stemelbow wrote: 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.
spirit of the law = LDS.eccesiastical = self determined morals letter of the law = LDS.inc = get sued, fined and/or imprisioned.
loose spirit of the law cannons should scare the hell out of LDS.inc.
Bazooka wrote: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.
Your morals obviously don't jive with Dan's ... go figure
3sheets2thewind wrote: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.
Notably (at least to me), Dan has been awfully quiet about all this (except for the 3rd-person statement he allowed Liz to post here). As far as I can tell, nothing (other than a couple of posts by Liz) has been posted over on MAD, either -- not even a discussion between posters other than Dan. This tells me that Dan is taking the issues raised on this bb very seriously, and he's probably asking his associates over there not to discuss any of this (at least until he has figured out what to do).
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
3sheets2thewind wrote: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.
Sorry, I just resigned from MDDB2 where I fought the hoard for 10+ pages. No copies are available
RockSlider wrote: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
Gee, Rockslider. Why would the LDS Church have a dedicated office for this at church headquarters, when Daniel Peterson's disciples, who have no authority to speak on behalf of the LDS Church, are so confidently proclaiming that none of this matters?
RockSlider wrote: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
Gee, Rockslider. Why would the LDS Church have a dedicated office for this at church headquarters, when Daniel Peterson's disciples, who have no authority to speak on behalf of the LDS Church, are so confidently proclaiming that none of this matters?
It's called blind faith in Dan's personal interpretation of LDS.eccesiastical moral code, turning a blind eye to the business realities of LDS.inc privacy ethics. Take the moral high ground dude.
3sheets2thewind wrote: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.
Sorry, I just resigned from MDDB2 where I fought the hoard for 10+ pages. No copies are available
Did Dan defend his actions on the basis that it was a moral issue for him?
Yes he did. Well, there was nothing for him to defend, as his morals dictated that nothing wrong was done, so there is nothing to defend. I've deleted my user and can not share any screen shots.
RockSlider wrote:You need to add Stem, Parohan, Jersey Girl and Ray to this list (from what has become MDDB2).
I know this is a stupid question, but what exactly is "MDDB2"?
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)