sincerely,

Kent Madin

Till Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje,

Hi Sigrid, I thought I already wrote and clarified that I would like the entire collection of relevant documents, including the email I sent. Thanks.

Med vänliga hälsningar,

Kent Madin

Till Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje,
Hi Sigrid, I keep getting notices that I should contact you about my request. Just trying to stay in the current here but not make waves. Looking forward to hearing of any progress. Kent

Med vänliga hälsningar,

Kent Madin

Till Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje,
Any news on this process?

Med vänliga hälsningar,

Kent Madin

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

Dear Mr Madin,

I have found a large number of e-mails with "Kent Madin" and "Ripley Davenport" and I have had problems finding a way of sharing them with you. But in lack of a better solution I will simply forward the messages on by one to this e-mail address.

Best regards,

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje
Senior Legal Counsel
Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY)
www.imy.se

IMY’s role is to uphold the protection of personal data, for example your data about health and finances, monitoring that they are handled correctly and do not fall into the wrong hands.

This is how we process personal data

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Kent Madin <[Registrators #2591 e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 22 november 2022 16:22
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: Freedom of Information request - All documents/email containing: "kent madin". All docs containing "ripley davenport"

Till Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje,

Any news on this process?

Med vänliga hälsningar,

Kent Madin

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

1 Attachment

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[1][e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 9 augusti 2022 15:50
Till: Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY <[2][IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]>
Ämne: Re: SV: Attn: Ms. Hermannson regarding ( IMY-2022-4528)

 

Great!  I WANT to request an appeal of the decision.  How do I do that?  

You will note in the attached complaints that Mr. Davenport makes
unsubstantiated, serious allegations against me including being a
"cyberstalker" and suggesting that I am under criminal investigation. 
These are patently false assertions which I can prove with extensive
documentation from five different police agencies who, based on Mr.
Davenports false and emotional claims, opened investigations.  Those
investigations all were closed in short order and found NO basis for the
allegations or evidence to support it.  Mr. Davenport has badly misled
you.  

 

How do I appeal and with what form?  

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

 

 

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 06:22:52 AM MDT,
Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY <[3][IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]> wrote:

 

 

Hi,

 

Please find the complaint files attached. Some information has been
masked. You have the right to ask for an appealable decision.

 

 

Registrar

Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY)

+46 8 657 61 00, [4]www.imy.se

 

[5]cid:image001.png@01D6E4DA.007CF140

 

IMY’s role is to uphold the protection of personal data, for example your
data about health and finances, monitoring that they are handled correctly
and do not fall into the wrong hands.

[6]This is how we process personal data

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[7][e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 8 augusti 2022 17:43
Till: Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY <[8][IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]>
Ämne: Attn: Ms. Hermannson regarding ( IMY-2022-4528)

 

I would refer you to this part of your page describing the complaint
process.  As I understand it, a complaint was filed against me.  According
to your website, all the documents in that complaint are public.  I would
like a copy of the complaint. 

[9]https://www.imy.se/en/individuals/forms-...

 

"Public document

Everything you submit to us becomes a public document. If someone requests
the document, we conduct a confidentiality assessment to determine whether
the information is to be classified as confidential or not. We then decide
if the information can be disclosed in whole or in part. Public documents
must, as a main rule, be archived in its entirety."

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[e-postadress]
2. mailto:[IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]
3. mailto:[IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]
4. https://www.imy.se/
6. https://www.imy.se/privacy-notice
7. mailto:[e-postadress]
8. mailto:[IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]
9. https://www.imy.se/en/individuals/forms-...

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

3 Attachments

 

 

Från: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje
Skickat: den 10 augusti 2022 17:26
Till: '[e-postadress]' <[e-postadress]>
Kopia: Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY <[IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]>
Ämne: Regarding your request

 

Dear Mr. Madin,

 

You have requested to take part of certain documents. The documents have
been sent to you with the exception of certain information that we (the
Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection) assess cannot be disclosed.

 

I enclose our formal decision not to disclose all the information in the
documents you have requested. I also enclose a translation of the decision
from Swedish to English. In the decision you will find an instruction on
how to appeal our decision not disclose all the requested information.

 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions
regarding this.

 

Best regards,

 

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje

Senior Legal Counsel

Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY)

 

IMY’s role is to uphold the protection of personal data, for example your
data about health and finances, monitoring that they are handled correctly
and do not fall into the wrong hands.

[1]This is how we process personal data

 

 

 

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[2][e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 9 augusti 2022 15:50
Till: Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY <[3][IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]>
Ämne: Re: SV: Attn: Ms. Hermannson regarding ( IMY-2022-4528)

 

Great!  I WANT to request an appeal of the decision.  How do I do that?  

You will note in the attached complaints that Mr. Davenport makes
unsubstantiated, serious allegations against me including being a
"cyberstalker" and suggesting that I am under criminal investigation. 
These are patently false assertions which I can prove with extensive
documentation from five different police agencies who, based on Mr.
Davenports false and emotional claims, opened investigations.  Those
investigations all were closed in short order and found NO basis for the
allegations or evidence to support it.  Mr. Davenport has badly misled
you.  

 

How do I appeal and with what form?  

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

 

 

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 06:22:52 AM MDT,
Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY <[4][IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]> wrote:

 

 

Hi,

 

Please find the complaint files attached. Some information has been
masked. You have the right to ask for an appealable decision.

 

 

Registrar

Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY)

+46 8 657 61 00, [5]www.imy.se

 

[6]cid:image001.png@01D6E4DA.007CF140

 

IMY’s role is to uphold the protection of personal data, for example your
data about health and finances, monitoring that they are handled correctly
and do not fall into the wrong hands.

[7]This is how we process personal data

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[8][e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 8 augusti 2022 17:43
Till: Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY <[9][IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]>
Ämne: Attn: Ms. Hermannson regarding ( IMY-2022-4528)

 

I would refer you to this part of your page describing the complaint
process.  As I understand it, a complaint was filed against me.  According
to your website, all the documents in that complaint are public.  I would
like a copy of the complaint. 

[10]https://www.imy.se/en/individuals/forms-...

 

"Public document

Everything you submit to us becomes a public document. If someone requests
the document, we conduct a confidentiality assessment to determine whether
the information is to be classified as confidential or not. We then decide
if the information can be disclosed in whole or in part. Public documents
must, as a main rule, be archived in its entirety."

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

References

Visible links
1. https://www.imy.se/privacy-notice
2. mailto:[e-postadress]
3. mailto:[IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]
4. mailto:[IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]
5. https://www.imy.se/
7. https://www.imy.se/privacy-notice
8. mailto:[e-postadress]
9. mailto:[IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]
10. https://www.imy.se/en/individuals/forms-...

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

5 Attachments

Från: Kent Madin <[1][e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 12 augusti 2022 21:11
Till: Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY <[2][IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]>
Ämne: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers DI-2021-5722 and
DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Attn: Sigrid Boje

 

Ms. Boje,

 

Thank you for the opportunity to engage on this issue.  I have no
particular concern with the redactions you made to the two complaint
letters.  But I do want to comment on the content of those complaint
letters.  My larger concern is that your agency has, based on those
complaints, used its authority to require that Google remove search
results for my website ripleydavenport.net.  This was done as a fait
accompli, in which I was never advised of your investigation or apprised
of how I might provide balancing information.  I feel your agency has
erred in censoring my website without due process or consultation.  

 

As I have stated in previous emails to your agency, I want to know what
recourse I have to appeal/protest your agency's decision and get my
website back into Google searches.

 

As to the question of appealing the decisions you made to redact
information from the publicly available complaint forms, I also have some
comments.

 

I would point out that both complaints come from an email address
identified as "laura davenport" but the complaints are signed by "Ripley
Davenport".  This begs the question of who actually wrote the complaints. 
Ripley and Laura Davenport are a married couple.  In the last decade of my
experiences with them, Laura Davenport has often taken the lead to
publicly complain on Ripley's behalf.  It would seem to me a standard
first step in any government investigative process, to accurately
determine who is really making statements, statements which can have a
tangible impact on others.  And is there some kind of standard whereby
someone making a complaint affirms ahead of time that what they are saying
is true?  Is there a mechanism to address complaints which "bear false
witness"?

 

If Laura Davenport wrote these complaints but signed them with her
husband's name doesn't that raise a legal issue for you?  Just asking. 

 

In the first complaint letter, the writer makes an unsubstantiated and
false claim that he/she is a victim of cyberstalking.  To whit: "There is
an open criminal case against Kent Madin in Ireland".  This is a patently
false claim.  According to the Irish Department of Public Prosecution
(DPP) Case #2016/2089 filed by Laura Davenport was dismissed with no
action taken.  And I would note that I was never contacted in this matter
by ANY member of ANY police agency in Ireland about this complaint.  In
other words, the evidence provided by Laura Davenport was so weak that the
police never interviewed the "criminal".

 

From the State Solicitor: 

 

"Dear Mr. Madin,

I can confirm that a decision that there should be no prosecution in this
case issued from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions on the
31st of March, 2016.

Yours sincerely,  Edward O’Sullivan, State Solicitor."

 

In other words, Laura Davenport's complaint to the Garda was looked at and
found baseless. 

 

The Davenports also made wild allegations unsupported by evidence to the
FBI in Montana.  I have attached the final report from the investigating
Special Agent for your interest.  This is the concluding paragraph in a
document where the SA Allen and the US Attorney for Montana agree that
there is no basis for any further action. 

 

"In reading the various email exchanges provided by Madin or the
complainants, I have found nothing that would support the allegation that
he has been abusive, harassing, threatening, or intimidating. As far as I
can tell, he has merely asked questions, and has reasonably respected
people's request that he not contact them anymore. There are instances
where he has sent follow-up emails, but these have only been in response
to recontact from them or allegations made against him online or in other
public forums. It does not appear that he has engaged in repeated contact
with the intent to harass or annoy anyone. His journalistic efforts
resulted in the publication of a news article about RipleyDavenport in
Politiken, a major Danish newspaper, in August 2013. It appears his
efforts have genuinely been in the pursuit of protected free speech and
press-related activity."

 

I would also point out that the statement about Montana's laws being
"weak" is false.  Montana's laws are perfectly capable of addressing
cybercrime when there is actual evidence.  Please see the attached letter
from the City Attorney of Bozeman Montana in which he pointedly states "It
is not a crime to call a fraud a fraud". 

 

Also attached is a statement from the Bozeman City Attorney advising that
the investigation is closed and no action will be taken.  

 

The second complaint letter tries to make the case that the material on my
website, ripleydavenport.net, is "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or
excessive".  This is false.  The material is entirely accurate and I have
taken great pains to only publish things that I have corroborated.  The
Davenports have always had the option to sue me in civil court but that
would require them to answer questions under oath.  They have never gone
beyond sending rambling, misleading "cease and desist" letters.  I can't
speak to "inadequate" except to say the major questions about Ripley and
Laura Davenport's professional claims are still unanswered.  The material
is entirely "relevant" in that it documents a decade-long effort to
defraud individuals and institutions for commercial gain.  And excessive? 
The devil is in the details and documentation.  

 

As to the "illegal" use of Ripley Davenport's name in the URL, this is an
area of considerable legal grayness.  The original and ongoing intent of
the website was to attract attention (like a cyber billboard on the
internet highway) from people who could speak to the questions raised
about the Davenports' fraudulent behavior.  It is the digital version of a
display ad in a newspaper or in earlier times, hiring the town crier to
alert people to my interest.  The site was created only AFTER the
Davenports a: refused to respond to valid, civil questions about their
activities and b: aggressively launched a program of emails and websites
denouncing me, without evidence, as a "cyberstalker".  Using someone's
name in a URL is not illegal in the USA when there is no commercial
exploitive purpose. 

