In the complex landscape of international relations and global finance, few topics are as intricate and consequential as the financing of terrorism. This shadowy world, where politics, economics, and extremism intersect, has far-reaching implications for global security and stability. To understand this phenomenon, we must delve into a web of events, personalities, and institutions that span continents and decades.

The story begins in Syria, 2012. As the Arab Spring’s ripple effects reached Syrian shores, Bashar Hafez al-Assad’s regime responded with brutal force to suppress local demonstrations. This heavy-handed approach inadvertently catalyzed the formation of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), marking the beginning of an armed resistance against Assad’s rule. The conflict quickly escalated, drawing in various international actors. By 2013, Hezbollah had openly declared its support for Assad, while attempts by the UN Security Council to intervene were thwarted by vetoes from China and Russia.

Amid this turmoil, a sinister element emerged: the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSRC). Operating under the Syrian Ministry of Defense, this organization was responsible for developing chemical weapons — a grim testament to the lengths the Assad regime would go to maintain power. The use of these weapons in eastern Ghouta brought international condemnation and highlighted the urgent need to address not just the conflict itself, but the financial networks enabling such atrocities.

Enter Bill Browder, an unexpected player in this global drama. As the founder and CEO of Hermitage Capital Management, Browder’s story illuminates the intricate connections between international finance, politics, and human rights. His firm, once the largest foreign investment fund in Russia, became embroiled in a complex saga of fraud, corruption, and political intrigue.

Browder’s troubles began in 2005 when he was unexpectedly denied entry to Russia, citing “National Security” concerns. What followed was a Kafka-esque nightmare: a fraudulent takeover of Hermitage’s Russian companies, a $230 million tax fraud, and the tragic death of Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer who had been investigating the fraud on Hermitage’s behalf. Magnitsky’s death in pre-trial detention, following severe physical abuse, became a rallying cry for human rights activists and led to the passage of the Magnitsky Act in the United States.

The Magnitsky Act, signed into law by President Obama in 2012, and its global counterpart in 2016, represented a new approach to combating human rights abuses and corruption. These laws empowered the U.S. government to impose sanctions on individuals involved in such activities, regardless of their nationality. This legislative framework would prove crucial in the years to come, as the interconnections between corruption, human rights abuses, and terrorism financing became increasingly apparent.

Browder’s story doesn’t end there. He has remained a vocal critic of the Russian government and an advocate for stronger measures against international corruption. His efforts have put him at odds with powerful figures, including Russian President Vladimir Putin. During a 2018 press conference with then-U.S. President Donald Trump, Putin made the startling claim that Browder’s associates had donated $400 million to Hillary Clinton’s campaign — an allegation that was later debunked but highlighted the high-stakes nature of Browder’s crusade.

The ramifications of Browder’s actions and the broader fight against financial crimes reached far beyond Russia and the United States. Cyprus, long known as a favored destination for Russian offshore wealth, found itself under intense scrutiny. The island nation’s banking sector, already reeling from a recent financial crisis, faced mounting pressure to address concerns about money laundering and terrorist financing.

This pressure culminated in a pivotal decision regarding the Federal Bank of the Middle East (FBME), a Tanzania-based bank with significant operations in Cyprus. In 2014, the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) labeled FBME a “primary money laundering concern,” setting off a chain of events that would expose the vulnerabilities in the global financial system.

The FBME case is a textbook example of how terrorist financing can exploit weaknesses in international banking regulations. A leaked report from the Central Bank of Cyprus revealed significant oversights in FBME’s client documentation. One client, Tredwell Marketing Ltd, was found to have ties to Balec Ventures, whose director was under U.S. sanctions for involvement with Syria’s chemical weapons program.

The web of connections didn’t stop there. FinCEN’s investigation uncovered that at least one FBME client served as a front company for the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center — the very organization responsible for developing chemical weapons used against Syrian civilians. This front company shared an address with over 100 other entities, creating a complex network designed to obscure illicit financial flows.

As regulatory pressure mounted, FBME’s operations came under intense scrutiny. The bank’s use of “referred agents” — intermediaries who facilitated banking services for third parties without direct contractual relationships — raised significant red flags. Even more alarming was the revelation that FBME’s owners themselves appeared to act as “referred agents,” blurring the lines between legitimate banking operations and potentially illicit activities.

