Church Toughens Stand Against 'Improper' Proxy Name Submissions

[ERayR]

I'm suggesting that the only solution the church has offered is to threaten it's membership. They've left the barn door wide open with it's name submission system and until they can fix it, the thing they've opted for is to threaten members with action.

How do I know? To test this system, I submitted 10 names just this morning that should be restricted. No problem at all. I'll let you know if my account is suspended or if I'm disciplined.

H.

As I remember it, it was satin's plan to force compliance. Joseph Smith said "I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves". If you are deliberatly breaking the rules the fault is not the rules or the governing body but the one breaking the rules.

What do you expect to gain by demonstrating your character faults and then bragging about it?

[LDSToronto]

As I remember it, it was satin's plan to force compliance. Joseph Smith said "I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves". If you are deliberatly breaking the rules the fault is not the rules or the governing body but the one breaking the rules.

What do you expect to gain by demonstrating your character faults and then bragging about it?

It's interesting, the turn of phrasing. I'm simply refuting the claim that one has to be deceptive and manipulative to submit restricted names to familysearch.org. I can vouch, right now, it took no more effort to enter my grandmother's name.

If you feel the Church would be following Satan's plan by implementing technology that restricts certain names from submission to familysearch.org, I can only imagine you feel the same way about installing virus scanners and firewalls that prevent your kids from stumbling upon porn sites.

H.

[blueadept]

.....who has the popcorn?

[Saints Alive]

I can only imagine you feel the same way about installing virus scanners and firewalls that prevent your kids from stumbling upon porn sites.

H.

in my 20+ years using the internet I have NEVER "stumbled" onto a porn site.

[LDSToronto]

in my 20+ years using the internet I have NEVER "stumbled" onto a porn site.

Me neither. Nor have most. But we've all heard the stories..."I was checking the weather and all of a sudden, all kinds of porn popped up on my screen!"... Uh huh...ya. It's never "all kinds of recipes popped up on my screen"

H.

[LeSellers]

But we've all heard the stories..."I was checking the weather and all of a sudden, all kinds of porn popped up on my screen!"... Uh huh...ya. It's never "all kinds of recipes popped up on my screen"

It happened to me.

I regularly went to a homeschooling site. They forgot to renew their web domain. A porn site grabbed it and voilà! not only did it pop up on my screen but it cascaded into a dozen more. Every time I tried to close one screen two or three more would appear. I had to turn off the computer and reboot.

Further, it happened with some frequency for months until I located and erased some cookies and other files. It was not only disturbing, but embarrassing as well.

As for recipes, I have a hard time imaging a recipe site buying up lapsed domain names (and names similar to popular ones, another ploy) to trap people into seeing their product. Porn purveyors do it all the time. So it is not surprising you don't hear stories like the one you mention. But it happens occasionally as well. I tried to get to "vermicompost.com", but ended up at "vermiculture.com" because I got a bit confused while typing the URL. It turned out to be a serendipitous error, but at the time, I was perplexed and unhappy about my own mistake.

Lehi

[LDSToronto]

It happened to me.

I regularly went to a homeschooling site. They forgot to renew their web domain. A porn site grabbed it and voilà! not only did it pop up on my screen but it cascaded into a dozen more. Every time I tried to close one screen two or three more would appear. I had to turn off the computer and reboot.

Further, it happened with some frequency for months until I located and erased some cookies and other files. It was not only disturbing, but embarrassing as well.

As for recipes, I have a hard time imaging a recipe site buying up lapsed domain names (and manes similar to popular ones, another ploy) to trap people into seeing their product. Porn purveyors do it all the time. So it is not surprising you don't hear stories like the one you mention. But it happens occasionally as well. I tried to get to "vermicompost.com", but ended up at "vermiculture.com" because I got a bit confused while typing the URL. It turned out to be a serendipitous error, but at the time, I was perplexed and unhappy about my own mistake.

Lehi

Of course I'm exaggerating for effect, but here's something I'm not exaggerating - and this is off-topic so I apologize for the derail. Because I worked in IT/software development for so long, I was asked to fix many computers in members homes. I'd say that 4 out of 5 computers I saw had pornographic websites in the search history. Not just pop-up ads, but deliberately typed sites. I've even found movies and pictures in the browser cache which indicates these weren't happy accidents.

So, I'm alway suspicious when I hear that members just stumble upon porn, especially with modern browser technologies. Present company excluded, of course.

H.

[LeSellers]

I'm alway suspicious when I hear that members just stumble upon porn, especially with modern browser technologies. Present company excluded, of course.

Of course.

However, I should likely have mentioned that this happened in the late 90s. I haven't had any recurrences since (at least none I remember; and I probably would.)