 

"Additionally, U.S. Federal Law 15 § U.S.C. 1125(d), (the
Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, or the ACPA) protects against
the registration, use or trafficking in, of any domain name with a bad
faith intent to profit from a trademark (or service mark) that is
protected under federal law. However, federal law often will not protect a
personal name as a trademark unless the personal name has acquired
distinctiveness (think “become well known by the public”)."

 

There is NO commercial element to the website or mechanism for profit. 
The website is like any blog which presents information to the public and
asks questions.  In spite of their fraudulent efforts to "sell" Ripley
Davenport as a "renowned explorer", Ripley Davenport is hardly a personal
name that is "well known by the public".  

 

The Davenports launched their various fraudulent websites and took
advantage of the vast reach of the internet to build name recognition and
credibility for their fraudulent narrative.  My website also uses that
vast reach and has produced numerous credible, documented inquiries and
commentaries from people with direct experience with the Davenports
including those who were defrauded of thousands of dollars.  

 

My journalistic research (along with others) on the Davenports all
culminated in a two-page article (with color pictures no less) in
Politiken, the Danish newspaper.  You can read that article here in
Danish:  [3]https://issuu.com/lasserahbek/docs/polit...  and
here in
English:  [4]http://ripleydavenport.net/TranslationRi...

 

The second complaint letter addresses the question of Ripley Davenport's
health.  The Davenports claim that Ripley has Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and
have played up his illness online and in press coverage of his endurance
events.  If you say you have MS and attempt an endurance event and fail,
you elicit sympathy.  If you succeed you are inspiring.  In addition to
wielding his illness as a part of his 'persona' as an endurance athlete,
Ripley Davenport applied to be an "MS Ambassador" for MSIreland, the Irish
national charity dealing with MS. An MS Ambassador goes to schools and
talks with students about what life is like with MS.  

 

I have documented the Davenports' claims about MS at this
page: [5]http://ripleydavenport.net/Ripley%20MS.htm

 

The Davenports have refused to do the obvious thing, publish a letter from
the doctor who did the diagnosis.  The letter need not provide any
technical medical details, just state simply that the positive diagnosis
for MS is based on tests x, y, z and leave it at that.  I have interviewed
several genuine endurance athletes with MS who say that if someone
publicly questioned whether they were faking the disease for sympathy,
they would immediately provide evidence and demand a public apology.

 

Consider if your children came home from school and told you about a brave
man with MS who spoke to the students about the challenges of living with
MS and that this man was still going to [6]swim all the way around Ireland
raising money for MS research.  Then consider your feelings if you found
out later that the brave man lied to your children.  

 

So questions about Ripley Davenport's health, specifically whether he
actually does have MS, are relevant questions to ask and in the public
interest.  

 

Investigative journalism, whether conducted by a traditional news agency
or by private individuals with websites, is more important than ever in
this age of "Fake News".  Whether you are the editors at Politiken or a
private individual like myself, you are ethically and legally bound to
insure that your reporting is accurate and substantiated.  I submit that
is the case with ripleydavenport.net.   If you sustain your decision to
demand Google's removal of the website material, you have aided and lent
credibility to the Davenports' "Fake News".  

 

Again, how do I appeal the decision to block my site?  

 

Sincerely,   

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[e-postadress]
2. mailto:[IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]
3. https://issuu.com/lasserahbek/docs/polit...
4. http://ripleydavenport.net/TranslationRi...
5. http://ripleydavenport.net/Ripley%20MS.htm
6. https://web.archive.org/web/201401140150...

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

 

Från: Kent Madin <[1][e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 24 augusti 2022 19:21
Till: Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY <[2][IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]>
Ämne: Re: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers DI-2021-5722 and
DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Attn: Sigrid Boje:

 

Can you let me know when I will receive a response to my email of August
12, 2022?   I still wish to protest your decision to Google.

 

I would also like to add that the complaints filed by Ripley/Laura
Davenport contain specific allegations of criminal behavior against me. 
Does your office require that complaints like those submitted by the
Davenports be affirmed by the complainant as true, under penalty of
perjury?   I ask because several of the comments are clearly false or
delusional and therefore, should not have any weight in your agency's
decision to ask Google to exclude my site. 

 

It is really a travesty of the most basic principles of justice that
someone can make blatantly false allegations and in doing so, muster the
power of a government agency to harm another individual without recourse
or notice.  

 

Kent Madin

 

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

 

 

Från: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje
Skickat: den 25 augusti 2022 19:13
Till: '[e-postadress]' <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers DI-2021-5722 and
DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Dear Mr Madin,

 

I am so very sorry for the delay in response. I am currently not on duty
but will be back Monday the 29^th of August and will attend to your matter
first thing in the morning.

 

Best regards,

 

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje

Senior Legal Counsel

Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY)

+46 8 657 61 10, [1]www.imy.se

 

IMY’s role is to uphold the protection of personal data, for example your
data about health and finances, monitoring that they are handled correctly
and do not fall into the wrong hands.

[2]This is how we process personal data

 

 

 

 

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[3][e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 24 augusti 2022 19:21
Till: Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY <[4][IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]>
Ämne: Re: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers DI-2021-5722 and
DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Attn: Sigrid Boje:

 

Can you let me know when I will receive a response to my email of August
12, 2022?   I still wish to protest your decision to Google.

 

I would also like to add that the complaints filed by Ripley/Laura
Davenport contain specific allegations of criminal behavior against me. 
Does your office require that complaints like those submitted by the
Davenports be affirmed by the complainant as true, under penalty of
perjury?   I ask because several of the comments are clearly false or
delusional and therefore, should not have any weight in your agency's
decision to ask Google to exclude my site. 

 

It is really a travesty of the most basic principles of justice that
someone can make blatantly false allegations and in doing so, muster the
power of a government agency to harm another individual without recourse
or notice.  

 

Kent Madin

 

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 25 augusti 2022 19:14
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers DI-2021-5722 and
DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Great!   Thanks for letting me know.   

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 25 augusti 2022 21:49
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers DI-2021-5722 and
DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Regarding Ripley Davenport's health.  I just want to emphasize the point
that I have NEVER asked for medical records.  I have simply pointed out
the many objective facts that, in the absence of actual evidence of a
doctor's diagnosis, suggest that Davenport is lying about having MS.   And
I provide evidence that supports that notion that if he is lying, it is to
gain sympathy and support for his "endurance" activities.  I have never
pretended to be anyone but myself, asking questions of public officials
(like the administration of the National Health System in Ireland) about
the rules and policies that govern advising people of test results, etc. 
I have asked other journalists who have written articles featuring
Davenport's claimed MS as to whether they simply took his word or have
other reason to believe the claim is true.  

 

Finally, I have publicly stated that if he provides evidence that he does
have MS, I will publicly apologize for my doubts.  

 

It's sort of bizarre.  If I understand correctly, your charge as an agency
is to deal with cases where genuine health records or information are
disclosed, in violation of various laws (like HIPA in the US).  In
Davenport's case, I am not revealing any records.  I am questioning the
veracity of a claim, a claim being made, in my view, for a deceptive and
fraudulent purpose.  I don't see how that is any different from publicly
disputing a claim of any other kind.. a sports achievement, financial
achievement, etc. etc.   If Donald Trump claims his worth 50 billion
dollars and I have reason to believe he is lying, he is the one who has
the power to provide evidence and demand an apology. In Davenport's case,
providing evidence of his MS would greatly strengthen the degree of
sympathy and admiration he would garner from his endurance activities. 

 

If Davenport has suffered any damage from my posting my doubts about his
MS, if he has lost work or something else, its not because he has MS, it's
because people would question his veracity.  And again, he alone has the
power to provide proof of his diagnosis.  

 

Just like Davenport's other claims (that, in my view, are fake) he claims
to have all the physical proof for all of them (traversing the coast of
Namibia undetected, having advanced degrees in Environmental Science and
Conservation Biology) but refuses to make that proof public because it
goes against his principle to be "forced" to provide it.  

 

You're a lawyer.  If your client was accused of fraud and then told you
that he had evidence to prove himself innocent but would not show it to
you on principle...you'd recommend he gets another lawyer. 

 

If my memory serves, one of the cases that gave rise to the policy of
"right to be forgotten" was a guy who had gone bankrupt and even though he
had discharged his bankruptcy was still being negatively impacted because
of an article about his bankruptcy that had not been updated to reflect
his current status.  He felt that a: he had no effective way of getting
the article removed or amended and b: had no way of knowing if people were
biased towards him because of the article. 

 

An obvious way to address this would be for Google to have a "flagging"
process whereby, with not too much hassle, a person could get Google to
"flag" an article (distinct typeface or color of typeface, etc.).   A
flagged article would mean that readers should not count on just that
article for a complete picture, but would be encouraged to seek more and
more timely information.  

 

The bankrupt guy had done the right thing and was trying to correct the
false impression of his financial status.  The Davenports have NEVER
addressed the well-documented frauds they have perpetrated on donors,
sponsors, the press, non-profits and individuals.  What they want is to
have the evidence of those frauds erased through your agency's process. 
Now, if there was new information, information like "Davenports admit
fraud and apologize" and that was not being found along with the evidence
of fraud, then they might have a case like the bankrupt guy.  But that is
not the case here.  The Davenports are "gaming" the system, falsely
casting themselves as victims when and seeking to convince your agency to
give them the informational equivalent of a "Get out of Jail" card. 
(That's a reference to the board game [1]Monopoly).  Perhaps a better
metaphor is that they are asking for an [2]indulgence, to have evidence of
their actions erased without having to confess the actions. 

 

Cheers. 

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

 

 

Från: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje
Skickat: den 29 augusti 2022 19:50
Till: 'Kent Madin' <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers DI-2021-5722 and
DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Hi Kent,

 

I have not forgotten about your case, but I do need a day more to give a
proper response. I find that I struggle with finding the right words in
English.

 

You might be interested in reading this:

 

[1]https://www.imy.se/en/news/the-swedish-d...

 

I will get back to you tomorrow.

 

Kind regards

 

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje

Senior Legal Counsel

Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY)

+46 8 657 61 10, [2]www.imy.se

 

IMY’s role is to uphold the protection of personal data, for example your
data about health and finances, monitoring that they are handled correctly
and do not fall into the wrong hands.

[3]This is how we process personal data

 

 

 

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[4][e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 25 augusti 2022 21:49
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[5][e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers DI-2021-5722 and
DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Regarding Ripley Davenport's health.  I just want to emphasize the point
that I have NEVER asked for medical records.  I have simply pointed out
the many objective facts that, in the absence of actual evidence of a
doctor's diagnosis, suggest that Davenport is lying about having MS.   And
I provide evidence that supports that notion that if he is lying, it is to
gain sympathy and support for his "endurance" activities.  I have never
pretended to be anyone but myself, asking questions of public officials
(like the administration of the National Health System in Ireland) about
the rules and policies that govern advising people of test results, etc. 
I have asked other journalists who have written articles featuring
Davenport's claimed MS as to whether they simply took his word or have
other reason to believe the claim is true.  

 

Finally, I have publicly stated that if he provides evidence that he does
have MS, I will publicly apologize for my doubts.  

