Francis Bernard MormonLeak

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

What privacy violation?

 

What is more disturbing is that a "manager" for BYU student housing would claim "I have to" secretly (possible violation of the law) and overtly record. Why would that person "have to" make the recording?

I think there's got to be more history here between the manager and Francis.  If you watch the video, there are hints of already existing problems from what is said.  

Also, maybe the owner of the apartments told the manager to document any further run ins with Francis (with the police too).  

Someone was calling the police over the partying and disturbance.  There could have been bad feelings or problems with the other tenants as well that the manager was concerned about.

Edited September 1, 2017 by JulieM

[provoman]

To the extent of the "secret recording", that recorsing might be in violation of Utah law. One question would be "is there an expectation of privacy in a hallway"

When the door was opened, and the Manager was drawn into the conversation the manager had every right to record - as a party to the conversation. 

[JulieM]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Not much beyond complain. There's freedom of speech. We can just point out how big a slimeball MormonLeaks is for doing this.

You seem to be putting the blame in the wrong place?  How about putting this on the shoulders of the returned missionary who had a great opportunity to play football at BYU, but would rather party and disturb others (repeatedly) than obey the law and respect the honor code he signed?  Maybe I'm reading you wrong and I hope so (if so, I apologize in advance.)

I'm not a fan of whoever betrayed him by offering up the video, but they must have had their reasons.  Still not cool or right though.  I also would not have agreed to publish it on YouTube.

Edited September 1, 2017 by JulieM

[provoman]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think there's got to be more history here between the manager and Francis.  If you watch the video, there are hints of already existing problems from what is said.  

Also, maybe the owner of the apartments told the manager to document any further run ins with Francis (with the police too).  

Someone was calling the police over the partying and disturbance.  There could have been bad feelings or problems with the other tenants as well that the manager was concerned about.

As I understand the housing at BYU, the properry owners have to sign a contract with BYU. I dont buy the "well its the best evidence" type excuse in this situation. Two police officers - who have to write reports, multiple calls to police department - which are documented, that is evidence enough.

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You seem to be putting the blame in the wrong place?  How about putting this on the shoulders of the returned missionary who had a great opportunity to play football at BYU, but would rather party and disturb others (repeatedly) than obey the law and respect the honor code he signed?  Maybe I'm reading you wrong and I hope so (if so, I apologize in advance.)

I'm not a fan of whoever betrayed him by offering up the video, but they must have had their reasons.  Still not cool or right though.  I also would not have agreed to publish it.

Wouldn't it be great if all our sins had a distinct odor? That way when someone walked by or sat next to us in church we could nod understandingly or hold our nose in disgust. Total disclosure, no privacy, no leaks. It would make bishop and stake president interviews a whole lot easier.

"Do I detect a hint of usury and lust?" "Ah, I perceive that you kept the extra change the Walmart clerk mistakenly gave you when you were purchasing your steaks, roasts, ribs, ham, and pork chops last week." "You smell of elderberries."

 I'm sure the robotics folks could create some sort of sniffing machine to replace the Honor Code Office that would do it accurately and objectively 

Edited September 1, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, provoman said:

To the extent of the "secret recording", that recorsing might be in violation of Utah law. One question would be "is there an expectation of privacy in a hallway"

When the door was opened, and the Manager was drawn into the conversation the manager had every right to record - as a party to the conversation. 

I thought they were standing in the entryway and the manager was outside the front door (maybe on the porch while recording?).  I thought it was the front door that they opened.  Had the manager already been invited inside (so he could be back in a hallway)? 

It was hard to tell from the recording but I got the impression the police had just stepped inside.

Edited September 1, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, provoman said:

As I understand the housing at BYU, the properry owners have to sign a contract with BYU. I dont buy the "well its the best evidence" type excuse in this situation. Two police officers - who have to write reports, multiple calls to police department - which are documented, that is evidence enough.

Yeah, I agree. That's why I think there was more history to their relationship (causing the manager to feel he needed to record what was happening).  But, who knows?

