The only public information regarding this question is in records pertaining to the case of The Church Of Scientology vs. Gerald Armstrong, a California Superior Court case. In a memorandum of intended decision, it is noted that auditing records of kept by the church are used for internal security. They are also noted to be stored securely by the church. As no transcript or record of the auditing session is furnished to participants, it would appear to be the property of the church.

As to whether a precedent regarding rights to the information by individual participants has been set, there are no cases on record.
Source(s):
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/breckenridge-decision.pdf

Permalink | Report

1)
Does the Church of Scientology Record People's Auditing Sessions?

Yes.
These records are called "Preclear (PC) folders".

They are traditionally written, but sometimes contain audio and / or video transcriptions of auditing sessions.

You can find more information about these sessions here:
http://www.xenu-directory.net/news/library.php?mf=1&yf=&mt=12&yt=&t=Confidential+preclear+%28PC%29+folder&ppg=20

Notably, it is rumored that John Travolta has maintained his affiliation with Scientology because of the transcriptions recorded during his auditing sessions.

Here's an interesting video from a Scientologist turned protester who reveals that details of his preclear folder are used in public to get rid of him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPXMlqPWvCM

2)
Who owns these sessions legally, the church or the individual?

To preface, I am not a lawyer and this is a legal question.

These auditing sessions are similar to traditional interview. They are personal questions which are transcribed verbatim during an interview.

If the Preclear Folders contain conclusions drawn on the information obtained within the interview, I believe that those conclusions would be the property of the church. However, the interview and transcriptions themselves would be the property of the individual.

If on the other hand, all that is recorded or stored are the conclusions drawn from the interview (much like a psychiatric notes) then these in their entirety belong to the church.

In a court or at mediation, a judge would need to uncover exactly how the Preclear Folder was created, how the conclusions were drawn and how much of the content was created independently by the representative of the Church. My hope would be that a judge in this case would order the documents to be destroyed when and if the origional participant requested. In reality however, the value of these documents extends into who had access to the documents and how the information (even after destruction) could be used against the interviewee.
Source(s):
A chat with the group Anonymous: http://www.whyweprotest.net/en/chat/
http://img.skitch.com/20091026-mbapk83pk6hca67dtyy9k66ds1.jpg

http://www.bestoftheweblogs.crookedincanada.com/2009/07/27/church-of-scient...

http://www.xenu.net/archive/techniques/

Permalink | Report

To the question about auditing sessions, yes, some of the sessions can be recorded and are saved to keep a record, called 'folders' or 'PC Folders' (pre-clear folders) of the individual. Directly from the Scientology.org website:

--------Quote:

"Traditionally, all communications between a minister and his parishioners have been privileged and confidential. That is certainly the case in Scientology religion, and this trust is never violated. The confidences given in trust during an auditing session are considered sacrosanct by the Church, and are never divulged. In fact, the Church would invoke all legal protections under its priest-penitent privilege to safeguard this confidentiality. "
---------/Quote
http://faq.scientology.org/divulge.htm
.............................................................................

Wikiversity says:

-----Quote"
"Auditing helps people examine specific areas of their existence so they can rid themselves of unwanted spiritual conditions. This in turn helps them reach higher levels of being"
------/Quote
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology
..............................................................................
Also from Wikiversity, it says that the sessions can be recorded, but that they are securely stored and are not able to be accessed unless being added to them by an new auditing session. The auditor is not allowed to divulge the information from an auditing sessions. But it also says that if the church believes the auditing session needs to be reviewed for 'internal security purposes', organizational directive GO 121669 allows them to review whatever records are available for that purpose.
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology
...........................................................................
GO 121669 is called Guardian Order 121669 and you can read the full text of that GO here:

http://www.shipbrook.com/jeff/CoS/docs/go121669.html

This document is specifically about 'double agents', back in 1969, where auditing records were pulled to review to see if there were anything in those auditing sessions to prove out that certain members of the church were acting as double agent to infiltrate the organization.

It's a fascinating and frightening read, in my opinion.
...........................................................................
After reading all of this, I would surmise this clearly indicates that the the 'church' owns the records of the audits, assuming the sessions are recorded. From what I've read, it seems most of them are recorded nowadays, but that hasn't always been the case.

And here is a fascinating text of a lawsuit filed, called Scientology Vs. Gerry Armstrong, in which the GO 121669 is mentioned too, having to do with revealing certain confidential information:

http://www.operatingthetan.com/abelson/hs-breck.html

In this lawsuit, it specifically discusses the confidential auditing records, including any audio and video records, transcripts, recordings, notes, etc, of the auditor. This would seem to indicate clearly that recordings of the records are indeed kept, but that the law indicated in the judgment that they belonged to the organization.