 

It's sort of bizarre.  If I understand correctly, your charge as an agency
is to deal with cases where genuine health records or information are
disclosed, in violation of various laws (like HIPA in the US).  In
Davenport's case, I am not revealing any records.  I am questioning the
veracity of a claim, a claim being made, in my view, for a deceptive and
fraudulent purpose.  I don't see how that is any different from publicly
disputing a claim of any other kind.. a sports achievement, financial
achievement, etc. etc.   If Donald Trump claims his worth 50 billion
dollars and I have reason to believe he is lying, he is the one who has
the power to provide evidence and demand an apology. In Davenport's case,
providing evidence of his MS would greatly strengthen the degree of
sympathy and admiration he would garner from his endurance activities. 

 

If Davenport has suffered any damage from my posting my doubts about his
MS, if he has lost work or something else, its not because he has MS, it's
because people would question his veracity.  And again, he alone has the
power to provide proof of his diagnosis.  

 

Just like Davenport's other claims (that, in my view, are fake) he claims
to have all the physical proof for all of them (traversing the coast of
Namibia undetected, having advanced degrees in Environmental Science and
Conservation Biology) but refuses to make that proof public because it
goes against his principle to be "forced" to provide it.  

 

You're a lawyer.  If your client was accused of fraud and then told you
that he had evidence to prove himself innocent but would not show it to
you on principle...you'd recommend he gets another lawyer. 

 

If my memory serves, one of the cases that gave rise to the policy of
"right to be forgotten" was a guy who had gone bankrupt and even though he
had discharged his bankruptcy was still being negatively impacted because
of an article about his bankruptcy that had not been updated to reflect
his current status.  He felt that a: he had no effective way of getting
the article removed or amended and b: had no way of knowing if people were
biased towards him because of the article. 

 

An obvious way to address this would be for Google to have a "flagging"
process whereby, with not too much hassle, a person could get Google to
"flag" an article (distinct typeface or color of typeface, etc.).   A
flagged article would mean that readers should not count on just that
article for a complete picture, but would be encouraged to seek more and
more timely information.  

 

The bankrupt guy had done the right thing and was trying to correct the
false impression of his financial status.  The Davenports have NEVER
addressed the well-documented frauds they have perpetrated on donors,
sponsors, the press, non-profits and individuals.  What they want is to
have the evidence of those frauds erased through your agency's process. 
Now, if there was new information, information like "Davenports admit
fraud and apologize" and that was not being found along with the evidence
of fraud, then they might have a case like the bankrupt guy.  But that is
not the case here.  The Davenports are "gaming" the system, falsely
casting themselves as victims when and seeking to convince your agency to
give them the informational equivalent of a "Get out of Jail" card. 
(That's a reference to the board game [6]Monopoly).  Perhaps a better
metaphor is that they are asking for an [7]indulgence, to have evidence of
their actions erased without having to confess the actions. 

 

Cheers. 

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

3 Attachments

  • Attachment

    Jail time reference.jpg

    685K Download

  • Attachment

    OUtdoor type special forces 7 years 5.jpg

    242K Download

  • Attachment

    Karakum first North of Denmark watches.jpg

    85K Download

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 29 augusti 2022 23:30
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers DI-2021-5722
and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Hi Sigrid,

 

Thanks for sending that article.  I don't have a particular argument with
the process by which GDPR deals with Google.  I am not defending their
lack of timely response.   My concern is for the GDPR process and it
appears to me, that in an effort to do good, the process is badly flawed. 
In two different places, the article refers to the criteria for exclusion
from a Google search as "incorrect, irrelevant or superfluous" material. 
I contend that the content on my website, RipleyDavenport.net is NONE of
those things.  First, your agency cannot possibly have determined if the
information is "incorrect" without having a conversation with me.  That
would fly in the face of basic fairness and due diligence.  I knew nothing
of the complaints until I received the first notice from Google.  Second,
"irrelevant".. Really?   Irrelevant to whom?  The website contains
detailed information of ongoing fraud with documentation to support that
claim.  This is irrelevant?  Please inform the Davenports' landlord, Kim
Daa Bech Nielsen in Morud, Fyn, Denmark who is still owned a couple of
thousand USD in unpaid rent that the information which serves to warn
people about the Davenports is irrelevant.  And also Soren Braes, the
Danish owner of [1]Pilotur watches who gave Ripley Davenport thousands of
dollars of cash and high-end watches based on the [2]entirely fraudulent
website created by Laura and Ripley Davenport (see attached)T^.   That
fraudulent website convinced Mr. Braes that Ripley Davenport was a
"renowned explorer" of great experience and a "special forces" soldier in
the British Navy.  Those and 99% of the website are lies.  If you would
like to make the irrelevancy claim, I am happy to send you the list of
clients who paid Ripley and Laura Davenport over 7,000USD each to be
[3]"guided" on a trek across Mongolia only to discover that Ripley was
incompetent as an expedition leader and had NEVER led an expedition before
in his life.  That epiphany caused half the "team" to leave within the
first ten days in the field, literally concerned for their own safety.  I
could go on.  The list of people who would argue that well-documented
fraud by the Davenports is "irrelevant" to the public interest is a long
list and includes individuals, institutions, charities, the police and the
press.  

 

Thirdly, "superfluous".  This perhaps the only criteria, which by the
wildest stretchy of imagination, might apply.  There are parts of the
website that are repetitive and redundant.  It happens when you are a: new
to blogging and b: providing information and data and not a polished piece
of journalism.  

 

In my view, none of those criteria come close to being relevant to
ripleydavenport.net.  There is material on the website, lots of it, which
at first glance might seem defamatory. The material may in fact cause
damage to the Davenports' reputation but it is not defamatory unless it is
false.  (And in the US legal system, you have to KNOW the material is
false when you disseminate it).  I have been scrupulously careful to make
clear what material is supported by public documents, third-party facts
and interviews and what is speculation on my part, based on available
evidence.   And I would note that "defamatory" is NOT one of your stated
criteria for exclusion from Google. 

 

It is, for instance, simply a fact that the Davenports lied when they
claimed Ripley was a "British Special Forces Soldier for 7 years" (see
attached).  We know this is false because Davenport himself, in other
public postings describes how he joined the Royal Navy in 1990, then left
the Navy in 1992 and then briefly, in 1997, joined the RAF regiment but
failed to finish the first month or so of the training program and left. 
Davenport himself describes how he got in trouble with the law and spent
time in jail.  I have sources who knew him personally from 1992 on who
confirm that the jail time was between leaving the Royal Navy (1992) and
trying to join the RAF regiment (1997). (see attached)

 

A couple of other points.  First, have you personally seen the "form" that
Google provides to "dispute" a removal triggered by your agency?  It is
laughable.  You are allowed 250 characters (not words, characters, less
than allowed for a Tweet) to explain your reason for objecting to the
removal.  

 

So let's recap:

Anyone can make a complaint (as the Davenports have) and there is no
mechanism on your end to insure that the complaint is valid and based on
facts and that the complaint is actually from the person who supposedly
wrote it.  And then you have no mechanism for notifying the owner of the
website in question while conducting your "investigation" in a complete
vacuum of fairness.  And then when you make your decision the mechanism
for responding (when someone like me finally learns it is all happening)
is a complete Catch-22, an exercise in futility.  

 

I want to also note one bizarre statement in the link you sent me. 

 

"When Google removes a search result listing, it notifies the website to
which the link is directed in a way that gives the site-owner knowledge of
which webpage link was removed and who was behind the delisting request.
This allows the site-owner to re-publish the webpage in question on
another web address that will then be displayed in a Google search. This
in practice puts the right to delisting out of effect."

 

First, I would note that "who was behind the delisting request" is
confusing.  Is the author referring to GDPR making the request of Google
or the complainant who contacted GDPR?   But the next bit is what concerns
me.  GDPR conducts its investigation without notifying the "target" of the
investigation.  Then GDPR is concerned that Google (having no "legal
basis" for the action) advises the owner of the website that they have
been blocked.  And that this then will encourage the person who is blocked
to just post under a different URL.  So GDPR's preferred route here is
that people's websites are supposed to just vanish and leave the website
owners wondering what the heck happened?  Seriously?  Did anyone at GDPR
(looking at you, Olle Pettersson) consider that this system of GDPR's is
bound to encourage an endless game of "Whack-a-Mole", where people have no
recourse other than starting a new website, particularly if they a: feel
they have been treated unfairly and/or b: that have no idea why their
website disappeared.  ([4]Whack-a-Mole is a reference to an old arcade
game where you hold a hammer and "moles" pop up briefly from various holes
and you try to hit them before they go back into hiding)

 

WADR (with all due respect) I submit that the Davenports played GDPR, just
as they have historically played clients, donors, the press, the police,
etc.  

 

At some point in the creation of GDPR someone must have suggested that the
process out to include notification of the owner of the website in
question BEFORE telling Google to block it.  What the heck happened to
that common sense idea?  

 

I also want to address the impact of calling someone a "cyberstalker". 
This is a potent and repulsive epithet to throw at someone and most decent
people can't help but have their perspective biased, even unconsciously. 
An example of that insidious bias associated with "cyberstalker":  I live
in Bozeman, Montana.  On May 29th, 2015 I was asked by Special Agent
Shiloh Allen of the Bozeman office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) to come for a formal interview regarding Ripley and Laura
Davenport's allegations of cyberstalking, harassment, and invasion of
privacy.  I was glad to oblige.  I met with SA Allen for about an hour and
a half, answered every question, and offered him my password to my email
account and access to my computer.  He had a yellow legal pad practically
full of notes he had already taken and research he had done on the
allegation and my website.  At the end of the interview, as we shook
hands, he said "You know, when you first walked in, I thought you were the
bad guy".  

 

SA Allen made it crystal clear in his report to the US Attorney for
Montana that there was no evidence of cyberstalking, harassment, etc.  All
the Davenports had was hysterical but baseless claims of how they were
victims of a monster.  That dog don't hunt.

 

I believe I already sent you the complete report to the US Attorney for
Montana.  If not, let me know and I will send it.  And if my tone seems
annoyed at times, well, it is.  But nothing personal.  ;-)

 

Cheers   Kent

 

PS.  The Karakum/Pilotur image includes two of the Davenports' most
audacious lies, that he walked across the Karakum and the Namib desert. 
Complete bollocks.

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 30 augusti 2022 04:09
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers DI-2021-5722
and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

One other thing.  This
website, [1]https://www.kent-madin.com/,  specifically refers to GDPR's
investigation and the result.  This website is anonymous. It is NOT my
website (in spite of the fact that it claims "copyright" in my name". 
Anyone with a bit of time can compare the website content to other
websites created by the Davenports and determine who the author of this
anonymous website is.  The authors are Ripley and Laura Davenport. 

 

The website makes specific assertions about the GDPR process including
this reference: 

"A copy of the 10 page document from Lawyers for the Swedish Authority for
Privacy Protection (IMY) is available to official journalists, press and
investigative authorities on request."

 

Does such a document exist?  If so, I would like a copy.   Thanks.  Kent 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

2 Attachments

 

 

Från: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje
Skickat: den 7 september 2022 15:51
Till: 'Kent Madin' <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: SV: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers DI-2021-5722
and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Hi Kent,

 

I am not quite sure how to answer you. You have given me a lot of
information and you certainly have many valid points. The right to
integrity and the right to freedom of speech are two equally important
human rights and they are very difficult to balance against each other. We
do not take this task lightly. I enclose our decision against Google in
the Davenport matter. It is in Swedish. I have made a machine-translation
of the decision…. The translation is most likely very flawed but it will
give you a sense of the reasoning behind the decision.

 

Maybe this will shed some light on the matter?

 

Best regards,

 

 

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje

Senior Legal Counsel

Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY)

+46 8 657 61 10, [1]www.imy.se

 

IMY’s role is to uphold the protection of personal data, for example your
data about health and finances, monitoring that they are handled correctly
and do not fall into the wrong hands.