The FBME case also highlighted the challenges of monitoring Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) in the banking sector. Despite regulatory requirements for sophisticated systems to manage PEP-related risks, FBME’s approach was strikingly inadequate, relying on basic Excel spreadsheets for crucial client information. This lax approach to compliance left the bank vulnerable to exploitation by those seeking to finance terrorist activities or launder ill-gotten gains.

The consequences for FBME were severe. After attempts at less drastic measures failed, including a proposed public auction of the bank’s operations, the Central Bank of Cyprus revoked FBME’s banking license in December 2015. This decision sent shockwaves through the international banking community and served as a wake-up call for financial institutions worldwide.

The FBME case, while extreme, is not isolated. It represents a broader challenge in the fight against terrorism financing: the cat-and-mouse game between regulators and those seeking to exploit the global financial system for nefarious purposes. As methods of concealment become more sophisticated, so too must the tools and strategies used to detect and prevent illicit financial flows.

This evolving landscape has led to new thinking about the nature of terrorism itself. John Robb, a veteran of U.S. Army Counter-Terrorism Operations, introduces the concept of “Symbolic Terrorism” in his book “Brave New War.” Robb argues that while large-scale attacks like 9/11 are difficult to replicate, smaller, targeted operations can be just as effective in destabilizing societies. This shift towards “guerilla terrorism” presents new challenges for counterterrorism efforts, particularly in the realm of financing.

The intersection of terrorism financing and state power raises complex legal and ethical questions. The case of Yassin Abdullah Kadi, which reached the European Court of Justice, exemplifies these challenges. The court’s rulings in the Kadi case provide crucial guidance on balancing security concerns with individual rights and due process in the fight against terrorism financing.

As we move forward, it’s clear that combating terrorism financing requires a multifaceted approach. Strong regulatory frameworks, international cooperation, and innovative technologies all have roles to play. But equally important is a nuanced understanding of the complex motivations and methods of those involved in these illicit activities.

The story of terrorism financing is not just about numbers in bank accounts or complex financial transactions. It’s about the human cost of extremism, the geopolitical tensions that fuel conflicts, and the delicate balance between security and civil liberties. As we continue to grapple with these issues, one thing is clear: the fight against terrorism financing is a critical front in the broader struggle for a more stable and secure world.

For the full, in-depth article on this topic, including detailed analysis and additional insights, please visit: https://blog.yannakas.me/2024/09/terrorism-financing-2024/

The roots of the concept of Parental Alienation Syndrome trace back to the early 1970s when psychiatrist Richard Alan Gardner introduced the term. Despite the controversy surrounding Gardner’s work, his contribution should not be dismissed. He provided a specific definition of the syndrome and delineated the symptoms displayed by both the alienating parent and the victimized child. The core of PAS lies in the indoctrination of the child against the alienated parent during custody conflicts.

Widespread dissemination of hostility towards the alienated parent.
Gardner’s reasoning, though controversial, prompts us to broaden our interpretation of PAS. While the syndrome itself is subject to debate, issues such as abuse, sexual mistreatment, and unsuitable living conditions can lead to a child becoming estranged from a parent. Drawing a clear distinction between these circumstances is crucial to ensuring justice in Family Courts.

The legal profession relies on case law and a sense of legal stability. Equating different pathologic circumstances for political reasons can constrain judges within a single framework, hindering their ability to address unique situations. The potential misuse of PAS claims poses a challenge to the administration of justice, especially when investigating allegations of abuse.

The debate over recognizing Parental Alienation Syndrome in court often hinges on claims made by one party. It is essential to move beyond a narrow focus on the existence of a disorder and consider the unique circumstances of each case. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is a valuable resource, but its application requires a nuanced understanding of the evolving nature of disorders and syndromes.

In conclusion, a child alienated due to clear sexual harassment necessitates a distinct approach from a child caught between two fanatic parents. The legal discourse surrounding PAS should be guided by a commitment to justice and a thorough examination of the individual dynamics at play in each case.

