LDSToronto Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 It turns out the church is able to tighten it's security up. So much so that searching for celebrities and Holocaust victims is now cause for revoking access. Thoughts?http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53667482-78/church-names-radkey-mormon.html.csp"The church is committed to preventing the misguided practice of submitting the names of Holocaust victims and prominent individuals for proxy baptism. In addition to reiterating its policy to members, the church has implemented a new technological barrier to prevent abuse of the New FamilySearch system. Anyone trying to access names that have been restricted will have their account suspended and be required to contact FamilySearch to establish their family relationship in order to have their access reinstated. Abuse of the system will result in the permanent loss of database access."Jewish genealogist Gary Mokotoff was quick to criticize the database clampdown."The church has just done a very foolish thing," he writes in an email. "They are implying they have something to hide."
wenglund Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.Thanks, -Wade Englund- 3
divinenature Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 My question is, will they be revoking access to the people who submitted the information to the database in the first place or only those who stumble upon it?
Duncan Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 I guess the question is though is what if you do have Jewish Holocaust or are related to a celebrity, what do you do then without the RCMP showing up at your door or someone writing about it on a blog somewhere? I think with most things in life it tightens up for awhile then it loosens
Popular Post KevinG Posted March 8, 2012 Popular Post Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Looks like LDSToronto got his wish and the church is clamping down on access. And the person who tried to extort $30k from the church by "finding" improper submissions using other peoples accounts is crying salty tears over her loss of access.I'm sure improper submissions is just as forbidden as searching for the names. Goose meet Gander. Edited March 8, 2012 by KevinG 5
blackstrap Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Well,that is some progress.I guess if you have celebrity ancestors or jewish ancestors you can always use the PAID type of services.
Calm Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Well,that is some progress.I guess if you have celebrity ancestors or jewish ancestors you can always use the PAID type of services.Not necessary, just have evidence you are actually related:Anyone trying to access names that have been restricted will have their account suspended and be required to contact FamilySearch to establish their family relationship in order to have their access reinstated.
Duncan Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 here's the thing, I am related to Sir Frederick Banting who was a discoverer of Insulin for diabetics,he's kind of a big deal, but I haven't the foggiest idea if his work is done or not and I don't want any hullabaloo to find out either!
Calm Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 So LDStoronto complains when safeguards that do require "a good deal of deception and manipulation" to get around by most standards are put into place. Why am I not surprised.LDS officials defend the move, saying it helps prevent overzealous Mormons and mischief-makers from violating church policy by submitting the names of prominent Jewish figures, such as Anne Frank and Daniel Pearl, both discovered on the baptism rolls in recent weeks.
KevinG Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 I wonder how much this had to do with the restricted access?"Radkey, who surreptitiously uses the account information of Mormon confidants..."I love this comment from a poster of Jewish descent:"To the author: A "whistleblower" is someone who IS PART of and organization that reports on the organization's wrongdoing. It is not a CRITIC of the organization, which Ms. Radkey has made very clear that she is, for many years now." 1
Calm Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) here's the thing, I am related to Sir Frederick Banting who was a discoverer of Insulin for diabetics,he's kind of a big deal, but I haven't the foggiest idea if his work is done or not and I don't want any hullabaloo to find out either!I think all that would be needed is to as the family search people how you would go about it if you wanted it prior to looking for his name. Not a bad idea anyway, checking with someone who knows something when starting something you are unfamiliar with. Edited March 8, 2012 by calmoriah
ERayR Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) It turns out the church is able to tighten it's security up. So much so that searching for celebrities and Holocaust victims is now cause for revoking access. Thoughts?http://www.sltrib.co...mormon.html.csp"The church is committed to preventing the misguided practice of submitting the names of Holocaust victims and prominent individuals for proxy baptism. In addition to reiterating its policy to members, the church has implemented a new technological barrier to prevent abuse of the New FamilySearch system. Anyone trying to access names that have been restricted will have their account suspended and be required to contact FamilySearch to establish their family relationship in order to have their access reinstated. Abuse of the system will result in the permanent loss of database access."Jewish genealogist Gary Mokotoff was quick to criticize the database clampdown."The church has just done a very foolish thing," he writes in an email. "They are implying they have something to hide."Isn't that what you wanted? Oh I see you just wanted to be able to make a fuss. Edited March 8, 2012 by ERayR 1
KevinG Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 So LDStoronto complains when safeguards that do require "a good deal of deception and manipulation" to get around by most standards are put into place. Why am I not surprised.I thought he posted this to celebrate his success. Isn't that right LDSToronto? You got exactly what you were calling for with your campaign of civil (or religious) disobedience and false name submission.Now that the completely honorable campaign for free speech and public discourse (that had absolutely nothing to do with hacking, anti-mormonism or enjoying 15 minutes of fame) has succeeded I'm sure we can all move on to new and more exciting subjects.I just feel bad for all those Hispanic and Latino members who have a Jesus in their family tree.
divinenature Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 So LDStoronto complains when safeguards that do require "a good deal of deception and manipulation" to get around by most standards are put into place. Why am I not surprised.Where did LDSToronto complain? His post appears to be sharing information and soliciting comments. I don't see any tears or complaints from the OP.