[2]This is how we process personal data

 

 

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[3][e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 30 augusti 2022 04:09
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[4][e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers DI-2021-5722
and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

One other thing.  This
website, [5]https://www.kent-madin.com/,  specifically refers to GDPR's
investigation and the result.  This website is anonymous. It is NOT my
website (in spite of the fact that it claims "copyright" in my name". 
Anyone with a bit of time can compare the website content to other
websites created by the Davenports and determine who the author of this
anonymous website is.  The authors are Ripley and Laura Davenport. 

 

The website makes specific assertions about the GDPR process including
this reference: 

"A copy of the 10 page document from Lawyers for the Swedish Authority for
Privacy Protection (IMY) is available to official journalists, press and
investigative authorities on request."

 

Does such a document exist?  If so, I would like a copy.   Thanks.  Kent 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

1 Attachment

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 7 september 2022 19:17
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers
DI-2021-5722 and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Hi Sigrid,

 

I assume this is the 10 page document" referenced at this
website: [1]https://www.kent-madin.com/.  I would note that I asked your
office (Emelie Hermansson) specifically for this document on July 1, 2022.
(see attached)

 

I am going to review the document and get back to you.  But as regards my
questions, here are some specific ones that I hope you can answer in the
meantime.

 

1. When the Davenports filed their complaint, were they required to
attest/affirm/swear that the substantial elements of the complaint were
true, under penalty of legal jeopardy for perjury or lying to a government
agency?

2.  What if any follow-up questions did your agency pose to the Davenports
regarding their complaint?  What if any documentation of confirmation of
the accuracy of their complaint did you request?

3. Has your agency ever reversed its demand of Google for blocking any
other website?  

 

 

As I have noted, the Davenports claimed to be victims of cyberstalking. 
This has been proven to be false, in five different police investigations,
long before the Davenports filed their complaint.  They have also claimed
that I am currently being investigated by the Garda in Ireland.  This is
also false and the Davenports knew it was false when they filed their
complaint. 

 

The person who announced to the world on his public websites that he has
MS is Davenport, not me.  As recently as a few months ago, Davenport was
including his claim to have MS in his attempt to run the length of
Sweden.  I have questioned his public claim, and have not provided any
detail about his illness (because there is none), just evidence that any
reasonable person would find sufficient to raise doubts about the claim of
having MS.  This should make any argument that the website reveals
Davenport's medical history entirely moot. 

 

Sincerely, Kent

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 13 september 2022 02:16
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers
DI-2021-5722 and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

HI Sigrid,  I apologize for being a squeaky wheel, but can I expect a
prompt answer to the three questions in my email attached?  My website is
censored, blacked-out to much of the world by your decision.  I would like
to move quickly to learn how and if I can change that decision. 

 

Thanks very much.   Kent

 

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

1 Attachment

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 7 september 2022 19:17
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers
DI-2021-5722 and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Hi Sigrid,

 

I assume this is the 10 page document" referenced at this
website: [1]https://www.kent-madin.com/.  I would note that I asked your
office (Emelie Hermansson) specifically for this document on July 1, 2022.
(see attached)

 

I am going to review the document and get back to you.  But as regards my
questions, here are some specific ones that I hope you can answer in the
meantime.

 

1. When the Davenports filed their complaint, were they required to
attest/affirm/swear that the substantial elements of the complaint were
true, under penalty of legal jeopardy for perjury or lying to a government
agency?

2.  What if any follow-up questions did your agency pose to the Davenports
regarding their complaint?  What if any documentation of confirmation of
the accuracy of their complaint did you request?

3. Has your agency ever reversed its demand of Google for blocking any
other website?  

 

 

As I have noted, the Davenports claimed to be victims of cyberstalking. 
This has been proven to be false, in five different police investigations,
long before the Davenports filed their complaint.  They have also claimed
that I am currently being investigated by the Garda in Ireland.  This is
also false and the Davenports knew it was false when they filed their
complaint. 

 

The person who announced to the world on his public websites that he has
MS is Davenport, not me.  As recently as a few months ago, Davenport was
including his claim to have MS in his attempt to run the length of
Sweden.  I have questioned his public claim, and have not provided any
detail about his illness (because there is none), just evidence that any
reasonable person would find sufficient to raise doubts about the claim of
having MS.  This should make any argument that the website reveals
Davenport's medical history entirely moot. 

 

Sincerely, Kent

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 18 september 2022 20:32
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers
DI-2021-5722 and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Hi Sigrid,  Still here.  Hoping for an answer to my questions: 

 

1. When the Davenports filed their complaint, were they required to
attest/affirm/swear that the substantial elements of the complaint were
true, under penalty of legal jeopardy for perjury or lying to a government
agency?

2.  What if any follow-up questions did your agency pose to the Davenports
regarding their complaint?  What if any documentation of confirmation of
the accuracy of their complaint did you request?

3. Has your agency ever reversed its demand of Google for blocking any
other website?  

 

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

 

 

Från: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje
Skickat: den 19 september 2022 08:25
Till: 'Kent Madin' <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: SV: SV: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers
DI-2021-5722 and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Hi Kent,

 

As far as I can tell, the Davenports were not asked to attest/Affirm/swear
that the substantial elements of their complaint was true. We do not have
that legal instrument in our proceedings. Nor did we see the need to ask
follow up questions regarding the accuracy of their complaint. We have, to
my knowledge, never reversed a decision regarding the right to be
forgotten.

 

I am not the one who has handled this particular case as I am not a case
handler. I work with the internal legal affairs of the agency. But this is
my understanding from the decision (of which I have e-mailed a copy to
you): Nobody is questioning the truth in your claims on your website. You
may very well be absolutely right. To my understanding the key question
here is weather or not the Davenports should forever be held accountable
for their previous, alleged, wrongdoings or if they should be allowed to
leave that part of their life behind.

 

It is not easy to balance the right to freedom of speech against the right
to privacy. I do, however, think that the reasoning in our decision
reflects that we did not take this balance-task lightly. But I do I
understand your frustration. I can imagine that the machine translation of
our decision is quite flawed. But I hope that it is possible to understand
how we arrived at the conclusion that we did.

 

Best regards

 

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje

Senior Legal Counsel

Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY)

+46 8 657 61 10, [1]www.imy.se

 

IMY’s role is to uphold the protection of personal data, for example your
data about health and finances, monitoring that they are handled correctly
and do not fall into the wrong hands.

[2]This is how we process personal data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[3][e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 18 september 2022 20:32
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[4][e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers
DI-2021-5722 and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Hi Sigrid,  Still here.  Hoping for an answer to my questions: 

 

1. When the Davenports filed their complaint, were they required to
attest/affirm/swear that the substantial elements of the complaint were
true, under penalty of legal jeopardy for perjury or lying to a government
agency?

2.  What if any follow-up questions did your agency pose to the Davenports
regarding their complaint?  What if any documentation of confirmation of
the accuracy of their complaint did you request?

3. Has your agency ever reversed its demand of Google for blocking any
other website?  

 

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 19 september 2022 16:22
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers
DI-2021-5722 and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Hi Sigrid,

Thanks for getting back to me.  I have Swedish friends and will endeavor
to have them help me ensure that the machine translation is not a problem.

 

I will be preparing a detailed response.  In short, it will make the case
that a: the Davenports are con artists (bedragare) and frauds and b: your
agency was conned.   

 

But one very pressing question which I hope you can answer soon.  "IF I
had somehow known that your adjudication process, based on Davenports'
complaint, was underway, would there have been any avenue for me to speak
in defense of keeping my website active on Google?"

 

Sincerely,

 

Kent

 

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

 

 

Från: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje
Skickat: den 20 september 2022 14:44
Till: 'Kent Madin' <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers
DI-2021-5722 and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Hi Kent,

 

It is my understanding that you would not be considered a party to the
case and that you would therefore not have been given an opportunity to
speak on your behalf. This also means that you can’t appeal our decision.

 

As I have stated before – nobody is questioning the truth in your claims.
The issue at hand is not whether or not you are right. The issue at hand
is whether or not this information about the Davenports should forever be
found on the internet. I am sure that one could put forward valid
arguments that the information on your website is still relevant and that
people should be able to find it. There are valid arguments against as
well.

 

Best regards,

 

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje

Senior Legal Counsel

Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY)

+46 8 657 61 10, [1]www.imy.se

 

IMY’s role is to uphold the protection of personal data, for example your
data about health and finances, monitoring that they are handled correctly
and do not fall into the wrong hands.

[2]This is how we process personal data

 

 

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[3][e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 19 september 2022 16:22
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[4][e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers
DI-2021-5722 and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Hi Sigrid,

Thanks for getting back to me.  I have Swedish friends and will endeavor
to have them help me ensure that the machine translation is not a problem.

 

I will be preparing a detailed response.  In short, it will make the case
that a: the Davenports are con artists (bedragare) and frauds and b: your
agency was conned.   

 

But one very pressing question which I hope you can answer soon.  "IF I
had somehow known that your adjudication process, based on Davenports'
complaint, was underway, would there have been any avenue for me to speak
in defense of keeping my website active on Google?"

 

Sincerely,

 

Kent

 

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

6 Attachments

  • Attachment

    1663680033313blob.jpg

    264K Download

  • Attachment

    1663681605101blob.jpg

    602K Download

  • Attachment

    Riprunssweden LinkedIn page.jpg

    95K Download

  • Attachment

    riprunssweden linkedin page 2.jpg

    75K Download

  • Attachment

    riprunssweden fb page.jpg

    83K Download

  • Attachment

    riprunssweden fb page image 2.jpg

    296K Download

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 20 september 2022 19:08
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers
DI-2021-5722 and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Hi Sigrid,

 

"It is my understanding that you would not be considered a party to the
case and that you would therefore not have been given an opportunity to
speak on your behalf. This also means that you can’t appeal our decision."

 

Are you familiar with the term in English "gobsmacked"?   You seem to be
telling me that a government agency of a Western democracy approaches
adjudication decisions from the baseline of "we don't care what is true or
false, we just listen to one side and believe it".  And my own work
product, my private property can be censored (and effectively erased from
public access) by government action and you say I am NOT a party to the
case?  These two things fly in the face of the most basic tenets of
western legal tradition and the concept of fundamental fairness.  With all
due respect, the actions of the GDPR resemble a [1]"Star Chamber", a court
where the judges make up the rules as they go along and there is no
requirement for fairness or equal representation, no recourse or appeal to
decisions, all driven by a nameless bureaucrat's subjectivity.

 

I realize that I am barking up a tree here, so I will let you go.  But
first, I would ask a favor (perhaps in service of the next person like me
who falls afoul of your agency).  Can you forward this entire string to
whoever made the decision and who produced those ten pages of legal word
salad?  

 

As I said, this is not an issue of whether Davenport has changed careers
and that makes everything he did before "irrelevant".  Your decision
recognizes that it IS journalism so you and Google agree.  The site is a
decade old, carefully constructed journalistic work by myself and several
others in collaboration. The message of the site is that the Davenports
are, in their character, dishonest perpetrators of multiple frauds.  It's
irrelevant that he was an explorer.  The point is that he and his wife
JOINTLY constructed fraudulent narratives in multiple realms over the span
of a decade.  The fact that he NOW claims to be a copywriter doesn't
change the documented history of dishonest, fraudulent behavior. And if
tomorrow, Davenport changes his mind and returns to being an "explorer",
will your agency rescind its decision?  As recently as this year he was
promoting himself again as an endurance
athlete.  [2]https://cphpost.dk/?p=126010  I spoke with the editor at
CPHpost.  Ripley took a photographer along to document the story, then
pitched the story to the paper in a clear act of self-promotion. And the
article contains mention of the [3]Kenmare Swim which the Davenports
FAKED.  The reporter at the Irish Mirror did not witness the swim, she
wrote the article based on a press release and interview with Ripley AFTER
the swim was over. [4]Here's the actual, researched, documented story.   
  