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Wouldn't it be great if all our sins had a distinct odor? That way when someone walked by we could nod understandingly or hold our nose in disgust. Total disclosure, no privacy, no leaks. It would make bishop and stake president interviews a whole lot easier. "Do I detect a hint of usury and lust?" "Ah, I perceive that you kept the extra change the Walmart clerk mistakenly gave you when you were purchasing your steaks, roasts, ribs, ham, and pork chops last week."

Hmmm.  Maybe! (Funny but also scary thought.)

I just believe we're all accountable for our own choices.  They come with consequences and we all have to learn that lesson.  What Francis was doing wasn't too private (from way he was partying or being loud.)  I would imagine there were many who knew what was going on before the video came out.

The consequences apply to all those involved here too (not just Francis).  The person who leaked the video and MormonLeaks as well.

Edited September 1, 2017 by JulieM

[clarkgoble]

30 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You seem to be putting the blame in the wrong place?  How about putting this on the shoulders of the returned missionary who had a great opportunity to play football at BYU, but would rather party and disturb others (repeatedly) than obey the law and respect the honor code he signed?  Maybe I'm reading you wrong and I hope so (if so, I apologize in advance.)

I'm not a fan of whoever betrayed him by offering up the video, but they must have had their reasons.  Still not cool or right though.  I also would not have agreed to publish it on YouTube.

I'm not denying blame to him. He is paying the price for that. He missed the bowl game and this entire year. He's on probation. It's not like that's a small penalty for what he did.

However let's also not shirk blame for what MormonLeaks has done. Two wrongs don't make a right.

39 minutes ago, provoman said:

To the extent of the "secret recording", that recorsing might be in violation of Utah law. One question would be "is there an expectation of privacy in a hallway"

When the door was opened, and the Manager was drawn into the conversation the manager had every right to record - as a party to the conversation. 

What's legal and what's ethical aren't the same thing. Adultery is legal. It's not ethical.

Also there's a big difference from being able to tape something and then distribute it.

[provoman]

23 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not denying blame to him. He is paying the price for that. He missed the bowl game and this entire year. He's on probation. It's not like that's a small penalty for what he did.

However let's also not shirk blame for what MormonLeaks has done. Two wrongs don't make a right.

What's legal and what's ethical aren't the same thing. Adultery is legal. It's not ethical.

Also there's a big difference from being able to tape something and then distribute it.

Where is the violation of privacy? Is there an expectation of privacy in a hallway?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

Where is the violation of privacy? Is there an expectation of privacy in a hallway?

 

Are you speaking legally or ethically because you’ll get very different answers...

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, strappinglad said:

In today's society, there is no more an expectation of privacy. Police have body cams. Cars have dash cams. Everyone has a cell phone , usually with video capacity. ...

What goes on in a public or common area, who makes what sort of record of it, and what is done with that record are two different things.  I understand your overall point that the implications of things becoming public (and how things become public) are different now than they were 50 years ago and I agree with it.   But police body cams and dash cams still record only what goes on in public (unless the footage from the former was shot during entry into a private residence).  

It's one thing to set tongues wagging among a very few who may have witnessed some sort of a public scandal, who then share it within a small circle of friends and acquaintances, and so forth, on the one hand, versus someone taking video of that same scandal and posting it for potential worldwide consumption on Youtube.  But that doesn't mean people no longer have an expectation of privacy.  To say otherwise is to say that the government can intrude in all manner of ways and by any number of means which the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution still prohibits (as quaint and fashioned as that notion might be nowadays).

There are still places where, and circumstances under which, I have a perfect expectation of privacy.  If I allow someone into my inner sanctum who then, with my knowledge and consent, films what (in polite society) would be considered an embarrassing episode, then, likewise with my knowledge and consent (since I figure it'll be the quickest and easiest route to achieving my "15 minutes of fame") posts the episode for potential worldwide consumption on Youtube, that's one thing.  Conversely, if someone surreptitiously hides a camera on my premises, captures such a moment without my knowledge or consent, and, likewise, posts that surreptitiously-obtained footage on Youtube without my knowledge or consent, that's a whole different ballgame.  The former may not have violated my reasonable expectation of privacy (even if I later suffer an attack of "actor's remorse" as a result of whatever incident was captured for dissemination and for preservation), but the latter certainly did.