Also important to note this section of the judgment:

----Quote:
"The practice of culling supposedly confidential "P.C. folders or files" to obtain information for purposes of intimidation and or harassment is repugnant was no respector of anyone's civil rights, particularly that of privacy. "
-----/Quote: http://www.operatingthetan.com/abelson/hs-breck.html

AND

-----Quote:
"Insofar as the return of documents is concerned, matters which are still under seal may have evidentiary value in the trial of the cross complaint or in other third party litigation. By the time that proceedings on the cross complaint are concluded, the court's present feeling is that those document or objects not used by that time should be returned to the plaintiff."
-----/Quote: http://www.operatingthetan.com/abelson/hs-breck.html

Indicating that the court ruled the plaintiff (the church) would get the documents returned, indicating the documents and auditing records did indeed belong to the church.

.......
Lastly, here is a website that explains in detail how an auditing session is performed:

http://www.e-meter.org.uk/page07.htm

Here at this link, you can find a step by step explanation one person offers of how they experienced their auditing session:

http://www.43things.com/things/view/928576/attend-a-scientology-auditing-session

So to sum it up, yes, auditing sessions are often recorded (but not always), and if they are, they belong to the the Scientologist organization, and not to the member being audited. Any information gathered in an auditing session is saved and filed away securely, and is only used if the Scientology Organization believes they need to review it to determine if the person in question is working as a double agent to infiltrate the organization.

I would also venture to guess the organization of Scientology is smart enough to get all sorts of waivers signed before an auditing session. I'm still looking for something that indicates that, because if I can find that, I'm pretty sure it will be clear they get folks to sign away their legal right to possession of that video/recording (some of the links above indicated audio recording). If I find anything that talks about waivers, I'll come back and post the link.
Source(s):
http://faq.scientology.org/divulge.htm
http://www.e-meter.org.uk/page07.htm
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology
http://www.shipbrook.com/jeff/CoS/docs/go121669.html
http://www.43things.com/things/view/928576/attend-a-scientology-auditing-se...


Permalink | Report

I used to be personally involved with a Church of Scientology in my area, and I'd have to answer yes to both of your questions.

As far as Scientology goes, I don't think it's really my thing; but, it really is something you have to make up your own mind about, and you should definitely be careful about who you decide to trust.

These links should be of some interest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdsCknZfMXI
Source(s):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdsCknZfMXI

Permalink | Report

This answer has been voted unhelpful by users. Please click to view

John Travolta and Tom Cruise own them and keep them in a little box under their twin bed wrapped in foil with a bow on it wrapped in kevlar.
Hide

Permalink | Report

Interesting enough when googling this anytime I found a link talking about cases where auditing had been recorded and someone found out I got 404 not found or page loading incorrectly. Seems someone has been trying to cover this up if you ask me.

I did find this thread:
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=24695

It contains a plethora of quotes from various websites some of which were ones I attempted to access and can no longer view. It also contains actual pictures of monitoring and recording during sessions.

One of the images from the thread:

http://www.carolineletkeman.org/sp/images/stories/brainwash/e-meter/source140-11.jpg

Based on the information conveniently compiled for me in the thread I would say yes, Scientology audits are recorded and kept.

Legally I'd say unless there is a contract that states the session will be taped, what the church is doing is illegal so no they don't own the tapes or recordings the individual would by default.

I also find it frightening that in most cases the tapes even came to light it appears to be someone within the church attempted to use them as blackmail against the test taker. Other than that, no one seems to have been the wiser.
Source(s):
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=24695


Permalink | Report

Yes auditing sessions are recorded, and they are held as property of the Church of Scientology

They are legally held by virtue of their incorporation as a religion, under legal provisions protecting confidentiality between a "confessor" and a church "minister".

If the problem is that someone has got deep enough into the CoSc to have learned sensitive information that would look bad on the public image of CoSc, and that person wants to leave, the CoSc can and will use those records to blackmail the apostate into silence, especially if the penalty the CoSc would face for doing blackmail is so obviously less than the personal damage that the apostate would feel to his life if content from his auditing sessions are leaked.

From the church's point of view, "sensitive information" tends to be along the lines of how it eventually becomes clear to members that have worked into the higher levels that the CoSc is purely about making money, and how the CoSc will resort to anything to keep that happening and to defend itself, and how it is all justified by a church doctrine of "survival of the fittest".

Specifically, the CoSc believes in evolution, which means survival of the fittest, and when a member is considered to be inside enough, it's explained that survival of fittest in the modern age means to "make money, make money, make money."

The only situation reputed to have made the CoSc back off was where in a recorded auditing session containing info that the church wanted to use to blackmail an ex-member into silence was some information that was specifically illegal for the church to have withheld from authorities regardless of confessor-minister confidentiality.

Specifically, in some jurisdictions, if a confessor or a patient starts talking about suicide to a minister or doctor, the minister or doctor is required to alert authorities (they don't have to pass on details of *why* the confessor or patient was talking suicide... but they're required to report that the confessor or patient is having those thoughts seriously).

Because one of the promises offered by CoSc to new recruits is that of repolarization of sexual orientation for gay people, a lot of their recruits in bible-belt jurisdictions are gays who want to be strait.

And because it's not uncommon for seriously closeted gays in bible-belt jurisdictions to talk about thoughts of suicide during sexual-orientation auditing sessions, then, if they're in a jurisdiction requiring the minister to notify authorities about the suicide talk but the minister didn't, then the church is now breaking a cut-and-dried law with teeth that cannot be wiggled around like cleverly leaked blackmail.