 

And then there is Riprunssweden (attached below) another endurance event
that Davenport actively promoted and which started in June, 2022.  He quit
four days in.  LOTS of people do endurance events and they don't create
Facebook pages and LinkedIn pages to advertise them.  The argument that
Davenport is just a simple copywriter who eschews the spotlight is not
supported by the evidence. 

 

The Davenports state in their claim that Ripley stopped being a public
speaker ten years ago.  This is false, he is actively listed
here: [5]https://thespeakersagency.com/speakers/r...

 

The evidence of the continuing relevance of ripleydavenport.net to the
public is in the possession of the GDPR in the form of the two complaint
letters.  They prove that the Davenports continue to lie and misrepresent
even when making a complaint to an official government body.  Calling me a
"cyberstalker" is an ad hominem attack with no legal or factual basis and
an allegation that has been explicitly investigated by five police
departments including the US FBI and officially rejected.  Claiming I am
under active investigation by the Garda in Ireland is also false and the
Davenports knew it was false when they wrote it.  Those two elements of
their complaint are designed to create an improper bias in the mind of the
reader. And given that "IMY states that there has been no reason to
question the complainant's information about the facts" (from the
decision), the effort to create bias is successful. 

 

The Davenports may not be politicians or doctors or entertainment
celebrities but not for lack of trying.  I could provide reams of
documents where the Davenports spun complete fantasies about "coming to
prominence" in the exploring world and "pushing the envelope of desert
exploration" but I'll just present this Wikipedia page.  This page is now
gone and didn't last long.  Wikipedia recognized it as unsubstantiated
self-promotion. But the content speaks volumes about the length to which
the Davenports falsely promoted Ripley as a celebrity.  A Wikipedia page
is the definition of "celebrity" these days. 

 

[6]Inline image

Ripley did NOT serve as a "combat paramedic".  He was in the British
Military for just a little over two years, not seven. He did not cross the
Karakum or Namib Deserts.  Tim Lavery fired Ripley from Explore Foundation
after less than a year, for lying and fraud.  Ripley's "motivational"
speeches were about imaginary expeditions like Karakum and Namib, which he
never actually did. (We have film of him speaking to the Copenhagen Rotary
using slides of "desert exploration" that are NOT him).  But the most
telling item is the last one regarding Ripley meeting Laura, his wife:
"Who met him when she attended one of his lectures".  We have two sources
who knew the Davenports shortly after they met.  One understood from
conversations with them that they met on a dating website.  The other
understood they met at a bar.  

 

Laura Davenport published the attached blog post in July of 2010.  In it
she describes buying a ticket (a paid presentation in a hotel would
require renting a room from the hotel and a record of that transaction)
and watching Ripley's slide show about Namibia.  Except we know for a fact
that Ripley never went to Namibia.  The journalists at Politiken who
published [7]the article about Ripley made every effort to find
corroboration of a pay-per-view slide show about Namibia by Ripley
Davenport in a downtown Copenhagen hotel in the time frame Laura
describes.  They could find no evidence that it happened and the
Davenports have never offered any evidence. 

 

So this isn't just some poor wife going along with her husband's
fraudulent plan.  This is evidence (and there is much more) that the
Davenports have consistently conspired together to promote these frauds.  

[8]Inline image

Again, the website's message, which the public should have access to, is
that these people are serial liars and frauds and there is NO evidence
that has changed, regardless of what new career path they choose. I can
say it hasn't changed by pointing to these websites all created within the
last year.  

[9]https://twitter.com/thebozemantroll  

[10]https://www.kent-madin.com/, 

[11]https://web.archive.org/web/202107091318...

[12]https://www.kentmadintroll.com/ , 

[13]https://thebozemantroll.tumblr.com/  

These sites are cowardly in their pretense of anonymity. They contain
multiple falsehoods, smears and lies including intentional
misrepresentations of GDPR's decision.

 

And, now, thanks to your agency, the Davenports are gratuitously
misrepresenting your decision saying things like "sensitive user data was
apparently obtained under false pretences" or " Swedish Data Protection
Authority: Madin not a journalist". You have literally validated the
Davenport's history of fraud and defamation by sweeping it under the rug
and handing them ammunition to continue to make false, harassing claims.

Regarding the use of Ripley Davenport's name in the URL
ripleydavenort.net. The Davenports capitalized on the cheap, extensive
reach of their own websites (including ripleydavenport.com and
ripley-davenport.com) to spread fraudulent claims to untold numbers of
readers. The thrust of my planned article is not just an expose of a
couple of tin-horn grifters. It addresses the question of whether the very
structure of the internet, when used by grifters to promote fraud, can
also be used within the strictures of investigative journalism to unravel
and expose that fraud and whether private citizens can accomplish the task
on their own. Using Davenport's name in the URL is the obvious way to
achieve some kind of parity in terms of outreach to the internet. Parity
with the fraudulent websites using that same name. It's a billboard on the
cyber-highway, looking for sources of information on the Davenports and
providing access to that information to the public. And let's be clear,
there is NO COMMERCIAL element to ripleydavenport.net. It was created as
and will remain a site for public journalism no subscription needed, no
advertising. And the Davenports have never once provided actual facts to
disprove any of the conclusions found at the website.

An example of careful, cooperative research is the [14]debunking of the
Davenports Flickr page. I was collaborating with a former neighbor of the
Davenports, someone who had also suspected they were frauds. We had been
able to do reverse image searches on some of the images the Davenports
posted on their websites and show that they were scraped from other
websites. When the Flikr site came out, we reverse searched those images
but couldn't find some of the images. Then the neighbor had an idea. Laura
Davenport is Lithuanian and speaks Russian. Maybe image searching on
Google.ru would produce additional results. We immediately found the three
photographs purporting to show the Thar Desert and linked them to
originals at a Russian tourist's travel blog. We also found pictures of
Namibia, also stolen from other websites.

Google got it right. Ripleydavenport.net is a valid citizen-journalism
site with continuing relevance to the public. GDPR's decision tramples on
the basic tenets of free speech.

You should reverse your decision. There's a first time for everything.
Even government institutions can be conned.

Sigrid, please do me the courtesy of forwarding this to the person
responsible for the decision. Thanks very much.

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

2 Attachments

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 24 september 2022 21:39
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers
DI-2021-5722 and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

One more question about what GDPR can do and then I will really leave you
alone.

 

Can I report the following website to your agency and ask they be
removed?  Can I do that even if not a resident of the EU?  These are all
websites owned by the Davenports and yes, I can absolutely, slam dunk,
prove it.  

 

[1]https://www.kent-madin.com/

 

[2]https://thebozemantroll.tumblr.com/

 

Thanks.  Kent

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

2 Attachments

 

 

Från: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje
Skickat: den 26 september 2022 08:03
Till: 'Kent Madin' <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers
DI-2021-5722 and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Hi Kent!

 

No worries – you do not have to “leave me alone”. I fully understand your
frustration. If I have been slow in responding to your e-mails it is
merely because I get so many e-mails during a work day that I find it hard
to find the time for a swift response.

 

I actually don’t know the answer to your question – but I shall ask those
of my colleagues who know more about these so called “the right to be
forgotten”-cases.

 

Get back you soon,

 

 

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje

Senior Legal Counsel

Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY)

+46 8 657 61 10, [1]www.imy.se

 

IMY’s role is to uphold the protection of personal data, for example your
data about health and finances, monitoring that they are handled correctly
and do not fall into the wrong hands.

[2]This is how we process personal data

 

 

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[3][e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 24 september 2022 21:39
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[4][e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers
DI-2021-5722 and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

One more question about what GDPR can do and then I will really leave you
alone.

 

Can I report the following website to your agency and ask they be
removed?  Can I do that even if not a resident of the EU?  These are all
websites owned by the Davenports and yes, I can absolutely, slam dunk,
prove it.  

 

[5]https://www.kent-madin.com/

 

[6]https://thebozemantroll.tumblr.com/

 

Thanks.  Kent

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

2 Attachments

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 26 september 2022 18:16
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers
DI-2021-5722 and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Thanks.  A breath of humanity from the heart of bureaucracy. 

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

2 Attachments

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 28 september 2022 16:14
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Fw: SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers
DI-2021-5722 and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Hi Sigrid, 

At this page you will find a recommended format for registering a request
to "be
forgotten": [1]https://gdpr.eu/right-to-be-forgotten/#:...
Please note the Declaration:

 

SECTION 6: Declaration

Please note that any attempt to mislead may result in prosecution.

I confirm that I have read and understood the terms of this subject access
form and certify that the information given in this application to
______________ is true. I understand that it is necessary for
________________ to confirm my/the data subject’s identity and it may be
necessary to obtain more detailed information in order to locate the
correct personal data.

Signed: ………………………………………… Date: ……………..

Did the Davenports "certify" that the contents of their request was true? 
And if so, what mechanism is available to me to request a review of the
application from the Davenports so that I can point out the false claims
in the request?  

 

"Please note that any attempt to mislead may result in prosecution"

 

The Davenports declared me a "cyberstalker", a criminal under active
police investigation, that Ripley was no longer a speaker.  They also
declared they contacted me "on many occasions" to close my site.  These
statements are all false and clearly intended to bias the reader.  That
the IMY staff simply believed this at face value is truly alarming and
depressing.  Tell the staff member who processed this claim I can give him
a super cheap price on the Brooklyn Bridge. ;-)

 

Although your office provided me copies of the two "complaints" by the
Davenports, they did not provide a copy of anything that resembles Section
6.  Can you confirm that no effort was made to require a truthful
statement?  

 

Cheers.  Kent

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

3 Attachments

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 6 oktober 2022 16:41
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers
DI-2021-5722 and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

[1]www.facebook.com/piloturdk/Hi Sigrid,

 

I have been informed by Google (see below) that my new
site, [2]https://www.ripleydavenport-earledeblonv..., has been block
from Google Search by a GDPR request.  See below.  Can you confirm that
this is a request by IMY?

 

If it is a request by IMY I would appreciate receiving copies of the
complaint(s) filed, as per law, and a copy of the decision.  I can do the
translation from Swedish myself if that saves you some time.

 

I don't know if you are familiar with the term "dog with a bone".  I am
sure there is a colorful Swedish
equivalent.  [3]https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/d...
Anyhow, that's me. 

 

I have pursued this broad story of internet fraud for nearly a decade.  In
the process, I have made multiple Freedom of Information (FOI) requests in
both the US and Australia.  It is a time-consuming but ultimately very
fruitful endeavor.  Much of the evidence of the Davenports' (and Earle de
Blonville's) history of fraud is borne out in those documents. 

 

I assume that Sweden has a similar system to FOI and that IMY is subject
to requests.   I am prepared to sit back, put on the coffee and wait.  

 

At this point (and this is nothing personal) the evidence in front of me
suggests that IMY has a deeply flawed process that can and has, in the
Davenport case, been abused.  The glaring concerns are:

1. Unlike the recommended format for complaints from GDPR itself, which
include a requirement to affirm the truth of the complaint, IMY makes no
such requirement.  This is flabbergasting.  Virtually every online
contract, complaint form (google, twitter, DMCA violations), REQUIRES that
the person complaining or reporting abuse affirms, under penalty of legal
prosecution that the contents are true.  The absence of this requirement
is an invitation to fraud on the IMY.  It's a no-brainer (lätt som en
plätt) .  I would urge the IMY to adopt such a policy.  It mostly protects
IMY and would be cheap, defensible and easy to fraud filter implement.