LDSToronto Posted March 8, 2012 Author Posted March 8, 2012 Looks like LDSToronto got his wish and the church is clamping down on access. And the person who tried to extort $30k from the church by "finding" improper submissions using other peoples accounts is crying salty tears over her loss of access.I'm sure improper submissions is just as forbidden as searching for the names. Goose meet Gander.Personally I think it's a bridge too far; it really looks like the church doesn't know what to do and so they have gone into to reaction mode.
LDSToronto Posted March 8, 2012 Author Posted March 8, 2012 So LDStoronto complains when safeguards that do require "a good deal of deception and manipulation" to get around by most standards are put into place. Why am I not surprised.Huh? I didn't write the SLTrib article...
divinenature Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 The problem I see in this system is that there is no way for a member to know if a name is restricted until they do a search and click through a couple times on that name.This also doesn't in any way stop the practice of submitting unauthorized names.
KevinG Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Personally I think it's a bridge too far; it really looks like the church doesn't know what to do and so they have gone into to reaction mode.Perhaps you can share that in a nice e-mail this time with some suggestions on how to protect the system without being overly restrictive. Or maybe you can hack the system and blog about it again - that seemed to do the trick.
LDSToronto Posted March 8, 2012 Author Posted March 8, 2012 I thought he posted this to celebrate his success. Isn't that right LDSToronto? No. If you read this on the internet or in tomorrow's SLTribune while enjoying your morning Postum, would you think I was celebrating my success? Besides, how is this *my* success? Do you think I really influenced the Church to make this change?You got exactly what you were calling for with your campaign of civil (or religious) disobedience and false name submission.I think the Church is now more aligned with their original promise. And it was hardly a campaign of civil disobedience; I wasn't breaking any laws. And I do not believe in religious disobedience.Now that the completely honorable campaign for free speech and public discourse (that had absolutely nothing to do with hacking, anti-mormonism or enjoying 15 minutes of fame) has succeeded I'm sure we can all move on to new and more exciting subjects.If you don't want to talk about this, then don't talk about this. H.
Stargazer Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Radkey is quoted as saying:"I didn’t even intend for all this to happen," she says. "I was busy on the [Mitt] Romney [family] tree, and that was going to be it. These latest discoveries were absolutely not planned. And also, as far as Mormon-Jewish controversies are going, I consider that a hopeless case."She can say this after her publicized demand to the Wiesenthal Center that they make a stink about it? Man, she has a lot Chutzpah, fer sure.
LDSToronto Posted March 8, 2012 Author Posted March 8, 2012 Perhaps you can share that in a nice e-mail this time with some suggestions on how to protect the system without being overly restrictive. Or maybe you can hack the system and blog about it again - that seemed to do the trick.I thought you didn't want to talk about this anymore? I don't feel a need to hack the system - the Church now has safeguards in place that seem to do the trick. I think there are better ways to go about it, and I've shared those better ways on another thread. But, for all intents and purposes, the Church has fulfilled the spirit of their commitment.H.
KevinG Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Modest to the end. So you were just a small voice in the wilderness promoting free speech and public discourse. I have obviously miss defined your actions as civil or religious disobedience. What term would use use to describe intentionally breaking the rules a church has put in place to protect the integrity of their geneological database?
KevinG Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 I thought you didn't want to talk about this anymore?You made an erronious assumption when I said we could move on to other more exciting subjects. But I'm cool with this discussion in lieu of anything more profound.I don't feel a need to hack the system - the Church now has safeguards in place that seem to do the trick. I think there are better ways to go about it, and I've shared those better ways on another thread. But, for all intents and purposes, the Church has fulfilled the spirit of their commitment.H.Nice to know you are satisfied enough with the outcome.
Stargazer Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Huh? I didn't write the SLTrib article...Of course you did!! Don't deny it!Good grief people, are we so full of spite and mercilessness that we have to pile on no matter what? Some of you obviously didn't even read the article before criticising. Here's some advice: Before Commenting, Read the Freaking Article. If he hadn't posted this (because he is concerned about the issue) then I don't know how long it would have taken the story to come out. And what if it had been ME that posted the link and quote to the article? Would you have piled on top of me, too? I doubt it. Just because it is LDSToronto and you don't like his attitude doesn't mean that you have to put the scorn on automatically. Call for Dr. Pavlov! Your dog is slobbering! 2
Recommended Posts