icm2re logo. icm2:re (I Changed My Mind Reviewing Everything) is an 

ongoing web column edited and published by Brunella Longo

This column deals with some aspects of change management processes experienced almost in any industry impacted by the digital revolution: how to select, create, gather, manage, interpret, share data and information either because of internal and usually incremental scope - such learning, educational and re-engineering processes - or because of external forces, like mergers and acquisitions, restructuring goals, new regulations or disruptive technologies.

The title - I Changed My Mind Reviewing Everything - is a tribute to authors and scientists from different disciplinary fields that have illuminated my understanding of intentional change and decision making processes during the last thirty years, explaining how we think - or how we think about the way we think. The logo is a bit of a divertissement, from the latin divertere that means turn in separate ways.

Chronological Index | Subject Index

Nothing like a wrong bankruptcy order to spoil my reputation?

Nudging the nudgers on gamification of governance and cybercrime

How to cite this article?
Longo, Brunella (2014). Nothing like a wrong bankruptcy order to spoil my reputation? Nudging the nudgers on gamification of governance and cybercrime. icm2re [I Changed my Mind Reviewing Everything ISSN 2059-688X (Print)], 3.11 (November).

How to cite this article?
Longo, Brunella (2014). Nothing like a wrong bankruptcy order to spoil my reputation? Nudging the nudgers on gamification of governance and cybercrime. icm2re [I Changed my Mind Reviewing Everything ISSN 2059-688X (Online)], 3.11 (November).
Full-text accessible at http://www.brunellalongo.co.uk/

25 November 2014 - This month I had a number of very exciting and interesting things to do for the promotion and marketing of my own services but my diary has been disrupted by the urgency to correct horrible mistakes made in public records and public processes that impact mine and others' interests, activities and relationships - pretty much more than a stolen twitter account (1).

Responsibility and accountability in data management practices

I have had to spend hours to make people aware of awful material mistakes made in Land Registry records and other registries, and to start formal requests needed to put such records straight.

The rectification of mistakes in public records under privacy and other laws is important to respect mine and others' rights to have a life, a personal identity, a documented history not to be mistaken and messed up in the public domain and to prevent difficulties also in other jurisdictions (for instance, what is a "slip rule" error that can be taken for automatically rectified in an english court of law, cannot be considered as such in a french or italian court). If not the origin, at least the propagation of such mistakes has been facilitated by the fact that there is no possibility, at the moment, to identify with certainty who has made them.

The rectification of a mistake in public records is not always so simple: in some cases you need a Court order and not all the Courts and Tribunals can make rectification orders to change all public records in all cases. In sum, a bit of a legal and administrative maze in which I had to spend time reading and studying matters that I would rather have delegated to someone else (in this case great help came from Rectification by David Hodge, QC, a reference book published in 2010 quite accessible I recommend to litigants in person and all others affected by serious mistakes made in all sort of contractual agreements, including pension scheme papers).

On the 23rd November the Home secretary announced new plans to give law enforcement powers to investigate uses and abuses of IP addresses in connection with criminal activities. (Theresa May moves to give police powers to identify internet users, The Guardian, 23 Nov; Security bill: The challenge of identifying internet users, BBC News, 24 November).

I found myself totally agree with this direction in spite of the fact that I have considered since long this type of measures very poor if not technically vane and ineffective (the reasons why are explained in very plain english in some of my recent articles on the matter).

I changed opinion because even if it is true that they are not perfect and not resolutive in a court of law, and often perceived as unpopular and against civil liberties, such measures allow law enforcement, judiciary and data management communities to really start talking and working together for the common purpose of policing cyberspace. It would be great if the civil service, the NHS and the same law enforcement community commenced piloting these measures within their own networks, allowing the authentication and identification of any operation made on public records through internet, intranets and any connected device or secondary networks (for instance personal smartphones used to access the organisation's network remotely).

In fact there is the strong evidence from a number of studies that a consistent proportion of malfeasance in records-keeping originates as deliberate corporate crime (especially in connection with financial crimes) and as bullying, vindictive and uneducated behaviours of employees abusing of personal data of colleagues and customers.

Boardrooms diversity and the gamification of governance

We need to make people with different mindsets, diverse backgrounds and disciplinary approaches to converge towards the same goals, start using and enforcing the existing laws and regulations and finding suitable ways to deal with new problems.

How to get there seems the true challenge at board level, where usually nobody wants to take ownership of radical changes or unpopular decisions in relation to vague businesses and immaterial stuff perceived as boiler issues, such as cybercrime or cybersecurity. On this specific point, the so invoked diversity in the boardrooms as a guarantee of good governance, often quoted as the missed magic element, seems to me just another excuse; diversity is an easy notion to communicate over a range of channels and after all it means, to whom who like it, an invitation to keep on liking it - and to whom who don't, to keep on avoiding it. Both polarised views find supporting evidence in performance indicators, both are happy with the media coverage and nothing really changes.

To close a month of remembrances of real differences between rights and wrongs, yesterday I attended the presentation of a new study that says we should endorse and promote good culture to manage change in financial services. Having soberly listened to the results of such study, the panel and the public started then exchanging entertaining questions and answers on how easy or difficult is to avoid the regulations, invent new tricks and promote good culture. Change the organisational structures, said one. Change the criminal sanctions, said another. Change recruitment practices, and so on. We are all proud of having our smartest and youngest brains working in the City - seemed the agreed collective conclusion - and many of them are also so generously involved with the philanthropy sector and with charities after all. Sad we cannot recruit more good guys from Serbia, popped in a recruitment consultant. And you don't want to collaborate with european mutuals, added another.