 

2. I think IMY was defrauded and deceived by the Davenports and IMY seems
to have no mechanism to actually review and act on mistakes and bad
decisions made under those conditions or allegations.  As the decision
says (and I point out) both Google and IMY recognize my site as journalism
but IMY dismisses that value and instead focuses on the criteria of 
"irrelevant" and the unchallenged assertion by Davenports that Ripley is
no longer an explorer and public speaker.  (Putting aside the fact that he
never was those things, he was a PRETEND and FRAUDLENT explorer and public
speaker) it begs the question of what happens if Ripley suddenly decides,
tomorrow,  that he is going to go BACK to being a public speaker and
explorer and give up copywriting?  I hope that simple question helps point
out the gauzy reasoning behind the decision.  Because suddenly, all that
work and documentation WOULD BE relevant.  Anyone; any person any
institution can be scammed and conned and fooled.  And the measure of the
integrity of anyone who has been scammed is their ability to acknowledge
that it happened, that it is not a default of their character and to be
willing to both rectify any damage done (even if it results in
institutional embarrassment) and also cooperate to see that others are not
scammed and defrauded in the future.  [4]Soren Braes of Pilotur, a Danish
manufacturer of high-end pilot and adventure watches was defrauded by the
Davenports.  He gave them thousands of dollars of watches to distribute to
the paying members of his guided tour across [5]the Gobi in 2011.  Soren
gave Ripley thousands of dollars in direct support and was the primary
"sponsor" of Ripley's 2010 solo "walk" across Mongolia.  The understanding
was that after the expedition, in return, Davenport would do a series of
lectures and promotional events promoting the Pilotur brand.  Instead, the
Davenports quickly erased the website [6]mongolia2010.com, moved from
Denmark to Ireland still owing thousands of kroner in back home and car
rental (they gave the landlord a fake address in Canada, where they
claimed to have moved but didn't), and Davenport completed abandoned his
responsibilities to Soren and Pilotur. Yes, I have the emails and
documentation.  But in contrast to sadly, many others when faced with the
reality of being taken for a fool and defrauded, humiliated and/or robbed,
Soren's comment an honest and simple "My eyes are no longer blue".  I
think you have a similar phrase in Swedish.

 

3. A small item but one that speaks volumes to the utter failure of IMY to
vet complaints.  Both letters to IMY are from one person's email address
(laura davenport) and signed by another (Ripley Davenport).  It strains
credulity to imagine that Ripley Davenport, a person with MUCH internet
communication history, a "copywriter" who does much of his work online
through email, does not have his own email address.  As you stated, there
was no follow-up to the complaints.  They were taken at face value and
acted upon.  In other words, you have no actual proof that the complaints
came from Ripley Davenport (or for that matter, from Laura Davenport since
anyone can go to a free email program and create a new email address under
any name).  This all speaks to an incredibly lazy or sloppy procedure at
IMY and one that is easily abused.

 

Back to the FOI question.  I am formally asking that we skip past the
paperwork and that your office provide me with ALL documentation
(including any internal correspondence) related to the issue of blocking
ripleydavenport.net.  This is what I will be asking for in the FOI when I
file it.  We could save a lot of time and IMY could demonstrate some
interest balance and responsiveness, by making those documents available
without all the lengthy process.  

 

At the end of the day, I may be a somewhat annoying old retired guy in
Montana.  But my track record is clear.  After the Davenports and de
Blonville poisoned the "journalism well" for me, making it impossible for
me to be the direct author of a story because they have impugned my
integrity, mental health, sexual orientation, etc. with the cyberstalking
canard, I was still able to get a total of 6 articles published, working
with established journalists and getting the story of the fraud out.  I
have found a formula that works.  There is a Swedish journalist out there
with a background on the GDPR issue (maybe more than one) who may take an
interest in this particular story and swing the spotlight onto IMY.  Maybe
not.  I may strike out in Sweden.  But having the documentation at hand is
the first step in that process and I am a dog with a bone.

 

I look forward to receiving those copies of the most recent complaints and
the decision document by IMY.  I am also more than happy to discuss this
issue by phone or with someone in your agency that you feel is better
situated to address the issue.  I appreciate your responsiveness and
pleasant professionalism.

 

Sincerely,

 

Kent

[7]Inline image

 

 

 

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

3 Attachments

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 7 oktober 2022 19:11
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers
DI-2021-5722 and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Additional evidence that the Davenports were not truthful with the IMY. 
They claim that Ripley is no longer a "public speaker" but as recently as
today, a Google search of "Ripley Davenport Public Speaker" still leads
with this link describing him as "explorer and motivational speaker,
Ripley Davenport".  If you click on the link, you get a "page not found"
response.  But the page was still active on September 26 and only
disappeared after I published a link to the page on my new website a few
days ago.  In other words, the Davenports made NO effort to actually
delink themselves from his "career" as a public speaker even as they were
making that claim to the
IMY.  [1]https://web.archive.org/web/202209261952...

 

Kent 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

3 Attachments

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 7 oktober 2022 22:27
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers
DI-2021-5722 and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

[1]http://ripleydavenport.net/speaker.htm

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

4 Attachments

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 7 oktober 2022 23:40
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers
DI-2021-5722 and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

This is a screen print from Ripley Davenport's personal webpage dated
December 7, 2021, nearly six months AFTER his second complaint/request
letter of June 25, 2021 to the IMY when he claimed he was no longer a
public speaker and stated "I'm not giving any public speaking as the
website states. I stopped this career path 10 years ago."

 

If you search ripleydavenport.com at archive.org you will find that there
are multiple versions of this page with the earliest archived version on
February 23, 2015.  

 

This is hard to square with the claim, in 2021, that he "stopped that
career path 10 years ago".  

[1]Inline image

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[1][e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 8 oktober 2022 19:36
Till: Stina Almström <[2][e-postadress]>
Ämne: Inconsistency in "request for erasure" applications requirements

 

Dear. Ms. Almstrom,

 

I have become aware of the IMY policy for receiving complaints/requests
from individuals for "right to erasure" or "right to be forgotten".  IMY
does NOT require an applicant to affirm that their statement requesting
"erasure" (or blocking of Google search results) is truthful.  This
differs from the suggested template for such requests at the GDPR
website: [3]https://gdpr.eu/right-to-erasure-request... This policy
of disregarding the truth of a statement to IMY is inconsistent with
virtually all similar forms filed online (Google, DMCA, etc.).  It also
seems inconsistent with essential prudence regarding legal exposure for
all parties.  And it flies in the face of basic principles of fairness
when a false statement can trigger the virtual "destruction" by your
agency of my private property.

 

This seems like an egregious error on the part of IMY which opens the door
to abuse of the system.  

 

My website, a journalism/blog site, was recently blocked on orders of your
agency, IMY, based upon complaint/requests made that are rife with
demonstrably false claims.  I have read both the two complaints filed and
your agency's decision.  The logic behind the decision is deeply flawed
and founded on false statements.  In fact, those false claims are a
continuation of the serial fraud that my website has documented over the
last decade.  A documented history of fraud is something that the public
should have access to.  And IMY seems to have no mechanism for verifying
the truth of claims before taking action.  And I have no recourse to your
decision.  

 

I hope you can provide me with some explanation of how the IMY reporting
and decision-making process is justified and fair, given that (at least in
this instance) your decision was based on fraudulent claims. 

 

Sincerely,

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[e-postadress]
2. mailto:[e-postadress]
3. https://gdpr.eu/right-to-erasure-request...

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

3 Attachments

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 10 oktober 2022 18:43
Till: Stina Almström <[e-postadress]>; Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje
<[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: Inconsistency in "request for erasure" applications requirements

 

Ms. Almstrom,

I have attached the two requests for erasure filed by Ripley and Laura
Davenport.  These complaints resulted in your agency blocking my
decade-long project to document ongoing fraud by the Davenports.  The
requests have many false and disingenuous statements:

1.  I am not a "cyberstalker".  This is a tired, false canard that the
Davenports shout from their various websites.  FIVE police agencies have
investigated the allegation and found them baseless and without evidence.

2.  Laws in Montana are perfectly strong.  The Bozeman Police investigated
and determined there was no evidence to support a prosecution.  [1]So did
the FBI who specifically described my activities as consistent with
investigative journalism.

3. There is NO criminal case pending in Ireland.  There was a brief
investigation instigated by the Davenports. The Garda NEVER contacted me
and closed the investigation on March 31, 2016 (FIVE years before the
request was submitted) with no action taken.  I have the email from the
State Solicitor confirming that information.

4. The second request claims that Davenport is no longer an "explorer" or
"public speaker" but months after submitting the request to IMY Davenport
still maintained TWO personal websites that described him as an explorer
and listed his accomplishments.  Those websites also had contact
information for how to hire him as a public speaker.  This information is
readily available at archive.org [2]here and here.  Even today, a search
on "Ripley Davenport Speaker" produces this record in Google:

 [3]Inline image

 

5. The Davenports claim that he gave up public speaking 10 years ago.  The
archive record is clear.  Davenport was listed with an agent who arranges
speaking engagements starting in 2012 and still active a week ago.

6. On January 8, 2021, six months after the first request letter, archived
copies of Ripley Davenport's personal website show him claiming [4]to have
swum the "Kenmare River".  This is a fraud, an ongoing fraud even after
Davenport has made his request.  [5]The swim did not happen.  It was an
elaborately faked effort to promote Davenport as an explorer and endurance
athlete.  

 

My site is a carefully researched record of the Davenports' serial
activity as frauds and liars.  THAT is the information that the public has
a right to see.  Whether he was an explorer or a car salesman or a circus
clown is irrelevant.  The serial nature of the Davenports' fraudulent
activity CONTINUES to this day with the fraudulent statements made to
IMY.  

 

Finally, I happen to know another genuine explorer named Louis Phillipe
Locke.  He is also a "DPO/Privacy professional in Belgium." and very
familiar with GDPR regulations.

 

He suggests I provide you with this
link: [6]https://www.louis-philippe-loncke.com/20...

 

NOTE: one of the commentators, the one mentioning a miscarriage, although
anonymous here, is a source that I know and have vetted.  She reached out
to me after finding ripleydavenport.net.  I can provide her emails that
confirm her comments.

 

Finally, please look at this site: [7]https://www.kent-madin.com/. 
 Although it is anonymous, it is clearly the work of Ripley and Laura
Davenport.  Note that they even try to make me the copyright holder!!

The site is a mirror of the same old, tired, false claims that can be
found here in many forms:

[8]https://web.archive.org/web/201404211503...

[9]https://web.archive.org/web/202107160215...

[11]https://web.archive.org/web/202201301700...
  

[12]https://web.archive.org/web/202103111452...
(This directly links Davenport.  It is from his personal site)

[13]https://thebozemantroll.tumblr.com/  

[14]https://twitter.com/thebozemantroll

 

I look forward to hearing from you with an explanation of how your agency
can, in good conscience, rely on false claims to damage my personal
property and deprive the public of important and continuously relevant
information about the Davenports. 

 

Kent Madin

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    1665417927236blob.jpg.png

    344K Download

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 11 oktober 2022 21:48
Till: Stina Almström <[e-postadress]>; Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje
<[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: Inconsistency in "request for erasure" applications requirements

 

Dear Stina and Sigrid,

 

I'm baack! 

 

I would draw your attention to this statement [1]from this official EU
website. 