Visit My Blog for In-Depth Insights into Cyprus Law:

Thank you for exploring my legal material. If you are interested in delving deeper into legal complexities, and Cyprus Law, I invite you to visit my blog.

https://blog.yannakas.me/2023/07/parental-alienation-syndrome-en/

Οι λέξεις δεν αποτελούν μόνο εργαλείο επικοινωνίας και εξωτερίκευσης συναισθημάτων, συχνά καλούνται να υποστηρίξουν τη λειτουργία του ορισμού και αυστηρού προσδιορισμού εννοιών και ιδεών. Καθόσον το ενστικτωδώς κυνήγι επιβίωσης και η συλλογή τροφής υποκαταστάθηκε από τη γεωργία, την τεχνική και την επιστήμη ήταν αναμενόμενο ότι οι βασικοί συμβολισμοί και έννοιες δεν θα είναι πια άλλο ικανά να σηκώσουν την αλλεπάλληλη διαδοχή πολιτισμών. Από το πέταγμα ως ένδειξη ελευθερίας και λύτρωσης, στο πυθαγόρειο θεώρημα και κατόπιν στο αόρατο χέρι του A. Smith, το κυριότερο που σχηματοποιείται είναι ένα υπερφυσικό κανάλι, μια μεταφυσική δίαυλος και μια μοναδικά λαμπερή κοινωνία, με κοινωνούς ιδέες και πληροφορίες. Η εργασία μας θα ήταν επίπονη και μίζερη, αν δεν ήταν εφικτό να προσθέτουμε νέες λέξεις και όρους.

Η παραπάνω συλλογιστική εφάπτεται και στο κατά πόσο η γονική αποξένωση μπορεί να έχει εκφάνσεις συνδρόμου και να απαντήσει στο γιατί φαίνεται να μην γίνεται πάντοτε αποδεκτή ως σύνδρομο από την ψυχολογική και δικαστική κοινότητα. Η εξιστόρηση του φαινομένου ως σύνδρομο αρχίζει από τον ψυχίατρο Richard Alan Gardner από τις αρχές της δεκαετίας του ’70. Μια σειρά από ιδιαίτερα εμπόδια και παρεξηγήσεις, καταστούν το έργο του έντονα αμφιλεγόμενο ακόμη και στις μέρες μας. Παραδείγματος χάριν ανέκυψαν ζητήματα πολιτικής ορθότητας και σεξισμού από τις εμπειρικές του παρατηρήσεις ότι συχνότερα οι μητέρες αποτελούσαν την γενεσιουργό αιτία και επιταχυντικό παράγοντα του ζητήματος. Ωστόσο το έργο του δεν πρέπει να υποτιμηθεί.

Ευθύς εξαρχής προέβη σε συγκεκριμένο ορισμό του συνδρόμου αλλά και σε ακριβή αποτύπωση των συμπτωμάτων που εμφανίζει τόσο ο αποξενωτής γονέας, όσο και το παιδί θύμα. Αναφορικά με τον ορισμό σε ελεύθερη απόδοση αναφερόμαστε σε μια διαταραχή που ξεσπά στο πλαίσιο φιλονικιών κηδεμονίας. Πρόκειται για μια εκστρατεία-κατήχησης του τέκνου κατά του γονέα. Οι παθογένειες της διαταραχής είναι μια σύμπραξη του δογματισμού του αλλοτριωτή γονέα καθώς και τη συμβολή του ιδίου τέκνου προς τον αποξενωμένο γονέα. Διερευνώντας τα συμπτώματα απαριθμούμε τα ακόλουθα:

• Εκστρατεία υποτίμησης και προσβολής·
• Αδύναμοι και/ή παράλογοι και/ή επιπόλαιοι εξορθολογισμοί της αποδοκιμασίας·
• Απουσία σαφήνειας·
• Υπέρμετρο αίσθημα ανεξαρτητοποίησης·
• Αντανακλαστικές αντιδράσεις του αποξενωτή κηδεμόνα στις διάφορες συγκρούσεις και διαμάχες·
• Έλλειψη ενοχής αναφορικά με τις κακομεταχειρίσεις και εκρήξεις του αποξενούμενου γονέα·
• Ύπαρξη δανεισμένων σεναρίων·
• Εκτεταμένη διάδοση της εχθρότητας κατά του αποξενούμενου γονέα στο ευρύτερο φιλικό και οικογενειακό περιβάλλον.

Ο R. A. Gardner καταπιάνεται και με μια συλλογιστική που κατά κάποιον τρόπο πρόκειται για μια εις άτοπον απαγωγή. Ακόμη και αν εξαντλήσουμε τις δυνατότητες για διαξιφισμό περί συνδρόμου, πάθησης, διαταραχής και παθογόνου μοτίβου συμπεριφοράς, στον απλό όρο «γονική αποξένωση» οφείλουμε να του αποδίδουμε μια πιο ευρεία ερμηνεία.

