Misuse of Confidential Information - A Public Service Announcement

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I would have similar objections to anyone to induces other people to break the law, whether it is criminal statute, a civil statute, a contract, whatever.

All it says is that I don't like what Mr. McKnight is doing.

I think it's pretty obvious that he is inducing employees of the Church to breach the Church's trust in them.  

I'll look into the legal complexities later, but the generalized concept is that I find it reprehensible for a person who dislikes a religious organization taking calculated steps to induce members of that Church to use their privileged access (through their employment by the Church) to wrongfull divulge the Church's propriety and confidential ecclesiastical and business documentation and information.

Meanwhile we can make reasonable surmises.

I think his conduct as described above is reprehensible.  Otherwise, I don't care about him one way or another.

Thanks,

 

Jesus told me to care about others so I try.  I don't know what conduct you think has been described.  You have said he induces employees, but you don't know that, do you?  We have to guess.  Maybe employees have a right to provide him some stuff.  We don't know that he's taken any calculated steps to induce anyone. 

You speak as if he's being cunning and tricking members to do things they normally wouldn't do.  But you don't know that.  It appears to me you simply dislike him, and want to go after him due to your dislike.  

[PacMan]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What do you find curious? That I expect those claiming righteousness to be righteous?

I don't claim righteousness.  What I do claim is an absolute impatience with the moral superiority of half-wit hypocrites that promote made-up ethics and morals to supersede real principles of ethics and morality as well as the rule of law.

For example, tithing.  What right does Mr. McKnight have to proclaim the moral high-ground of transparency?  Who says that transparency is more moral than a lack thereof?  And what right does the public have to transparency of private matters?  Or what right does a volunteer contributor of tithing have a right to transparency when s/he relinquished ownership of the funds and any right thereto?  Mr. McKnight's whole moral high-ground crumbles when you realize that his crusades only makes sense after he reinvents not only ethics and morality, but also the definition of donation, the definition of a contract, the definition of a "right," and everything in between.

Mormon Leaks is a parasite.  It feeds off of the ignorance and pride of stupid people.  IMHO, it encourages illegal conduct and should be held accountable for what it is.  Mr. McKnight does not know better. 

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What counts as "journalism" for the purposes of First Amendment protections is all over the map.  See, e.g., here.

It's a complex issue, and depends heavily upon the jurisdiction.  See the above link.

Thanks,

-Smac

Has SCOTUS ever weighed in on what does or does not constitute journalism? The libertarian in me resists the idea of having the heavy hand of government involved in this question. Our First Amendment freedoms are in too much jeopardy as it is. 

[PacMan]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok, that's certainly your right.

Have you listened to the interview with him?  I'd recommend doing that if you haven't as I found it to be interesting and informative.  I'll try to look for the link (it was posted here, irrc).  

Considering I actually cite the time-stamp in the OP, I think the safe answer is yes.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, PacMan said:

I don't claim righteousness.  What I do claim is an absolute impatience with the moral superiority of half-wit hypocrites that promote made-up ethics and morals to supersede real principles of ethics and morality as well as the rule of law.

For example, tithing.  What right does Mr. McKnight have to proclaim the moral high-ground of transparency?  Who says that transparency is more moral than a lack thereof?  And what right does the public have to transparency of private matters?  Or what right does a volunteer contributor of tithing have a right to transparency when s/he relinquished ownership of the funds and any right thereto?  Mr. McKnight's whole moral high-ground crumbles when you realize that his crusades only makes sense after he reinvents not only ethics and morality, but also the definition of donation, the definition of a contract, the definition of a "right," and everything in between.

Mormon Leaks is a parasite.  It feeds off of the ignorance and pride of stupid people.  IMHO, it encourages illegal conduct and should be held accountable for what it is.  Mr. McKnight does not know better. 

SMAC- you seriously don't see the anger coming from this guy?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

41 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Contracts are often two ways.  Perhaps an employee has seen his/her contract broken by the Church in some way.  Perhaps the particular leaks that any employee might have provide McKnight isn't breaking any contract he/she has with the Church at all.  We don't know which leaks are from whom.  So it'd be hard to say either way. 

McKnight has also suggested he's gotten so many things and they have to be judicious about what to leak, often for the safety and well-being of the original leaker.  

I'd say it's a good caution to put out there.  But, in the end, it likely means very little since leakers are probably already considering these things.  

Publishing anything without knowing the identity of the source is not being judicious. No journalist I know worth his salt, or no decent publisher, would do such a thing. The credibility of said journalist or publisher tanks thereby. 

[PacMan]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

SMAC- you seriously don't see the anger coming from this guy?

 

Don't confuse facts with anger.  If I were angry, I promise that you and everyone else would know it.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Considering I actually cite the time-stamp in the OP, I think the safe answer is yes.