 

Data do not have to be deleted

Your company/organisation runs an online newspaper. One of your
journalists publishes a story on how a politician had laundered money in
off-shore banks. The politician requests to remove the story because his
personal data is being processed. Since the personal data is used to
exercise the right of freedom of expression, your company/organisation is,
 in principle, not obliged to delete such data. However, this will depend
on the national legislation in place.

 

My organization (Kent) runs a journalism site/blog that chronicles a
decade-long history of serial fraud by two people, Ripley and Laura
Davenport, who actively conspired for nearly ten years to gain celebrity
and public notoriety.  They literally created a website describing Ripley
Davenport as a "renowned explorer", "humanitarian", "[2]pushing the
envelope of desert exploration and adventure", "Ripley is an Inspirational
Ambassador for i2P, impossible2Possible, sponsored athlete for the
Endurance Trust and a Brand Ambassador for Termo Original. In 2011 he was
honoured with Fellowship at the Royal Geographical Society.".  "[3]He is
well known for his expeditions in the Mongolian Gobi Desert."  

 

"[4]Ripley Davenport, FRGS, remains a pioneering figure in pushing the
envelope

of desert exploration and adventure. For over a decade, Ripley has looked
to

the world beyond his horizon and endeavoured to engage with it.

His experience and understanding of surviving in harsh conditions across
the

arid and isolated regions of the world has made him one of today’s most

renowned desert explorers."

 

 

The Davenports have aggressively sought to do public interviews where the
false story of being an explorer and speaker was reinforced and promoted. 
They have actively sought press coverage for their activities as examples
of what someone with Multiple Sclerosis can achieve in spite of there
being no evidence that Ripley actually has MS.  

 

In 2015 Ripley Davenport volunteered as a "rescue swimmer" on a privately
funded ship pulling refugees from the Mediterranean.  Ripley lied about
his credentials.  He also FAILED to tell anyone that he has MS (a
critically important piece of information for his safety and that of the
crew and refugees given the nature of "rescue swimming").  He was
discovered and tossed off the ship after a few weeks.  His faked
credentials and desire for fame arguably put people's lives at risk.  This
is all well documented.   The public, no matter what line of "work" 
Ripley "says" he is now doing, deserve to know that they might be hiring
or otherwise dealing with someone who so cravenly sought fame and
recognition  that put multiple people in danger of losing their lives.  He
wasn't qualified, didn't have the training and it became apparent to the
qualified crew on
board.  [5]https://www.independent.com.mt/articles/...

 

These guys may not be politicians or celebrities in the traditional sense
but not for lack of consistent effort on their part to position themselves
as famous.  The decision to ignore the journalism merits and value to the
public of the Davenports' story is a mistake. 

 

Cheers. 

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

4 Attachments

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 12 oktober 2022 02:34
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: Regarding Decisions made in Case numbers
DI-2021-5722 and DI2020-9103 Ripley/Laura Davenport

 

Sigrid,

If you scroll down [1]this page you will find this statement: "My speaking
agent - You have been a solid rock and supportive all through the years.
Your kind words echo in my head."  This statement was publicly active on
April 10, 2019 just two years before the Davenports claimed that Ripley
gave up being a public speaker "10 years ago".  

You and the IMY decision maker have EVIDENCE in front of you that the
Davenports deceived and intentionally misled you.  

 

Kent Madin

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

2 Attachments

 

Från: Kent Madin <[1][e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 14 oktober 2022 19:00
Till: Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY <[2][IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]>
Ämne: Re: SV: Attn: Ms. Hermannson regarding ( IMY-2022-4528)

 

Dear Registrar,

 

As you can see below, you previously provided me copies of the
"complaints" filed by Ripley and Laura Davenport regarding my website,
ripleydavenport.net.

 

According to Google another website of
mine, [3]https://www.ripleydavenport-earledeblonv... now also
been blocked on a GDPR request.  I assume this is the work of your
agency.  I attach a screenprint of the Google advisory.

 

As with the previous case of ripleydavenport.net I would like to request
copies of the IMY decision
regarding [4]https://www.ripleydavenport-earledeblonv... copies
of all correspondence, including the complaint/request that your agency
responded to.  As with the previous case, these are public documents to
which I have right to view.

 

Cheers.  

 

Kent Madin

 

[5]Inline image

 

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 06:22:52 AM MDT,
Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY <[6][IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]> wrote:

 

 

Hi,

 

Please find the complaint files attached. Some information has been
masked. You have the right to ask for an appealable decision.

 

 

Registrar

Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY)

+46 8 657 61 00, [7]www.imy.se

 

[8]cid:image001.png@01D6E4DA.007CF140

 

IMY’s role is to uphold the protection of personal data, for example your
data about health and finances, monitoring that they are handled correctly
and do not fall into the wrong hands.

[9]This is how we process personal data

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[10][e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 8 augusti 2022 17:43
Till: Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY <[11][IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]>
Ämne: Attn: Ms. Hermannson regarding ( IMY-2022-4528)

 

I would refer you to this part of your page describing the complaint
process.  As I understand it, a complaint was filed against me.  According
to your website, all the documents in that complaint are public.  I would
like a copy of the complaint. 

[12]https://www.imy.se/en/individuals/forms-...

 

"Public document

Everything you submit to us becomes a public document. If someone requests
the document, we conduct a confidentiality assessment to determine whether
the information is to be classified as confidential or not. We then decide
if the information can be disclosed in whole or in part. Public documents
must, as a main rule, be archived in its entirety."

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[e-postadress]
2. mailto:[IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]
3. https://www.ripleydavenport-earledeblonv...
4. https://www.ripleydavenport-earledeblonv...
6. mailto:[IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]
7. https://www.imy.se/
9. https://www.imy.se/privacy-notice
10. mailto:[e-postadress]
11. mailto:[IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]
12. https://www.imy.se/en/individuals/forms-...

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

1 Attachment

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[1][e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 14 oktober 2022 19:01
Till: Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY <[2][IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]>
Ämne: Re: SV: Attn: Ms. Hermannson regarding ( IMY-2022-4528)

 

Hi there.  Please refer to the attached correspondence.  I have never
received an answer as to how I can appeal the decision.   Please advise. 

 

Kent Madin

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

 

 

Från: Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY <[IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]>
Skickat: den 17 oktober 2022 11:17
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: VB: Formal request for documents related to a recent IMY decision
regarding Google Search results

 

 

 

Från: kentmadin <[1][e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 15 oktober 2022 17:56
Till: Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY <[2][IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]>
Ämne: Formal request for documents related to a recent IMY decision
regarding Google Search results

 

I received a notice from Google that my
website, [3]https://www.ripleydavenport-earledeblonv..., has been
blocked from Google searches by order of a GDPR entity.  I am pretty darn
sure that it was IMY. 

I am requesting copies of the documents that the public has right to in
these instances: the text of the IMY decision and copies of the
request/complaint that triggered the decision. 

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

+1-406-595-2310

 

Sent with [4]Proton Mail secure email.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[e-postadress]
2. mailto:[IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]
3. https://www.ripleydavenport-earledeblonv...
4. https://proton.me/

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

1 Attachment

 

 

Från: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje
Skickat: den 17 oktober 2022 12:54
Till: Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY <[IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]>
Ämne: SV: SV: Attn: Ms. Hermannson regarding ( IMY-2022-4528)

 

Dear Mr Madin,

 

I think there has been a misunderstanding here. You did receive an
appealable decision. But that was regarding our decision not disclose all
the information in the documents you received. You can not appeal our
decision against google as I have tried to explain.

 

Best regards,

 

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje

Senior Legal Counsel

Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY)

+46 8 657 61 10, [1]www.imy.se

 

IMY’s role is to uphold the protection of personal data, for example your
data about health and finances, monitoring that they are handled correctly
and do not fall into the wrong hands.

[2]This is how we process personal data

 

 

 

 

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[3][e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 14 oktober 2022 19:01
Till: Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY <[4][IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]>
Ämne: Re: SV: Attn: Ms. Hermannson regarding ( IMY-2022-4528)

 

Hi there.  Please refer to the attached correspondence.  I have never
received an answer as to how I can appeal the decision.   Please advise. 

 

Kent Madin

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    1665417927236blob.jpg.png

    344K Download

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 17 oktober 2022 14:49
Till: Stina Almström <[e-postadress]>; Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje
<[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: Inconsistency in "request for erasure" applications requirements

 

Dear Stina and Sigrid,

 

With all due respect, I hope to hear back from one of you soon.  I have
tried to call your phone number at IMY but in order to connect, I would
have to wake up at 1 am.  I will do that if needed but hope that you can
respond to my various questions in a more humane time frame.

 

Here's my request:

1. As a US Citizen can I request to be forgotten i.e., to ask IMY to tell
Google to remove from search results the following: Kent-madin.com,
thebozemantroll.tumblr.com, Twitter account @thebozemantroll?

2. It appears your agency directed Google to drop another website of mine
from Google searches, ripleydavenport-earledeblonville.com.   I would like
copies of the request letter that triggered your action and a copy of the
official decision.

 

As I have said before, the information you received from the Davenports
regarding ripleydavenport.net was disingenuous and ridden with intentional
falsehoods.  An agency that fails to do minimum due diligence in regard to
the accuracy of the data it bases consequential decisions upon is not
doing its job properly. 

 

If there is some explanation for this apparent failure of basic fairness,
please explain.  

 

Sincerely,

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

1 Attachment

 

 

Från: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje
Skickat: den 17 oktober 2022 15:12
Till: 'Kent Madin' <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: SV: Inconsistency in "request for erasure" applications requirements

 

Dear Mr Madin,

 

A request to be forgotten is made with Google. As I understand it each
country has its own search engine an one would have to make a request with
Google in each relevant country. One would first have to make this request
to be forgotten with Google. And if Google does not grant your request to
be forgotten – then you can file a complaint with a data protection agency
in the relevant country.

 

The territorial scope of the General Data Protection Regulation is stated
in art 3:

 

“1.   This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data in the
context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a
processor in the Union, regardless of whether the processing takes place
in the Union or not.

2.   This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data
subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established
in the Union, where the processing activities are related to:

(a) the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment
of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union;
or

 

(b) the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes
place within the Union.

3.   This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data by a
controller not established in the Union, but in a place where Member State
law applies by virtue of public international law.”

 

IMY has not handled any further complaints from the Davenports besides the
one that you have received a copy of. If Google has chosen to grant a
request to be forgotten they have done so without the involvement of IMY.

 

We do not have any further explanation regarding our decision in the
Davenport case. Our reasoning is stated in the decision itself.

 

Best regards,

 

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje

Senior Legal Counsel

Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY)

+46 8 657 61 10, [1]www.imy.se

 

IMY’s role is to uphold the protection of personal data, for example your
data about health and finances, monitoring that they are handled correctly
and do not fall into the wrong hands.

[2]This is how we process personal data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[3][e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 17 oktober 2022 14:49
Till: Stina Almström <[4][e-postadress]>; Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje
<[5][e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: Inconsistency in "request for erasure" applications requirements

 

Dear Stina and Sigrid,

 

With all due respect, I hope to hear back from one of you soon.  I have
tried to call your phone number at IMY but in order to connect, I would
have to wake up at 1 am.  I will do that if needed but hope that you can
respond to my various questions in a more humane time frame.

 

Here's my request:

1. As a US Citizen can I request to be forgotten i.e., to ask IMY to tell
Google to remove from search results the following: Kent-madin.com,
thebozemantroll.tumblr.com, Twitter account @thebozemantroll?

2. It appears your agency directed Google to drop another website of mine
from Google searches, ripleydavenport-earledeblonville.com.   I would like
copies of the request letter that triggered your action and a copy of the
official decision.

