Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_MsJack]

I'm not sure I can rely on your recounting of the events MsJack, since you've proven here that you are unwilling to be fair in your assessments.

CFR, stemelbow. Cite a single place in the entire history of my message board posting where I have been "unwilling to be fair in [my] assessments." I look forward to your examples.

In any case, for those who actually are interested in how accurate my account is, the young woman in question confirmed his stalking behavior and his cursing her in the name of the priesthood in the comments on my blog (start here).

Can I count this as an hypothetical instead?

Count it however you want. I think I'm just going to run the question by DH's bishop regardless and report back on whether or not he thinks that's an appropriate use of church resources. You and liz3564 and Alter Idem all say this was a fair use of church resources, and West's behavior towards my friend was far more unhinged and creepier than anything Everybody Wang Chung ever did to Dan, so you should have nothing to worry about. Besides, I'd only be asking the bishop to look up one name, not an entire list of names.

[_Bazooka]

As a 'member' no.

That's right. So, as a member, you would be breaking the rules by illicitly accessing, either directly or indirectly, information that was restricted to you according to the rules of the organization to which you and your friend accessing those records belong.

No. I'd be being unethical in asking a friend of mine to access those records.
The rules of access to the database apply solely to the person who has the authorisation to sign in to that database.
The rules of the database, as I've read them, do not apply to any third party who may benefit from an authorised database user doing something explicitly forbidden within the rules that they (not the third party) have agreed to.

I'm bearing in mind this is a volunteer organisation and so Church rules apply, rather than the laws of the land.

[_lulu]

As a 'member' no.

That's right. So, as a member, you would be breaking the rules by illicitly accessing, either directly or indirectly, information that was restricted to you according to the rules of the organization to which you and your friend accessing those records belong.

No. I'd be being unethical in asking a friend of mine to access those records.
The rules of access to the database apply solely to the person who has the authorisation to sign in to that database.
The rules of the database, as I've read them, do not apply to any third party who may benefit from an authorised database user doing something explicitly forbidden within the rules that they (not the third party) have agreed to.

I'm bearing in mind this is a volunteer organisation and so Church rules apply, rather than the laws of the land.[/quote]

Go find me a legal system that does not recognize:

1. Accomplice before the fact.

2. Accomplice after the fact.

3. Conspiracy.

I don't know of one.

Well there's some parts of Africa and Eastern Europe but it's gonna cost us...

You're not getting off that easy.

[_Yoda]

I'm not sure I can rely on your recounting of the events MsJack, since you've proven here that you are unwilling to be fair in your assessments.

CFR, stemelbow. Cite a single place in the entire history of my message board posting where I have been "unwilling to be fair in [my] assessments." I look forward to your examples.

In any case, for those who actually are interested in how accurate my account is, the young woman in question confirmed his stalking behavior and his cursing her in the name of the priesthood in the comments on my blog (start here).

Can I count this as an hypothetical instead?

Count it however you want. I think I'm just going to run the question by DH's bishop regardless and report back on whether or not he thinks that's an appropriate use of church resources. You and liz3564 and Alter Idem all say this was a fair use of church resources, and West's behavior towards my friend was far more unhinged and creepier than anything Everybody Wang Chung ever did to Dan, so you should have nothing to worry about. Besides, I'd only be asking the bishop to look up one name, not an entire list of names.

I think this is a completely appropriate course of action. Please let me know what the bishop says.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

For instance, what information from the directory did DCP receive? Any piece of data at all?

It's not so much what the search revealed or didn't reveal (although DCP did get information from the bishop that he found no person listed on DCP's customer list that also was found to be a bishop in the Church leadership directory -- this, by itself, is information received by DCP); what's important is that the search itself was done in a way that violated the "conditions of use," regardless of outcome. This is my beef.

[_harmony]

what's important is that the search itself was done in a way that violated the "conditions of use," regardless of outcome. This is my beef.

Okay, I agree with that. Now what are you going to do about it? Sit here and complain some more?

[_Kishkumen]

No.

Restricted access implies a rule against access.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Dan may not have broken the rules but his Bishop friend certainly did.

This is spot-on.

ETA: If Dan's friend sent this information via email he put the information on a computer network. 2 strikes.

ETA2: I don't care if Everybody Wang Chung lied or not. That is irrelevant to the question I have posed. I'd appreciate it if you would leave any mention of Everybody Wang Chung out of any reply you may provide as Everybody Wang Chung is not relevant in any way to the questions I have posed.

Thanks for saying it better than I ever could. What Wang Chung said is completely irrelevant to whether DCP's bishop friend violated the Church's "conditions of use" when accessing the leadership directory on Dan's behalf.

And, for what it's worth, I am currently serving in the 2nd quorum of the seventy.

This is pretty cool. I don't know that if we've ever had anyone in such high Church office visit, let alone post here. Thanks for giving us your insight.

[_Tator]

I have stated many times that DCP is his own worse enemy, this is more proof.

I have stated many times that I believe all along that Everybody Wang Chung has been Wangin' DCPs Chung.

It has worked and worked marvelously. DCP is one paranoid little puppy.

This episode proves and even DCPs defenders agree that what he did was stupid. Question: How many stupid things must you do like this before you step over the line of doing stupid things to just plain proving you are stupid?

I believe DCP has crossed the line and his defenders are racing toward it. DCP is not the sharpest tool in the workshop but he is a tool for sure.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

what's important is that the search itself was done in a way that violated the "conditions of use," regardless of outcome. This is my beef.

Okay, I agree with that. Now what are you going to do about it? Sit here and complain some more?

I always thought this was a bulletin board where we could discuss Mormon-related issues. Am I wrong? We are not "complaining" -- we are discussing a clear (and blatant, in my opinion) violation of the Church's "conditions of use" for the sole purpose of unmasking an anonymous poster here, an issue that is dear to the heart of many of us (particularly those who choose to post anonymously). The fact you can't see the importance of this issue to a large segment of the posters here makes me question why you would even want to be a Mod.