You cite the time-stamp of this interview?

http://kutv.com/news/local/mormonleaks-full-interviews

Have you listened to these?

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What do you find curious? That I expect those claiming righteousness to be righteous?

That you would excuse one and not the other. The very essence of a double standard. 

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess what I have in mind is this:

1) The Church sues McKnight re: inducing church employees to breach their employment agreements with the Church.

2) The Church sends Mr. McKnight discovery requests to compel him to turn over the identities of his "sources" who are employees in the Church.

3) The Church's discovery requests would have the coercive power of government behind them (the subpoena power).

4) Mr. McKnight resists the Church's discovery requests on First Amendment grounds, claiming that the government (the court) cannot compel him to divulge his sources because he is a journalist and entitled to First Amendment protections.

I have no experience in this area of constitutiona law, so I may be way off.

Thanks,

-Smac

To my knowledge, SCOTUS has never upheld reporter privilege to be constitutionally protected. Reporters have repeatedly been jailed to compel them to reveal their sources. 

[PacMan]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You cite the time-stamp of this interview?

http://kutv.com/news/local/mormonleaks-full-interviews

Have you listened to these?

You didn't state which interview.  In any event, Mr. McKnight has said enough publicly to enough people to get himself in trouble.

[ALarson]

Since Ryan McKnight posts here occasionally, maybe we should wait and hear what he has to say on this as well.  He'd be the person who'd know if the church has attempted to take legal action against him and also what advice he's received from his legal counsel.  I have to believe that he'd very careful to stay within legal guidelines, but it would be nice to hear from him on this, IMO.

Of course, he may choose not to share any interactions he's had legally with the church up to this point and that's his right.

Edited June 18, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

One issue here is I believe the Church functions as a corporate sole. It lacks the usual corporate offices with their attendant fiduciary duties. Whatever duties employees have will probably have to be established contractually. Is there an employee breaking their contractual duties? We don't even know. We don't even really know if a lot of this information is intended to be confidential, unless it says so. So again I think the Church may be successful in some kind of cease and desist order or possibly an order to disclose sources, but either way it would probably have to prove some kind of damage being done. I don't see a judge issuing an order without that. Further, Mr McKnight seems to claim that he has set up things in a manner that he does not have any record of his sources to provide even if such an order were issued, so that particular approach I think is not going to stop him. Since he is set up as strictly a source of LDS Church information, a cease and desist order may be the best the Church could hope for against Mormonleaks. 

As you point out, probably the most effective approach is to identify the leaker(s) and terminate their employment. i view them as the more culpable or guilty party here although McKight probably has some idea of at least one source - after all, I don't think he started all this on some whim - he had someone with some info they wanted to get published on the internet.

I think you make some good points. 

But I also think PacMan raises an intriguing  theory about aiding and abetting someone in violating a fiduciary duty. I think the Church has a right to keep secret some proprietary information (the salaries of personnel, for example) and to require its employees to honor that right. 

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, Exiled said:

They have the right to run their ship how they see fit, of course. However, my vision of a church is an organization that doesn't have too many secrets, if any.  It just seems contrary to the spirit of the sermon on the mount to strike back instead of turning the other cheek when dealing with leakers.  Besides, I don't think there have been any really shocking leaks that have been posted.  I wasn't surprised by the bubble chart video or the other videos.  Anyone who listens to church rhetoric or observes its actions couldn't have been surprised that the church was concerned by John Dehlin or Denver Snuffer.  The same goes for the recent "leak" of information regarding finances.  I wasn't surprised that the church has billions in its portfolio.  My guess is that it has a lot more wealth than that.

You can harbor any image you want about what a church is or does, but that’s not binding on anyone else. 

When there is as much enmity toward a church as there exists against the Church of Jesus Christ, I believe keeping some things secret is not only reasonable but prudent. It’s part of being wise as serpents but harmless as doves. 

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Jesus told me to care about others so I try.  I don't know what conduct you think has been described.  You have said he induces employees, but you don't know that, do you?  We have to guess.  Maybe employees have a right to provide him some stuff.  We don't know that he's taken any calculated steps to induce anyone. 

You speak as if he's being cunning and tricking members to do things they normally wouldn't do.  But you don't know that.  It appears to me you simply dislike him, and want to go after him due to your dislike.  

I, on the other hand, see Smac97 as commenting on actions, not personalities. Nothing he has said here compels a reasonable conclusion about whether or not he “likes” McKnight. 

Smac has already responded to that accusation. Time to let it go and move on. 

[PacMan]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you make some good points. 

But I also think PacMan raises an intriguing  theory about aiding and abetting someone in violating a fiduciary duty. I think the Church has a right to keep secret some proprietary information (the salaries of personnel, for example) and to require its employees to honor that right. 

