Anthropic & Bank of Sages offer me a 2 fingered salute
Round 24- My continuing appeals, letters to loved ones, for the active engagement of national and EU law enforcement in restoring my consumer rights.
Today, my 3rd subscriber, Bank of Sages and Anthropic are co-starring …
Today, I report on the decision by both Anthropic and the Bank of Sages to abandon the pretence of ameliorating or softening their asymmetric effect;
- instead they’ve chosen a full-throttle, 1 and 2 fingered salute to the client (that’s a larf) and Law Enforcement (that’s a guffaw)…respectively…
31 March’26
cc: Italian law enforcement (AGCM & Garante) and EU law enforcement (CNECT-AIOFFICE) and Bank of Sages
Dear Sir or Madam
Today’s report, glorious #24, is about how both Anthropic and Bank of Sages have decided to abandon their protective colouring and live large and wide behind the asymmetry they have by design and further advantaged by your gift of even more asymmetry…
Well done! If you can’t work to the benefit of the user, you may as well stand on their necks along with the original offenders…
- keeps your skin in the game…
Illuminating, and deliciously ironic, to discover just how much greater the asymmetry becomes upon seeking ‘relief’ from the law…
- let that be a lesson to you, I mean, me…
The ‘mission’ statement of consumer protection is simply grounds to ‘offset’ any advantage bestowed by ‘rebalancing’ the scales with the ‘vision’ statement of greater legal protection for the supplier…
- equality not equity;
21st century law enforcement in the pursuit of consolidating 21st century feudalism…about the only symmetry to be found here…
Anthropic’s 1 fingered salute to me!
I thought I’d try for the light relief (that word again- in my defence, I mean it), with a comic strip chat rather than a lot of tedious due diligence…
I believe the 5 hr or 300 minute duration per chat session still holds true; I’m also learning, through expensive experience, which activities, in Claude’s words, ‘burn through’ as multipliers of whatever base activity Anthropic have used as a metric for a full 300 minute chat session without throttling…
Anthropic favour the number 5;
- 05:00 reset time…
- 5 hrs per chat session…
- 05:00, 10:00, 15:00, 20:00 seem to be reset frequencies…
- 5 hrs per chat session…
I started at 05:40 in the 1st chat session from 05:00 - 10:00;
My input on the right hand side and Claude’s input is shown left justified…
Bank of Sages’ 2 fingered salute to me!
On 30 Mar 2026, at 02:03,
From Puff at Bank of Sages
We’re writing to you regarding your complaint.
We usually provide a final response within 15 calendar days, however we're still working to resolve your case and we might not be able to respond by 2026-03-30.
We may need to extend our response deadline due to one of the following circumstances:
- We’re waiting for an internal investigation of your complaint to conclude
- Your appeal is still under review
- Your account is still undergoing due diligence checks
- We still need further information or we are waiting for a response from you or a third party
If you don't hear from us by 2026-03-30, we’ll issue your final response by 2026-05-22.
My observations;
- 11th hour brinkmanship…
- their email says “by 2026-03-30”
This is not an extension request…
It’s a notification of failure on the day of failure…
- “by 2026-05-22” is the real deadline…
- this is running from a playbook for dealing with SARs…
Further, framing
- a Subject Access Request as a complaint…
- this is running from a playbook for dealing with SARs…
Against, they’ve demonstrated their asymmetrical arrogance by redefining a subject access request as a complaint, which their internal policies treat differently from the legally defined Subject Access Request…
- a SAR under GDPR Article 15 has a 30-day response window (extendable by 2 months)…
- A complaint has whatever timelines the bank chooses to retrospectively define as required…
This redefinition as a complaint is a blatant attempt to hi-jack the SAR process and turn into something more amenable to policy…
GDPR Article 12(3) allows an extension of two further months for complex requests…
- I blocked one transaction record…
- BoS unilaterally removed it from my list of transaction records…
- without my knowledge or consent…
The only complex part of this sequence is understanding what is complex about it…
- the bank is a thief that stole from me; return my stuff…
- Not complicated at all…
Upon my original challenge, the bank employees I spoke to told me it was bank policy to unilaterally remove blocked records without explanation, consent or knowledge of the account ‘title’ holder…
GDPR Article 12(3) requires the controller to inform me of “the reasons for the delay.”
Offering me “one of the following circumstances”, doesn’t meet the requirement of stating the reason/s for the delay…
What am I supposed to do…
- with a list of possible reasons for prevarication…
- that I choose from?? Huh?…
- they request an extension but don’t know why…
- How would I know, if they don’t?
Further, the spirit, I hope, behind the legal right to extend an inquiry period is to address the actual complexity in banking fraud, money laundering, illegal transactions etc…
- I don’t think it was intended to provide shade for shady acts…
CONCLUSIONS
Since I first started reporting, from the crime scene, to Italian law enforcement (AGCM & Garante) and EU law enforcement (CNECT-AIOFFIC), and now, my new subscriber, I have kept a ledger of sins, of rubicons crossed, of offences against my digital presence.
As has been the case for the last couple of reports, the list of crimes has been aligned with a means of recording achievements for each crime in the list…
Bank of Sages
In my report #9 of 16 March ‘26, I provisionally identified BoS as part of this list of crimes, then at rank 8th or 9th;
On 16 March 2026, I submitted to my bank, a SAR (Subject Access Request or search and rescue) regarding the unilateral removal of my data from sight without my knowledge or consent.
The bank claimed, in writing, on 31 March 2026, that the exceptional ‘complexity’ of their unilateral decision to treat my title rights as irrelevant to bank policy requires that they be granted their legal right to delay, for 2 months, returning my transaction records to my control and sight…
This is a full blown 2 fingered salute to me;
- the asymmetry is utterly irresistible;
- they have to, are compelled to, demonstrate at every turn the massive asymmetry that exists in our relationship, be it through internal policy superceding ethics, law, decency, or just by by exercising, because they can, their legal right to avoid doing what is right..
I believe this ends the pretence that my ‘title’ rights over my 1s and 0s, over my transaction records has any meaning in practice…
The bank acts unilaterally, without regard or consideration to the law or to my titular rights… and the law supports this endeavour at every twist and turn…
The utter bad faith and opacity, not to mention unilaterally suborning my sovereign rights over my data, is a message to me…
- My rights are irrelevant…
- I need the bank’s permission to have a financial presence…
No doubt, de-banking as their next service offering is certainly on the table…
Any single one of the above listed crimes is a complaint worthy of your attention and actions.
Together they describe a system designed to maximise extraction, with maximum bad faith, and a complete absence of accountability.
I remain, the ever travelling, ‘reasonable’, sane, reciprocal and, more mature, and, only just, patient man.
0808