Grandstanding is not my goal; it's a means of attracting attention to a matter that people have been desensitized to. A secondary goal is to cause internal escalation. In the end, I really just want my data, as way to create a path for myself and others.
Is data posted on FB by other people, which just happens to be (partly) about you, "your" data?
Unfortunately, that tool only gives me all of the data I put on there myself. So nothing I didn’t already have
The data subject shall have the right to receive the personal data concerning him or her, which he or she has provided to a controller
Where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject, the controller shall provide the data subject with the following information:
(c) the purposes of the processing for which the personal data are intended as well as the legal basis for the processing;
(d) the categories of personal data concerned;
(e) the recipients or categories of recipients of the personal dataArticle 15 - "Right of access by the data subject" - is what defines one's right to a copy of personal data, and has no restriction on the personal data one is entitled to access.
Other than that, my guess is he hopes that this story will get picked by press sooner or later, and thus tries to make the paper trail as attractive and instantly easy to use in newspapers as possible. With a side goal of also making it as attractive, fun to read, and generally entertaining as possible, to any other people casually coming by his site. Which I see as a very noble and valuable goal, esp. when talking about legal stuff, which is super hard to talk and write about in entertaining and approachable way.
You had me up until the legalese email, after which the correct response is to sue. You lost me with the belligerent reply ranting about what Mark said in the Washington Post. It seems, at that point, that you're more interested in grandstanding than making a defensible case.