Boom.  Exactly.

In fact, I think other claims could exist for intentional interference with contractual/ economic relations and related secondary torts (aiding and abetting, conspiracy, etc.).  For example, if a GA has a contractual expectation that the Church safeguard their salary information, Mormon Leaks could be in hot water if its intentionally causing problems between the two.  Lots of theories around this may exist.

I will also say, if the Church attorneys are interested I am more than happy to pass along my thoughts to them.

[Amulek]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Also, since the internet is kind of like an elephant (in the sense that it never forgets), it's also something that will follow you around for the rest of your career. 

That’s a good point. Were I an employer I would look long and hard before hiring somebody with a record of publicizing company secrets. 

I can imagine a set of facts that would allow me to overlook it. Say, for example, if your employer were engaging in some kind of horrible illegal activity, so you leaked evidence of the malfeasance to the authorities or something. I wouldn't have a problem giving someone a pass for that - though I would look into it to make sure that's what really happened.

But let's be honest: the stuff getting funneled through MormonLeaks isn't big-time, whistle-blower material.

If I discovered that a prospective employee had violated an NDA just because he didn't like the company he was working for, I would thank him for his interest and then happily refer him to one of our competitors.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Since Ryan McKnight posts here occasionally, maybe we should wait and hear what he has to say on this as well.  He'd be the person who'd know if the church has attempted to take legal action against him and also what advice he's received from his legal counsel.  I have to believe that he'd very careful to stay within legal guidelines, but it would be nice to hear from him on this, IMO.

Of course, he may choose not to share any interactions he's had legally with the church up to this point and that's his right.

He can weigh in if he likes, but I don’t think we are under any obligation not to analyze or evaluate facts that are currently before us. 

Edited June 18, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

36 minutes ago, PacMan said:

You didn't state which interview.  In any event, Mr. McKnight has said enough publicly to enough people to get himself in trouble.

Who's he in trouble with?  It seems to me he maintains it's all done on the up and up.  

I will add though I am one who sees benefit to breaking the rules from time to time to achieve the better result.  This may end up that way, and yet I'm not convinced he's breaking rules as others seem intent on.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Boom.  Exactly.

In fact, I think other claims could exist for intentional interference with contractual/ economic relations and related secondary torts (aiding and abetting, conspiracy, etc.).  For example, if a GA has a contractual expectation that the Church safeguard their salary information, Mormon Leaks could be in hot water if its intentionally causing problems between the two.  Lots of theories around this may exist.

I will also say, if the Church attorneys are interested I am more than happy to pass along my thoughts to them.

Perhaps you could forward your thoughts to them unsolicited. 

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He can weigh in if he likes, but I don’t think we are under any obligation not to analyze or evaluate facts that are currently before us. 

I never claimed we were.  I'm just attempting to be fair and hear both sides of this.  He'd be the one who would know the answers to some of the questions being asked and discussed here.

I agree that's up to him and he can choose not to weigh in.

Edited June 18, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Perhaps you could forward your thoughts to them unsolicited. 

You honestly believe the church's legal counsel hasn't thought of everything PacMan has posted here on this?  Come on....seriously?  I believe the church has some of the very best attorneys available working for them (and they should).  I have to believe that either McKnight hasn't broken any laws, or the attorneys may believe it's not worth drawing more attention to the leaks or going after him, IMO.

PacMan is most likely way behind any of the attorneys involved regarding what they've already tried or considered.

Edited June 18, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Who's he in trouble with?  It seems to me he maintains it's all done on the up and up.  

 

“Who’s he in trouble with?”

Time will tell, I suppose. 

“It seems to me he maintains it’s all done on the up and up.”

Do you really expect him to “maintain” otherwise? But your implicit trust in his word is touching. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

You honestly believe the church's legal counsel hasn't thought of everything PacMan has posted here bout on this?  Come on....seriously?  I believe the church has some of the very top attorneys working for them (and they should).  I have to believe that either McKnight hasn't broken any laws, or the attorneys may believe it's not worth drawing more attention to the leaks or going after him, IMO.

PacMan is most likely way behind of any of the attorneys involved and what they've already tried or considered.

I’m in no position to say what the attorneys have or have not thought of. I just think it’s an interesting theory, one worth considering. 

And you’ve neglected or ignored a third possibility: that the attorneys are biding their time waiting for when the time is right to strike. 

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you really expect him to “maintain” otherwise? But your implicit trust in his word is touching. 

It's not just "his word" that supports this.  No legal action (that we know of) has been brought against him.  I believe this would have happened if he'd broken the law and if the church could have successfully shut him down....but this hasn't happened.  Of course, there's always the possibility that the church leaders don't want to give him more attention and publicity.