Lehi

[LDSToronto]

Of course.

However, I should likely have mentioned that this happened in the late 90s. I haven't had any recurrences since (at least none I remember. (And I probably would.)

Lehi

My experiences are more recent. And, lest anyone think ill, I always kept my mouth shut. I was there to fix the computer, not cause discord.

H.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm suggesting that the only solution the church has offered is to threaten it's membership. They've left the barn door wide open with it's name submission system and until they can fix it, the thing they've opted for is to threaten members with action.

How do I know? To test this system, I submitted 10 names just this morning that should be restricted. No problem at all. I'll let you know if my account is suspended or if I'm disciplined.

H.

What are you going to do if that doesn't happen? Are you going to own up to your attempt at deception, or will you just let your mischief run its course?

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm glad the Church has recognized the wishes of Holocaust survivors and their families. However, I am disturbed that the Church has threatened it's membership with disciplinary action for what amounts to a policy violation. Why not apply better error-proofing so that people can not submit restricted names?

This feels very wrong - using disciplinary action as a punitive threat.

H.

As I've said elsewhere, deliberately violating the policy makes it appear the Church does not live up to its agreement. Thus, it brings the Church of Jesus Christ into disrepute and makes it vulnerable to the barbs of antagonists. This seems very much to warrant discipline.

[ERayR]

It's interesting, the turn of phrasing. I'm simply refuting the claim that one has to be deceptive and manipulative to submit restricted names to familysearch.org. I can vouch, right now, it took no more effort to enter my grandmother's name.

If you feel the Church would be following Satan's plan by implementing technology that restricts certain names from submission to familysearch.org, I can only imagine you feel the same way about installing virus scanners and firewalls that prevent your kids from stumbling upon porn sites.

H.

I said nothing about the church implementing any tecchnology. My comment was concerning the integrety of someone who deliberatly ignores the rules.

[Calm]

To test this system, I submitted 10 names just this morning that should be restricted. No problem at all. I'll let you know if my account is suspended or if I'm disciplined.

H.

So you lied when you agreed to abide by the rules of the submission process in order to gain access to the admission process to test it.

Any reason why we should ever take your word again as truth?

[Scott Lloyd]

So you lied when you agreed to abide by the rules of the submission process in order to gain access to the admission process to test it.

Any reason why we should ever take your word again as truth?

A good question. He may be lying in the first place about submitting the 10 names.

Or, the system could kick out the 10 names and he might choose not to tell us.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave ..."

[Calm]

A good question. He may be lying in the first place about submitting the 10 names.

Or, the system could kick out the 10 names and he might choose not to tell us.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave ..."

It certainly explains why he is so quick to assume that the Church may be lying or attempting to manipulate.

[LDSToronto]

I submitted 10 names this morning, like I said. I am not violating any agreement that I made with the church. They are still there - just checked a few minutes ago. No, I won't give the names because that would reveal my identity and I don't trust any of you.

H.

[Ares]

I submitted 10 names this morning, like I said. I am not violating any agreement that I made with the church. They are still there - just checked a few minutes ago. No, I won't give the names because that would reveal my identity and I don't trust any of you.

H.

You don't get to use this board for bragging about fraud or to pretend to do so for the purposes of irritating others. You are excused from this thread.

[selek1]

Toronto,

From the Family Search website Terms of Use and Code of Conduct (to which you had to assent in order to register):

By using this site, you agree to all of the following conditions. If you do not agree to all of these conditions, you may not use the FamilySearch Internet site. We may change these conditions from time to time, so you must check for changes when you use the site. Your continued use of the site following the posting of changes to these conditions means that you accept those changes.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, we reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to deny, revoke, or limit use of this site to any person. GSU is not responsible for any use that you make of materials from this site, and you agree to fully indemnify GSU for any claims against GSU based on your actions.

Oh. Beautiful.

In plain English, this means that If the Church is sued because of the information you submitted, you- not they- are responsible and liable.

In consideration for the use of FamilySearch, you represent that you have read and agreed to these Conditions of Use and that you are legally able to register to use FamilySearch. You agree to (A) provide true, accurate, current, and complete information about yourself (as indicated during the FamilySearch registration process) and (B) maintain and keep current and accurate this information about yourself, should it ever change. If you knowingly provide false, inaccurate, inappropriate, or libelous information or images, GSU has the right to suspend or terminate your account.

You agree that you are responsible for all activities that occur using this user name and password. If someone else uses your user name and password in such a way as to breach the terms of this Agreement, you remain responsible for his/her actions, and use of your user name may be suspended or terminated.