It quickly gets into an issue of whether or not records have been modified, but if one is willing to swear a statement that he said something, and that something is not on the recorded tape, then it can be just as hard to prove that records have not been tampered with as it can be to prove that they have, and again, unlike blackmail, which can be wiggled around or sacrificed away with fall-guys, that's the kind of violation that threatens their license as a church... which is much more damaging to the organization than penalties of blackmail.

In any case... if you're looking at Scientology because the auditing looks like it can help with something, then there's something you need to understand:

Dianetics is the psychological theory and practice that auditing is based on, and in fact, as far as psychological therapy goes, it's not bad. It can actually work in the hands of a therapist who knows what he's doing.

Scientology is a religion that was wrapped around dianetics years after dianetics had already established some ground as a therapy.

L.Ron saw an opportunity in the way people were saying, "Okay, dianetics helped me get my head strait, but *why* did it work?", and Hubbard didn't really care, because he based everything on perceptual phenomenology, however the opportunity was there, and so he came up with Scientology as a theology-style why-and-how for the observational effects of dianetic therapy... and yes... Scientology can very bizarre... read L.Ron's reports on what heaven looks like now versus when he visited it trillions of years ago.

However, if you're thinking that dianetics might be a therapy that works for you, you don't *have* to do it through the Church of Scientology. There are groups of dianeticisists who practice the therapy without the religion.

If you're being courted by Scientologists, it is in your right to do some due diligence, and this is as fair enough place to start as any: http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/apobs/contents.htm

L.Ron was a character, and it would be normal and natural to have doubts about the validity of the Scientology religion part, but that doesn't mean you can't use dianetics as a pure therapy outside of the context of religion with dianeticists who deal with it as a psychological therapy without all the theological dressing and who know what they are doing as therapists.

If you've been there and want to get out and you're worried about being blackmailed, then get some strategic legal advice on how to be able to prove you're being blackmailed, and if there was talk about suicide during one of the auditing sessions that covered other topics that could be used as blackmail, check out what the laws are in your jurisdiction for confessor-minister/patient-doctor confidentiality if the minister or doctor hears talk about suicide, because you might be holding a trump card.
Permalink | Report

Yes the church of Scientology does record people's auditing sessions.Auditing is a central practice of scientology and it is delivered by an auditor. It is regarded as the only workable technology of the mind that is in relation to the spirit. Each sessions involves two people the person who is being audited and the auditor. The church keeps extensive auditing records for every auditing sessions.

The Church legally and absolutely owns these sessions. All information is confidential and the trust is never violated. In fact the church will invoke all legal protections possible to safeguard this information.

http://faq.scientology/.org/ref_5.htm
Permalink | Report

So long as you stay in the church, your info will be kept private. But once you leave, if you can leave, the "church" will use any and all means necessary to silence you as a critic, including information obtained by auditing sessions. No, I have never been in Scientology but I know many ex-scientologists. Once you leave the church, you are officially an SP (Suppressive Person).

In order to understand why they want/need these auditing sessions, see the original fair game policy : http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html states the following:

SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.

The term "Fair Game" was canceled years ago because of the negative press that it received: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology)

However, according to people that I know - this policy still exists.

Chapter 10 of the Scandal of Scientology (written by Paulette Cooper) shows how Hubbard wanted these secrets:
http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/tsos/sos-10.html

"If anyone feels like leaving," wrote Hubbard "just examine the records and sit down and list everything done to and withheld from me and the organization and send it along. We'll save a lot of people that way."

I'd like to note that Paulette Cooper once wrote a critical book on Scientology and she suffered from their wrath during "Operation Freakout" where Scientology used a number of dirty tricks to try to get her in serous trouble with the law, including lifting her fingerprints and putting them on a bomb threat.

See the wiki on "Operation Freakout" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freakout

So long story short, it belongs to Scientology. Hubbard wanted and needed those secrets, in order to keep people in the church.

P.S. The bridge to freedom is now up to about 300k :) It's a lot of money but damn, there are a lot of space cooties on ya!
Permalink | Report

Does the Church of Scientology record people's auditing sessions?

Yes. as cited above.

Who owns those sessions legally, the church or individual?

The recording fall under the category of "artistic creation" and are owned by the Church. This is the same as if a reporter interviews you the company they work for owns the video they create or the notes they take. If Jason consents to an interview with me then I own the work product from the interview. As long as I don't publish the work or use it for commercial purposes I don't need to obtain a release.

"Q. Who owns the copyright to an artistic creation?

A. Generally, whoever creates the work of art is the copyright holder. This applies even if someone other than the creator of the work of art came up with the idea for the work of art.

One exception occurs when an artist creates a work of art as part of his or her job duties. In this case, the employer of the artist would own the copyright. For example, if an illustrator creates an illustration for the ad agency she works for while performing her job, the ad agency owns the copyright to the illustration. "
from http://www.lawdepot.com/contracts/FAQs/ModelRelease.php
Source(s):
http://www.lawdepot.com/contracts/FAQs/ModelRelease.php

Permalink | Report