<p>In a law case against the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the author wrote, in 2015,: &ldquo;What was done to me could equally be done to members or leaders of groups or organisations (even politicians) to successfully demolish them, such were methods used. Does this reflect British or EU values or healthy democracy? Is this not what &ldquo;rogue states&rdquo; do albeit through more aggressive, more explicit, less &ldquo;plausibly deniable&rdquo; means? I believe it is in the public interest to be aware of the fact that this type of operation goes on and what it can achieve or destroy ...Physical intimidation is less sophisticated and less &ldquo;plausibly deniable&rdquo; than psychological intimidation&hellip;&rdquo;</p><p>At a time when politicians are pressing for special measures to protect themselves, the author argues that in the internet age, it is <strong>ordinary </strong>people who need the most help and access to protection of the law. Politicians and celebrities are usually able to protect themselves, hire the best legal advice, and sufficiently high profile to expose harassment and to correct any misinformation or defamation about themselves.</p><p>&ldquo;Data Protection goes to the heart of civil and human rights. It encompasses an individual&rsquo;s right to be judged on their true character (rather than solely on how data processors have &ldquo;subjectively perceived&rdquo; it, their right to choose what they share; their right to privacy. Above all, their very identity and the web of relations this includes, are at stake when data is not protected&rdquo;. The author explains how incorrect data held by the State can unintentionally become State-sponsored slander and contrary to purpose. This is why re: State-held data, the author argues that &ldquo;less is more&rdquo;.</p><p>Whilst the General Data Protection Regulation is designed to protect individuals&rsquo; data whilst &ldquo;growing the European Union Data economy&rdquo;, the author exposes the ways in which individual&rsquo;s data rights are not protected by this law as well as the inaccessibility of legal advice. The author advocates greater dialogue between &ldquo;officials and the greater public at large&rdquo; if rights which the law sets out to protect are to be upheld by all but a privileged few.</p>