Ένα παιδί μπορεί να αποξενωθεί από τον έναν ή και τους δυο βιολογικούς ή θετούς γονείς εν όψει κακομεταχείρισης, σεξουαλικής κακοποίησης και ακατάλληλων συνθηκών διαβίωσης, συμπεριλαμβανομένων συνθηκών εγκληματικότητας, χρήσης ναρκωτικών και εθισμού στον τζόγο ή το αλκοόλ. Τα φαινόμενα που μόλις περιγράψαμε με τις περιστάσεις που εσωκλείουν μια ερμηνεία περί συνδρόμου έχουν μια διαμετρικά αντίθετη υφή. Έτσι λοιπόν η επιμονή μας να εξακολουθούμε να απαρνιόμαστε το Σύνδρομο Γονικής Αποξένωσης, υπονομεύει την απονομή της Δικαιοσύνης και την προστασία του θεσμού της Οικογένειας από τα Οικογενειακά Δικαστήρια. Η Δικηγορία και οι διάφορες δικανικές λειτουργίες εδράζονται σε σημαντικό βαθμό στη μέθοδο της περιπτωσιολογίας, στο συναίσθημα της ασφάλειας του Δικαίου και γενικότερα στον εντονότατο κανονιστικό χαρακτήρα της Δικαιοσύνης. Αν για λόγους επιπολαιότητας και πολιτικής αντίληψης, συμψηφίσουμε τις δυο παθογενείς καταστάσεις, τότε εγκλωβίζουμε το Δικαστή σε διευθετήσεις υπό ένα ενιαίο πλαίσιο κανόνων και διαδικασιών με απρόσμενα επακόλουθα. Επιμένοντας σε ένα συμψηφισμό απότοκο του καθωσπρεπισμού, όταν κλητευτεί ένας Δικαστής να εξετάσει και να διερευνήσει τους ισχυρισμούς του προϊόντος του Συνδρόμου — και πράγματι καταλήξει ότι ο αποξενούμενος γονέας ουδέποτε κακοποίησε ή παρενόχλησε το τέκνο του — τότε ποιος δικονομικός κανόνας ή προβλεπόμενη διαδικασία ενώπιόν του, θα επιτρέψει (στο Δικαστή αυτόν) να αντιστρέψει τη διερεύνηση κατά του αποξενωτή κηδεμόνα; Θα ήταν αφέλεια χειρίστου είδους, αν πιστέψουμε ότι η απόπειρα του ενός γονέα να ριζοσπαστικοποιήσει το τέκνο κατά του άλλου γονέα δεν ενέχει τα δικά του στίγματα βιαιότητας και κακοποίησης.

Ο κατάλογος DSM είναι μια συνεχώς εξελισσόμενη λίστα διαταραχών και συνδρόμων και είναι αυταπόδεικτη πλάνη όταν δικηγόροι και δικαστές αποφαινόμαστε ως προς την ύπαρξη μιας ασθένειας, ελέγχοντας μόνο αν σε μια δεδομένη έκδοση του καταλόγου, υπάρχει ή δεν υπάρχει σχετική πρόνοια. Οι στοχασμοί, και όπως αυτοί έχουν εξελιχθεί σε διάφορες αίθουσες δικαστηρίων ανά την εμφύλιο, περί της αναγνώρισης του υπό εξέταση συνδρόμου, παρουσιάζουν μια απτή ιδιομορφία. Εντός της αίθουσας ενός δικαστηρίου, η συζήτηση περί της ύπαρξης του «Συνδρόμου Γονικής Αποξένωσης», άρχεται από τον αντίδικο της μεριάς που ισχυρίζεται ή υπονοεί ότι οι επίδικες περιστάσεις μπορούν να υπαχθούν στο Σύνδρομο αυτό. Υπό μια κινηματογραφική εκλαΐκευση της δικονομίας, αν καταπέσει ένα επιχείρημα, καταπέφτει και ο ίδιος ο ισχυρισμός. Αν δεν υπάρχει κλοπιμαίο δεν υπάρχει κλέφτης, αν δεν υπάρχει όπλο δεν υπάρχει φονιάς, και αν δεν υπάρχει το σύνδρομο, η γνώμη του τέκνου είναι ελεύθερη και του ιδίου. Η ένταση λοιπόν της συζήτησης που ενδεχομένως να συναντά κάποιος στις διάφορες νομολογίες, ουδεμία σχέση έχει με τις λεπτές διαφορές μεταξύ συνδρόμου και διαταραχής. Οι οικείες συζητήσεις εντός της αιθούσης, μοναδικό σκοπό έχουν την αποτελεσματική διεκδίκηση της κηδεμονίας.

