Anthropic vs Bank of Sages
Round 23- 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, the Bank of Sages is the star of the show…
Today, I report on the resounding, echoing silence from the bank of sages: but the sand runneth out in this, eleventh, hour…
30 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 #23, is about the absence of sound, speech, word, and deeds, from the bank of sages, up to today, the eleventh hour…
- does this augur the absence of sufficient good…
- or simply the scarcity of ethic…
I note that Bank of Sages’ 15-day statutory deadline for responding to my Subject Access Request expires tomorrow, 31 March 2026.
Silence beyond this date constitutes a breach of GDPR Article 12(3) and will be referred to the Garante ‘per la protezione dei dati personali’ as a formal complaint.
There, that’s the cold, legal logic of the situation addressed…
I find it troubling when a barrier to transparency becomes reason enough to use it, at all, and worse still, stand on the ceremony of its limits…
In this day and age, this kind of thin-ice bravado smacks of the gamesmanship of the current US administration… more performative than professional…
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, the full 15 days (now 1) before being obliged to respond.
The lack of good faith and transparency, not to mention unilaterally suborning my sovereign rights over my data, is troubling, but may mean nothing more than risk-averse tactics.
Though, I must confess, I had not expected the bank to take the full width and breadth of the grace the law provides…
The asymmetry is just too addictive not to use…
That they have, begs the question. Have they failed to find the ethical balance so essential to this pretence of title ownership of the 0s and 1s kept under my ‘name’?
They may make a formal appearance in tomorrow’s report…
- Watch this space…
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