Whenever you submit data to FamilySearch, you are affirming that you have the legal right to contribute that data to us and to grant us the rights set out in this Agreement. You accept legal responsibility for FamilySearch and GSU using your contributed data based on your affirmation. You are solely responsible for all content that you contribute and post to FamilySearch.

The policy of the Church is that members' preeminent obligation is to perform vicarious temple ordinances for their own deceased family members. You may perform family history research on natural, adoptive, and sealing lines. You also may submit names of persons who have a probable family relationship that cannot be verified because the records are inadequate, such as those who have the same surnames and resided in the same areas as known ancestors.

Names of nonrelated persons should not be submitted, including names of celebrities or famous people, or those gathered from unapproved extraction projects, such as Jewish Holocaust victims.

You agree that you will not individually, or as part of any collective effort, submit or post information to FamilySearch that could be deemed harmful or offensive to other users, nor will you impersonate another user in order to hide your identity or implicate another in such actions. You agree to do nothing that might disrupt the flow of data to and from FamilySearch, impact the service or performance of FamilySearch, or circumvent any of the controls or usage rules that we have implemented. You understand that the result of harmful or offensive actions may include revocation of your right to use FamilySearch and legal action against you.

Emphasis mine.

Anyone using the Family Search website has to agree to these terms in order to maintain an account.

So the claim to have violated no agreement with the Church is fraudulent on its face.

[Scott Lloyd]

I submitted 10 names this morning, like I said. I am not violating any agreement that I made with the church. They are still there - just checked a few minutes ago. No, I won't give the names because that would reveal my identity and I don't trust any of you.

H.

I asked if you intend to own up to the deception. If not, I feel duty-bound to alert someone at Church headquarters about the existence of your posts on this thread. They may not be able to trace you down, but at least they will be aware that a violation might have occurred of the agreement you made when you registered to use the site -- assuming you were telling the truth in the first instance when you boasted of submitting the bogus names.

It might go better for you if you admit on your own to the deception instead of waiting to be detected.

[CQUIRK]

In the meantime, it looks like Stephen Colbert has stepped into this controversy-

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2012/02/late-night-stephen-colbert-converts-dead-mormons-to-judaism.html

[blackstrap]

Car rental companies have lengthy user agreements outlining liability.Most renters do little more than scan them briefly before signing.Because they know that car renters are not always truthful,they still have door locks and often GPS trackers installed.LDST may have violated the agreements.He was testing the locks and trackers to see if they truly worked or were even installed.Security companies regularly send in people to test the security levels,unbeknownst to the clients involved. It seems to me that the church must do more than put an "alarms on premises" sign on the door. They must actually install systems that will flag and block improper submissions. If not,then they are just spitting in the wind.

[Scott Lloyd]

Car rental companies have lengthy user agreements outlining liability.Most renters do little more than scan them briefly before signing.Because they know that car renters are not always truthful,they still have door locks and often GPS trackers installed.LDST may have violated the agreements.

There's no "may have" about it -- assuming he's telling the truth in the first place about submitting the names. We can't be sure now, because he has ruined his own credibility.

He was testing the locks and trackers to see if they truly worked or were even installed.Security companies regularly send in people to test the security levels, unbeknownst to the clients involved. It seems to me that the church must do more than put an "alarms on premises" sign on the door. They must actually install systems that will flag and block improper submissions. If not,then they are just spitting in the wind.

What was his intent with this prank? Was it just so he could come on here and brag about outsmarting the "system" for which he has so much contempt?

Or was he going to contact the people in charge -- openly, not anonymously -- to let them know what he had done so they could make improvements? He didn't say so, though he was asked directly.

And I doubt even car rental companies would take kindly to unauthorized individuals burglarizing their vehicles on the pretext of testing the security systems.

[Daniel Peterson]

Here's a piece by Bill Hamblin and a colleague at BYU that some might find interesting, about attempts to "rescue the dead" in various world religions:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765553855/Man-has-long-believed-in-an-afterlife.html

[Calm]

What was his intent with this prank? Was it just so he could come on here and brag about outsmarting the "system" for which he has so much contempt?

It seems to me from the tone of his posts in this thread that his intent was to prove that one can't take the Church's comments at face value and thus---in his mind at least---justify putting the blame for inappropriate submissions on the Church rather than on those like himself who for whatever reason chose to submit an inappropriate submission contrary to the agreement he made for use of the site.

If he had contacted the Genealogy site ahead of time to explain his intent and gotten their okay for it, I would have been impressed. Instead it comes across as 'gotcha' game which is not intended to be constructive or helpful criticism.

[Daniel Peterson]

Glad to see that others here are reacting the way I did. His little stunt didn't make a very good impression on me, I'm afraid.

I've been saddened to watch his devolution over the past couple of years or whatever it's been.