I just suggested we should change the governance game, as this perpetuation of a Cop and robbers play in financial services, managing and mismanaging people money is just another way to incentivise more tricks and clever scams in spite of very important internationally recognised principles of good practice and fundamental rights - such the ones that safeguard personal pensions from being taken as assets in bankruptcies, especially when there are ascertained elements to consider such bankruptcies made against self represent litigants very bizarre from a procedural point of view and substantially wrong in the law. That was exactly my case.

Putting the record straight

I succeeded in making the Insolvency Service to change and re-gazette the bankruptcy order, together with the notice of its discharge. In fact, it seemed in 2013 I was declared bankrupt in the High Court instead of a County Court because of a mistake made in the template of a document used by the Official Receiver. Similarly, it seems my appointed trustees in bankruptcy considered my stakeholder pension as an asset because... of a missed form. Anyway, with the correction of this first mistake I feel the process towards the annulment has started (whereas last year I had felt it was really impossible to go for the annulment, after two years of systematic suppression of all my attempts to have a claim for missed conveyance of a defective property heard, and without being legally represented, and with no money left and no time to study any further procedure, and following 120 days in which I was almost homeless).

As a matter of professional understanding of document management issues, I can say the mistaken name of the Court in the bankruptcy order was facilitated by the fact that the actual bankruptcy number is identical to the petition number, so that conceptual differences between diverse data entities cannot be easily spotted (petition, bankruptcy, name of the court are all different data objects that get easily confused if they all have identifical reference number across different registries and procedures).

Changing such little detail required me innumerable emails and interactions with several people working for the Insolvency Service, but in the end we made it, with the added bonus of some potential flaws discovered in the process of sharing data among different networks and countries (the Insolvency Service office in Belfast seemed unable to receive email communications at some stage).

The next step will be to obtain a rectification order for unilateral mistake made in the same bankruptcy order where it is said that at the time of the bankruptcy order I was living at an address for correspondence, a PO BOX. This rectification order is important in order to amend mistakes discovered by my appointed trustees in Land Registry entries that could be exploited for other crimes, also affecting other people and not just me (everybody could potentially pretend my bankruptcy is theirs and support with that other fraudulent transactions such as devaluation of land and so on and so forth!).

So, I filed my bound of evidences and a thirteen pages witness statement explaining why the rectification is needed under Data Protection Act and Land Registration Act etc etc, which court has the jurisdiction to make the required order under Senior Courts Act etc etc. Finger crossed, I should have the (wrong) bankruptcy order rectified, re-gazetted (again) and above all enforceable with the Land Registry, other public registries and within any other legal proceedings (including my own for the annulment) in England or elsewhere, in time to consider it as a Christmas present.

Let's hope in 2015 I can concentrate on and talk about more flourishing - and good - change management businesses, with a chance that the addicted governance gamblers and cyberstalkers are definitely out of my records.

28 November 2014: Post Scriptum

I have just received today an order dated 24th November made by a District Judge Clarke in the County court at Central London in Bankruptcy that first of all refused to transfer the file of the case to a Registrar. The judgement says my application is not against unknown person(s) but against the Official Receiver. That is so untrue that I suspect the Judge did not read at all my thirteen pages of witness statement. The rest follows consequently.

In fact, the Judge ordered the "application be summarily dismissed as wholly without merit" because: 1) the court is not actively processing any data relating to me 2) the address for correspondence I complained about was confirmed by me being correct (surely it was correct but as an address for correspondence!) and 3) "if you wish the petition address to be amended you must discuss this with the Official Receiver or your Trustees in bankrutpcy (if any) who, if satisfied, may apply for such amendment".

In sum, under other circumstances I could have required a Cost protection order. Instead, I have been ordered to mind my own business and not to care if any falsehood is being fabricated in the Land Registry abusing of my own name and my former (now dismissed) address for correspondence.

Is that fair, is that right? It is not: I think it is a very diminishing way to deal with my dignity, my rights and my interests. Any minute I remain misrepresented in the public perception is a minute stolen to my social life. And it is also very wrong, of course, in respect of the public interest: the reason why so many inaccurate fraudulent records are being held in public registries and cybercriminals flourish is because few people care of the accuracy of personal data and other details very relevant in representing people transactions, relationships, assets and so on.

Having said that, as I have been ordered, I will ask the Official Receiver to apply to have a rectification order. I will prepare my application for the annullment and spend my little spare time in claiming back my stakeholder pension (but if you happen to be a pro-bono lawyer willing to take over my self-represented litigant role, do not hesitate to let me know). And I will mind my own businesses.

I do appreciate that some people have sent me in the meantime apologies for having mispelled words or numbers in private communications or in various newsletters here and there: a bit of humour and lighthearted approach to such matters surely helps. In any case, if you have interest for justice and for a civilised society, you should start changing your mind and care like me about the rectification of all the personal data that are evidently made up abusing of others' personal details, in the Land Registry as well as in Google or Facebook, because these data are not fiction. These data are the very essence of our identities and digital lives.


(1) By the way, I have started my third personal Twitter account @brunella_longo in the meantime.
(2) Rectification Claim: In the County Court at Central London in Bankruptcy, Case 5769 of 2012, Maria Brunella Longo and Unknown Person(s): Witness statement, 20 November 2014 (exhibits included).
(3) Judgement by District Judge Clarke: In the County Court at Central London in Bankruptcy, Case 5769 of 2012, Maria Brunella Longo and The Official receiver [sic], 24 November 2014.