Ένα παιδί το οποίο έχει αποξενωθεί από τον ένα γονέα, επειδή παρενοχλούνταν σεξουαλικά σαφώς χρήζει εντελώς άλλης αντιμετώπισης και η υπόθεσή του θα πρέπει να παρουσιαστεί και να υποστηριχθεί εντελώς διαφορετικά από ένα παιδί που βρέθηκε ανάμεσα σε δυο φανατισμένους γονείς, και αυτό ανεξαρτήτως του γεγονότος ότι και τα δυο παιδία ενδεχομένως να έχουν σχηματίσει ως ένα βαθμό τις δικές τους απόψεις και συμπεράσματα.

Visit My Blog for In-Depth Insights into Cyprus Law:

Thank you for exploring my legal material. If you are interested in delving deeper into legal complexities, and Cyprus Law, I invite you to visit my blog.

https://blog.yannakas.me/2019/10/parental-alienation-syndrome/

One movie which I empirically realise its trueness is the “Das Experiment (2001)”. It is based on a real experiment, conducted by Dr Philip Zimbardo, and it is more than a film with its straightforward concept. Its main message is how the people change when they were assigned with any power. It is a matter of mere conjectural, how exactly the experiment would be different if we swap the police with forest guards, bureaucrats, etc.

This article discusses the misuse of powers of GDPR and the data privacy concept. It engages and looks into the Decision of Cypriot Data Protection Authority (DPA) of 25th Oct 2019¹, although the reference to this case is indicative; the primary goal of this article is to formulate broader commentaries and worries. The facts of this case are straightforward enough: it regards a trade union (Cyprus Workers Confederation) and a Cypriot Companies Group (Louis Group), which among other things offer passenger handling services to local Airports. The general secretary of the trade union demands from the company to stop using the Bradford Factor as a management procedure, due to privacy concerns. The Cypriot Data Commissioner intervened and imposed penalties of 82.000 euros.

Bradford Factor is a mathematical formula that scores the absence behaviour of employees in the most simplistic term. That formula uses two parameters as variables. The S variable, which represents the total number of an employee’s instances of absence over a set period (usually 52 weeks), and the D variable, which is assigned with the total days of absence of that employee over the same period. The calculation could not be more complicated than the S multiplied by itself and then multiplied with D (SxSxD).

The idea that the various elements of a scoring formula are weighted is not something radical, taking to account what we want to measure. What the Bradford Factor seeks to manage is the fake short-term absences. How possible is it for someone to stage a pregnancy? Under this kind of assumptions, we consider highly desirable that an employee with one absence of ten days be scored with 10 Bradford points and, in contrast, an employee with ten absences of one day each, is scored with 1000 Bradford’s points.

However, there is one more crucial point that shall be taken into account; Bradford Formula does not fulfil the role of a criterion. Quite the opposite, that mathematical calculation is acting as red-flag. In practical terms, the formula is accompanied by graduated ranges and when a worker reaches a prescribed level, the HR department is encouraged to follow the corresponding guidance. As a first step, it is suggested that only talking to the employees in question is adequate. It is expected that at this stage the real reasons for frequent short-term absences are revealed, for example, eldercare responsibilities or an unacceptably heavy workload. When an HR department is armed with this information, it can go on with implementation appropriate measures absence, like readjust roles, workload, etc. In other words, the Bradford Formula does not constitute a judging function in finding if a member of the staff shall have (or not) the requested time off. The Bradford Factor is activated after any employee’s request and works as a passive tool for the company in order to be guarded against the extremely costly short-time absences, without wasting the company’s ability to provide unexpected absences where it is necessary.

Of course, Bradford Factor is not the ideal trigger to decide whenever an employee abuses the facilities specified by the law or the generosity of the HR Department, or any internal policies and proceedings. Besides viewing employees as untrustworthy and dishonest, the dangers of transmissible infections could lie even in diarrhoea cases or any other small annoyances. In the post-COVID era, the Bradford formula maybe has become obsolete.