 

As I have said before, the information you received from the Davenports
regarding ripleydavenport.net was disingenuous and ridden with intentional
falsehoods.  An agency that fails to do minimum due diligence in regard to
the accuracy of the data it bases consequential decisions upon is not
doing its job properly. 

 

If there is some explanation for this apparent failure of basic fairness,
please explain.  

 

Sincerely,

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

 

 

Från: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje
Skickat: den 17 oktober 2022 15:31
Till: '[e-postadress]' <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: SV: Formal request for documents related to a recent IMY decision
regarding Google Search results

 

Dear Mr Madin,

 

IMY does not on our own initiative block Google searches. If one wants to
make a request to be forgotten it is to be made directly with Google. If
Google doesn’t grant the request one can file a complaint with a data
protection agency. The relevant data protection agency will then asses the
complaint and decide weather or not to take action against Google.

 

IMY has not handled any other complaints from the Davenports than the one
you have already received a copy of.

 

Best regards,

 

 

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje

Senior Legal Counsel

Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY)

+46 8 657 61 10, [1]www.imy.se

 

IMY’s role is to uphold the protection of personal data, for example your
data about health and finances, monitoring that they are handled correctly
and do not fall into the wrong hands.

[2]This is how we process personal data

 

 

 

 

Från: Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY <[3][IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]>
Skickat: den 17 oktober 2022 11:17
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[4][e-postadress]>
Ämne: VB: Formal request for documents related to a recent IMY decision
regarding Google Search results

 

 

 

Från: kentmadin <[5][e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 15 oktober 2022 17:56
Till: Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY <[6][IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]>
Ämne: Formal request for documents related to a recent IMY decision
regarding Google Search results

 

I received a notice from Google that my
website, [7]https://www.ripleydavenport-earledeblonv..., has been
blocked from Google searches by order of a GDPR entity.  I am pretty darn
sure that it was IMY. 

I am requesting copies of the documents that the public has right to in
these instances: the text of the IMY decision and copies of the
request/complaint that triggered the decision. 

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

+1-406-595-2310

 

Sent with [8]Proton Mail secure email.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.imy.se/
2. https://www.imy.se/privacy-notice
3. mailto:[IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]
4. mailto:[e-postadress]
5. mailto:[e-postadress]
6. mailto:[IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]
7. https://www.ripleydavenport-earledeblonv...
8. https://proton.me/

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

1 Attachment

 

 

Från: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje
Skickat: den 17 oktober 2022 15:33
Till: '[e-postadress]' <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: SV: Attn: Ms. Hermannson regarding ( IMY-2022-4528)

 

Dear Mr Madin,

 

I think there has been a misunderstanding here. You did receive an
appealable decision. But that was regarding our decision not disclose all
the information in the documents you received. You can not appeal our
decision against google as I have tried to explain.

 

Best regards,

 

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje

Senior Legal Counsel

Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY)

+46 8 657 61 10, [1]www.imy.se

 

IMY’s role is to uphold the protection of personal data, for example your
data about health and finances, monitoring that they are handled correctly
and do not fall into the wrong hands.

[2]This is how we process personal data

 

 

 

 

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[3][e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 14 oktober 2022 19:01
Till: Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY <[4][IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]>
Ämne: Re: SV: Attn: Ms. Hermannson regarding ( IMY-2022-4528)

 

Hi there.  Please refer to the attached correspondence.  I have never
received an answer as to how I can appeal the decision.   Please advise. 

 

Kent Madin

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

1 Attachment

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 17 oktober 2022 15:39
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: Attn: Ms. Hermannson regarding ( IMY-2022-4528)

 

Dear Sigrid,  

 

Thanks, yes, I understand that now.  Just wanted to be sure I hadn't
missed something.  

 

I understand your other email from this morning.  I will look further down
the rabbit hole of what agency made the blocking request on my other
website.

 

Can you confirm that you and Ms. Almstrom received the multiple emails I
sent with evidence documenting the falsehoods inherent in the Davenports
request to be forgotten?  

 

Thank you.  

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

1 Attachment

 

 

Från: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje
Skickat: den 17 oktober 2022 16:37
Till: 'Kent Madin' <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: SV: SV: Attn: Ms. Hermannson regarding ( IMY-2022-4528)

 

Dear Mr. Madin,

 

I can confirm that we have received your e-mails with further evidence.
This does not, however, change the situation. We cannot take the
information you have sent in consideration now. The decision regarding
Google was made long ago and cannot be revoked at this point.

 

Best regards,

 

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje

Senior Legal Counsel

Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY)

+46 8 657 61 10, [1]www.imy.se

 

IMY’s role is to uphold the protection of personal data, for example your
data about health and finances, monitoring that they are handled correctly
and do not fall into the wrong hands.

[2]This is how we process personal data

 

 

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[3][e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 17 oktober 2022 15:39
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[4][e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: Attn: Ms. Hermannson regarding ( IMY-2022-4528)

 

Dear Sigrid,  

 

Thanks, yes, I understand that now.  Just wanted to be sure I hadn't
missed something.  

 

I understand your other email from this morning.  I will look further down
the rabbit hole of what agency made the blocking request on my other
website.

 

Can you confirm that you and Ms. Almstrom received the multiple emails I
sent with evidence documenting the falsehoods inherent in the Davenports
request to be forgotten?  

 

Thank you.  

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

1 Attachment

 

 

Från: Kent Madin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 17 oktober 2022 17:01
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: Attn: Ms. Hermannson regarding ( IMY-2022-4528)

 

Dear Sigrid,

I understand that.  I just want it on the record clearly that your agency
has been provided that information.

 

Cheers. 

 

Kent Madin

Bozeman, Montana

Skype KentinBZN

+1-406-595-2310

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

 

 

Från: kentmadin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 19 oktober 2022 21:42
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: Formal request for documents related to a recent IMY
decision regarding Google Search results

 

Hi Sigrid.  

I am very surprised to learn that it was not your agency that demanded the
block from Google for ripleydavenport-earledeblonville.com.  Very strange
indeed. 

 

Can you give me the name and contact person at IMY who can speak to the
reasoning behind IMY's decision not to require that requests to be
forgotten are truthful?  

 

Cheers.  Kent

 

Sent with [1]Proton Mail secure email.

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

 

 

Från: kentmadin <[e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 26 oktober 2022 18:01
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: Formal request for documents related to a recent IMY
decision regarding Google Search results

 

Hi Sigrid. 

I have been in email conversation with representatives at the EU
Commission who deal with the GDPR.  It is clear from those conversations
that the GDPR expects "personal data must be accurate".  One measure that
an individual country's DPA authorities can employ to meet that
expectation is some guarantee of truthfulness in material submitted.  

 

Sweden chose not to have any mechanism for affirming the truthfulness of a
submission.  Can you direct me to the correct department or individual who
can explain how Sweden came to make that choice and the rationale
supporting it?

 

Kind regards, 

 

Kent 

 

Sent with [1]Proton Mail secure email.

 

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje
Skickat: den 31 oktober 2022 13:47
Till: '[Registrators #2591 e-postadress]' <[Registrators #2591 e-postadress]>
Ämne: SV: Freedom of Information request - All documents/email containing: "kent madin". All docs containing "ripley davenport"

Dear Mr Madin,

IMY has recieved your request and are conducting a search in the archives and our e-mailsystems. I will get back to you.

Best regards,

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje
Senior Legal Counsel
Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY)
+46 8 657 61 10, www.imy.se

IMY’s role is to uphold the protection of personal data, for example your data about health and finances, monitoring that they are handled correctly and do not fall into the wrong hands.

This is how we process personal data

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Kent Madin <[Registrators #2591 e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 30 oktober 2022 21:40
Till: Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten IMY <[IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling]>
Ämne: Freedom of Information request - All documents/email containing: "kent madin". All docs containing "ripley davenport"

Dear Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection, I am seeking copies of all documents produced between January 1, 2020 to present time AND sent to and from the IMY which contain EITHER the string "kent madin" AND/OR which contain the string "ripley davenport". .

The information is sought for research on the subject of the IMY being intentionally deceived with false facts and allegations in support of a "request to be forgotten".

Yours faithfully,

Kent Madin
Bozeman, Montana

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[Registrators #2591 e-postadress]

Is [IMY e-postadress för begäran om allmän handling] the wrong address for Freedom of Information requests to Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://handlingar.se/en/change_request/...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://handlingar.se/en/help/officers

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Kent Madin <[Registrators #2591 e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 4 november 2022 19:15
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: Freedom of Information request - All documents/email containing: "kent madin". All docs containing "ripley davenport"

Dear Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje,

Hi Sigrid, Just checking on the status of my FOI request.

Yours sincerely,

Kent Madin

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje
Skickat: den 7 november 2022 15:56
Till: 'Kent Madin' <[Registrators #2591 e-postadress]>
Ämne: SV: SV: Freedom of Information request - All documents/email containing: "kent madin". All docs containing "ripley davenport"

Dear Mr Madin,

We have outsourced our IT department and therefore all inquiries must be directed to our IT service provider outside the agency - I shall check how work is coming along with my request. Last week was a national holiday in Sweden and that may have slowed down things a bit.

Do you wish to take part of the e-mails that you yourself have sent IMY or are you just interested in what other parties may have submitted to IMY?

Best regards,

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje
Senior Legal Counsel
Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY)
+46 8 657 61 10, www.imy.se

IMY’s role is to uphold the protection of personal data, for example your data about health and finances, monitoring that they are handled correctly and do not fall into the wrong hands.

This is how we process personal data

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Kent Madin <[Registrators #2591 e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 4 november 2022 19:15
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: Freedom of Information request - All documents/email containing: "kent madin". All docs containing "ripley davenport"

Dear Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje,

Hi Sigrid, Just checking on the status of my FOI request.

Yours sincerely,

Kent Madin

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Kent Madin <[Registrators #2591 e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 7 november 2022 16:04
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: Freedom of Information request - All documents/email containing: "kent madin". All docs containing "ripley davenport"

Dear Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje,

It would be convenient to have all comms, including those I sent to IMY. Thanks.

Yours sincerely,

Kent Madin

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Kent Madin <[Registrators #2591 e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 11 november 2022 15:50
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: Freedom of Information request - All documents/email containing: "kent madin". All docs containing "ripley davenport"

Till Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje,

Hi Sigrid, I thought I already wrote and clarified that I would like the entire collection of relevant documents, including the email I sent. Thanks.

Med vänliga hälsningar,

Kent Madin

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Kent Madin <[Registrators #2591 e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 16 november 2022 18:37
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: Freedom of Information request - All documents/email containing: "kent madin". All docs containing "ripley davenport"

Till Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje,

Hi Sigrid, I keep getting notices that I should contact you about my request. Just trying to stay in the current here but not make waves. Looking forward to hearing of any progress. Kent

Med vänliga hälsningar,

Kent Madin

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Kent Madin <[Registrators #2591 e-postadress]>
Skickat: den 22 november 2022 16:22
Till: Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje <[e-postadress]>
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: Freedom of Information request - All documents/email containing: "kent madin". All docs containing "ripley davenport"

Till Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje,

Any news on this process?

Med vänliga hälsningar,

Kent Madin

show quoted sections

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje, Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection

Hi,

 

More documents will follow tomorrow.

 

Sigrid Bohnfeldt Boje

Senior Legal Counsel

Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY)

[1]www.imy.se

 

IMY’s role is to uphold the protection of personal data, for example your
data about health and finances, monitoring that they are handled correctly
and do not fall into the wrong hands.

[2]This is how we process personal data

 

 

References

Visible links
1. https://www.imy.se/
2. https://www.imy.se/privacy-notice

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Kent Madin please sign in and let everyone know.