Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_Darth J]

Did you volunteer when Shades needed mods last? I don't recall your name on the list. When you sign up, then we can talk about my reasons for my dedication.

And my question still stands. What are you going to do about it? Besides sit here and beef about it, of course. Nothing? That's okay, too.

I didn't see your name on the ballot last time I voted for anyone running for national office, Harmony. Therefore, you have no grounds to complain about anything the federal government does.

[_Bazooka]

No.

Restricted access implies a rule against access.

DCP didn't access the records.
An authorised user did and then used the data in a manner that he, the registered user, had agreed not to under the terms of access.
DCP made no such agreement with the Church as he didn't agree to be an authorised user of the database.

[_Bazooka]

Like finding out how much tithing someone else in your ward pays by asking the financial clerk.

There's no rule against asking.
Of course, if the clerk passes on the information he (the clerk) has broken Church rules but the 'asker' hasn't.
The asker has behaved "unethically" though.

[_Darth J]

DCP didn't access the records.
An authorised user did and then used the data in a manner that he, the registered user, had agreed not to under the terms of access.
DCP made no such agreement with the Church as he didn't agree to be an authorised user of the database.

Yep, and if anything were to happen over this, it's the Church and the bishop who are left holding the bag, while Peterson---the only one who benefited---is the one who walks away and has his ridiculous sycophants singing his praises all over the internet.

ETA: and it's also the Church, and Mormons in general, who look like a paranoid, insular cult because of Daniel Peterson's personal interests.

[_3sheets2thewind]

Please turn him/them in then. Start with tattling on Peterson. My guess is this won't get anywhere. No one will take it seriously? Why? because no information was taken from the directory at all. The spirit of the rule is clearly to not use the information for marketing or political purposes or some other such thing. It has nothing to do with whether one can check up on someone whose boasting about things on the internet while attacking people. Indeed, many would see this as a good thing rather than a bad thing.

You have it completly ass-backwards. And you show a complete lack of comprehension between the Spirit of Law and Letter of the Law. Here's hint, the Spirit of a Law is not a regurgitation of the exact wording of the law.

[_Darth J]

Please turn him/them in then. Start with tattling on Peterson. My guess is this won't get anywhere. No one will take it seriously? Why? because no information was taken from the directory at all. The spirit of the rule is clearly to not use the information for marketing or political purposes or some other such thing. It has nothing to do with whether one can check up on someone whose boasting about things on the internet while attacking people. Indeed, many would see this as a good thing rather than a bad thing.

You have it completly ass-backwards. And you show a complete lack of comprehension between the Spirit of Law and Letter of the Law. Here's hint, the Spirit of a Law is not a regurgitation of the exact wording of the law.

No, 3sheets, you have it completely ass-backwards by even entertaining this idea. An unambiguous end user license agreement does not take into account any ridiculous, self-serving assertions about any "spirit" of the law. It's a non-starter.

[_Bazooka]

DCP didn't access the records.
An authorised user did and then used the data in a manner that he, the registered user, had agreed not to under the terms of access.
DCP made no such agreement with the Church as he didn't agree to be an authorised user of the database.

Yep, and if anything were to happen over this, it's the Church and the bishop who are left holding the bag, while Peterson---the only one who benefited---is the one who walks away and has his ridiculous sycophants singing his praises all over the internet.

ETA: and it's also the Church, and Mormons in general, who look like a paranoid, insular cult because of Daniel Peterson's personal interests.

If the Bishop were to be identified, could the Church be sued under data protection failure?
Do the customers that attended the trip in question have any legal recourse (and against who?) for the fact that they were secretly cross referenced against a supposedly private Church database?

[_Darth J]

If the Bishop were to be identified, could the Church be sued under data protection failure?
Do the customers that attended the trip in question have any legal recourse (and against who?) for the fact that they were secretly cross referenced against a supposedly private Church database?

That's probably something they would want to get legal counsel about, huh?

Now if it were me, and I was holding myself out as this Knight Templar defending the restored gospel from hordes of Satan's minions, I probably would not brazenly boast on a public message board about creating this situation for the institution I am purporting to champion.

And I probably would not invite a judge in Israel to steal the Church's intellectual property, either.

But that's just me.

[_RockSlider]

Your little cult of personality is so myopic that you hapless lapdogs have been going on for pages and pages about how wonderful it is to f*** the Church (by invading its property rights and potentially subjecting it to liability) to satisfy Daniel Peterson's personal vendettas. Why don't you just stop calling yourself "LDS" right now, and admit that you, Liz, and Alter Idem are members of the Church of Daniel Peterson?

You need to add Stem, Parohan, Jersey Girl and Ray to this list (from what has become MDDB2).

As you noted, this is totally a legal issue, and like in any modern day business, LDS.inc needs to obey the local, national and international laws dealing with personal privacy. Like any modern business, privacy policy is typically handled by the legal department. Note: http://www.LDS.org/LEGAL/privacy, with a dedicated single point of contact:

E-mail: DataPrivacyOfficer@ldschurch.org
Fax: 1-801-240-1187
Address: Data Privacy Office
50 E. North Temple St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84150-0018

Dan maintains that this is a "moral" issue and that he (and his buddy) has in no way violated his own personal moral code. Dan is simply showing that he is totally out of touch with real world business ethics and practices. He lives in the world of LDS.ecclesiastical not LDS.inc. Of course LDS.org/legal/privacy is all about LDS.inc. I think this is one reason the apologist hate the term LDS.inc, they simply can not reconcile the diametrically opposite dimensions these two aspects of the church often present. They prefer and must live in the LDS.ecclesiastical world, ignoring the LDS.inc side.

Thus Dan's LDS.ecclesiastical based morals are his higher law, and the end justifies the means in his moral code overridding the LDS.inc privacy ethical code (which he will not even acknowledge violation of by his buddy).

Dan is basically saying (and actually doing) is that the end justifies the means and that his moral code outweights the business ethics of the Church's privacy policy.

Here we have a group with a history of wolf hunters (the Interpreter) with their Head hunter (hehe) publically bragging that he has a Bishop friend onboard who will support his personal moral values in priority over Church privacy ethics.

This is scary

[_3sheets2thewind]

Has Dan actually posted that his conduct concerning the access of church records was a moral issue? If so, a screen grab would.be awesome.