However, our discussion shall be radically different. Almost all national (sometimes even the supranational or federal level) legal orders include labour courts and recognise trade union organisations. Of course, you can somehow peel an orange with a screwdriver, that does not mean that the effort is not silly. The merit behind the Bradford Trigger has nothing to do with personal data; each variable of the formula is a piece of information, which a company shall record, inter alia as required under the labour laws. So, all that discussion would not have started if the Data Commissioner stopped at the examination of who has access to these data and how securely these records are saved.

Of course, behind the questions, which is the proper amount of data and which is the proper degree of data processing, the historical standing conflict between employers and workers also emerges. In May of this year, the well-known psychologist Dr Jordan Peterson during a podcast² observed that anthropological sciences have a political left tilt, meaning that if these fields have a bias, indisputably this a left-wing bias. If that is true for law field too, of course nothing safeguards that a different competent body would act more objectively. Extending the line of that argument, a Data Protection Commissioner has no tool to solve that type of conflict with no bias. Recording events of the merchant’s activities is an ancient fact; employees’ absences create data which are meaningful for the company too. Like a moment of a young couple; it belongs on both memories.

GDPR has already been criticised. First of all, for excessively vague terms and costly requirements. One requirement of a data controller is a continuous evolution of the risks for rights and freedoms of natural persons to be potentially violated. Similarly, at least four times the Regulation refers to the term disproportionate effort, mainly to describe varying exemptions, without even the EU legislator specifying if it is a qualitative or quantitative criterion. Most important, the legislator ignores the texture and other habits of the digital world: users, creators and service providers used to avoid strictly pricing plans, especially for daily digital facilities. Furthermore, the “Privacy Paradox”³, a Journal Article of 2007 with more than 1000 citations, concludes that (a) the consumers freely provide their personal data, and (b) the relation between the intention to disclosure and the actual behaviour of disclosing seems like a postmodern paradox. In the era of GDPR, using personal data became more expensive, and the entrepreneur is forced to embrace traditional business strategies (e.g. paywalls on news-sites), even where the consumer is unwilling (or unable) to pay the price or in the cases of less personalised services; who needs a non-personalised AI digital assistant?

Repeatedly, we have witnessed when the fort’s walls are extremely high, and the King is arbitrary. I’m debating here the unseen danger when the EU data-commissioners start capriciously implying the vague text of GDPR on whimsical circumstances. Unfortunately, the Cypriot data-authority’s Decision of October 2019 lurked of these social risks. If Louis Companies Group violates some rules, these rules are on labour laws, and a data commissioner’s office has no authority to judge such cases.

It is common sense that employers know or record the absences of their employees and the prohibition of the Bradford Factor is outwith the scope of privacy. The Commissioner did not go into on the data aspect. She did not examine for how long an employer should maintain the absences list, in which way this list shall be saved, or which departments should have access to it. Quite the opposite, she judged the Bradford Factor as a form of punishment and stated that labour law itself includes enough limits for absences.

Labour and private law are mandatory mostly in terms of lower and minimum limits. An employer maybe wants to give some more days-off as benefits and most important, labour law does not regulate all procedures step-by-step. A part of the relationship between worker and employer is subject to the discretion of the company. It is exactly this dimension that creates the need of an ex-ante and an ex-post judgement for what happens inside and outside of the certain business unit.

Another argument by Cypriot Commissioner’s Decision arises from the comparison other circumstances, such as when the employer monitors the internet traffic inside the company’s network, defends himself against workers who are making excessive personal use of tech properties. That scenario was pre examined from European Union Bodies, and there the conclusion was: “Even if the employer has a legitimate interest in limiting the time spent by the employees visiting websites not directly relevant to their work, the methods used do not meet the balancing test of Article 7(f). The employer should use less intrusive methods (e.g. limiting accessibility of certain sites)”. The EU body, before rejecting the questioning for monitoring as an inappropriate solution, points to specific less-intrusive alternatives (like domain blocking). The balancing test is neither a hypothetical nor ideal criterion. We should accept the invisible elephant in the room; which is none other than the massive risk that GDPR has become the new colosseum of bread and circuses, so that EU bureaucrats gained time, understand the tech-titans deeply and finally regulate the new digital world. Cypriot Commissioner was unable to describe any alternatives to a management system of absences monitoring, which would need less data.

Let’s change our scenario a bit and let’s say HR used a different workflow and didn’t record per employee the reason of an absence, but calculated a Bradford Factor per department or per geographical unit. Under that workflow, days-off were recorded as general company’s events, and none can go backwards and find a specific reason for a specific employee. Another alternative could be that periodically an HR staff subjective, randomly and on-the-fly examines employees’ files and if he finds any suspicion, he then moves forward with further investigation, interviews or other measures. Under all these scenarios, the Cypriot Commissioner’s reasoning entirely collapses, without the conditions really being changed and without the employee position changing for the better or fairer. It is also vital to consider that the Bradford Formula only takes an integer number as input to the parameter of instances of absence (aka the S variable) and not each instance detailed; but only as an amount of different instances of absence per employee. The Commissioner did not analyse what happened on these health details after the variables were calculated, and she has not suggested any alternative procedure. The questions if the health data of employees are unsecured and easily accessed remain unanswered. It is possible that these pieces of health information do not exist at all after a while.

Inside the Decision, we meet an experiential blog post which is the Commissioner’s reference for the argument that the Bradford Factor mainly functions as a punishment. However, if it does or does not function as such, is irrelevant to data and privacy; the signatory decision-maker is a Data Protection Commissioner. On the flip side, Bradford Factor was the subject on innumerable journal papers. A last sufficient consulting arises by public health scientists Merekoulias and Alexopoulos. They point that the factor “was developed as a way of highlighting the disproportionate level of disruption on an organisation’s performance that can be caused by short-term absence compared to single incidences of prolonged absence and is related to greater tendency of absence. Short-term absences are usually […] self-reported. […] [A] significant proportion of short-term sick leaves […] has been monitored in various settings […] making BF a useful tool. It was originally designed for use as part of the overall investigation and management of absenteeism but occasionally its field implementation provokes staff disaffection and scientific debate. BF is an easily applicable tool, […] also easily applied”.

In terms of data and privacy, we are living through a digital middle age. We are still unable to answer a series of questions and we continue to discuss countless aspects on GDPR. For example, we are talking about data portability, but seldomly take into account aspects of the innovation and competitiveness. We are even unable to comprehend why the government’s bureaucrats are better suitable than the economics forces, to decide when a digital service shall or shall not offer portability features (aka the laissez-faire argument). In addition, if we read between the lines, the “Cambridge Analytica” scandal classified also as a data portability case. Last but not least, social engineering as a security matter becomes known to the masses from the books written by Kevin Mitnick. Nowadays, the Associate Professor Jean Yang (link) found that her Spotify account has not only been compromised, but the person also used the GDPR and the 15th article’s provision, which is related on the Right of Access, to gain even more deep access on her data by asking a full copy of her account.

As societies, we shall resolve key matters on the concept of privacy. In the meanwhile, if public authorities abuse that concept and seize power in the name of the GDPR and social protection, the end of the digital middle age is far away. Irish Data Commissioner with a remarkable presence of mind, wrote: “The GDPR does not provide an exact roadmap […]. However, a balanced, common sense approach will go a long way towards ensuring that individuals’ rights are respected”⁴.

That Cypriot Reasoning is crucial to stay an isolated incident and never recur. In most jurisdictions, including Cyprus, the principle of Separation of Powers that requires administrative courts did not substitute the public authorities on the merit of the case. That means that an Administrative Court is often limited only to deplore the legality, and not the correctness of a decision of a public body. Only by chance some redolent of incompetence rise in these particular circumstances. The Louis Group of Companies has already brought an action to the Cypriot Administrative Court, but the outcome remains totally doubtful.

[1] Case Number: 11.17.001.006.043 (Press Release [EN]: http://www.dataprotection.gov.cy/dataprotection/dataprotection.nsf/All/638BA18A544E5DEDC22584FC0031C7C7)

[2] Ben Shapiro (2020). Jordan Peterson Debunks Leftist Gender Ideology in 8 Minutes. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKd_DjBl7gc&t=211s

[3] P. A. Norber, D. R. Horne & D. A. Horne (2007). The Privacy Paradox: Personal Information Disclosure Intentions versus Behaviors. The Journal of Consumer Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2006.00070.x

[4] Data Protection Commissioner for Ireland (2019). Taking photos at school events. https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/news-media/blogs/taking-photos-school-events-where-common-sense-comes-play

Kindly revised by Eleni Liapi, BSc Biologist, MSc Forensic Science, MSc Biotechnology and Law

Visit My Blog for In-Depth Insights into Cyprus Law:

Thank you for exploring my legal material. If you are interested in delving deeper into legal complexities, and Cyprus Law, I invite you to visit my blog.

https://blog.yannakas.me/2020/09/when-the-gdpr-goes-wrong/