[provoman]

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 

Are you speaking legally or ethically because you’ll get very different answers...

And you still have not answered the question as to the privacy violation.

[provoman]

An article I read qouted a BYU representative who stated that Honor Code violations are a case by case basis; such a sysytem is almost given to inconsistant enforcement/punishment etc. If BYU has previously stated and maintained a hardline zero tolerance stance then the video may serve a purpose.

If BYU is on record prior to this video stated that honor code violations are reviewed and dealt with on a case by case basis, then the video, redshirting etc do not realy serve a purpose than to state the obvious of what was implied - case by case basis does not mean all similarily situated individuals will be treated the same.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

And you still have not answered the question as to the privacy violation.

Ethically yes it is a privacy violation. Legally it is not.

Structurally it's not hard to demonstrate this. The other day I'd forgot to put my trash out. I ran outside in my housecoat to put it on the street. My housecoat got caught opening. I was in public and legally didn't have the expectation of privacy. However anyone putting photos or video of me naked would be acting unethically despite that being a public space. Therefore the ethical presumption of privacy isn't determined by a place being public or not.

Edited September 1, 2017 by clarkgoble

[provoman]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Ethically yes it is a privacy violation. Legally it is not.

Structurally it's not hard to demonstrate this. The other day I'd forgot to put my trash out. I ran outside in my housecoat to put it on the street. My housecoat got caught opening. I was in public and legally didn't have the expectation of privacy. However anyone putting photos or video of me naked would be acting unethically despite that being a public space. Therefore the ethical presumption of privacy isn't determined by a place being public or not.

What is ethical what isn't? There really is not standard. Groups/cultures/subcultures may form their own unwritten ethical expectations, but it is subject to the whims of the group. For the person who made the recording the ethics was "I have to". Whoever provided it to the website, that person ethics may have mandated release. The website that releases it, it ethics appears to be to show inconsistant administration of the honor code.

Other groups may have no issue with secret recording and release. 

[hope_for_things]

I just listened to this podcast, very worth listening to if you want to understand better the perspective of the MormonLeaks side of things and overall interesting conversation. 

http://www.mormonstories.org/byu-athletes-provo-police/

 

[provoman]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I just listened to this podcast, very worth listening to if you want to understand better the perspective of the MormonLeaks side of things and overall interesting conversation. 

http://www.mormonstories.org/byu-athletes-provo-police/

 

Can you provide a synopsis?

[clarkgoble]

30 minutes ago, provoman said:

What is ethical what isn't? There really is not standard. Groups/cultures/subcultures may form their own unwritten ethical expectations, but it is subject to the whims of the group. For the person who made the recording the ethics was "I have to". Whoever provided it to the website, that person ethics may have mandated release. The website that releases it, it ethics appears to be to show inconsistant administration of the honor code.

Other groups may have no issue with secret recording and release. 

So the fact it isn't standard means it doesn't matter? 

[ALarson]

56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I just listened to this podcast, very worth listening to if you want to understand better the perspective of the MormonLeaks side of things and overall interesting conversation. 

http://www.mormonstories.org/byu-athletes-provo-police/

 

I'm watching this right now (on YouTube) and it's excellent.  I don't listen to podcasts much, but this one has been very informative regarding what took place here and also adds other insights into BYU, the Honor Code, the athletes there and so on.  I'm about half way through it....but so far, it's very good, IMO.

[provoman]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

So the fact it isn't standard means it doesn't matter? 

I did not say or suggest that; and it is unethical for you to suggest that I did.

it matters to you

it does not matter to others

Edited September 1, 2017 by provoman

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, provoman said:

I did not say or suggest that; and it is unethical for you to make such an accusation.

it matters to you

it does not matter to others

The question isn't whether it does matter but whether it should matter. Clearly to the person who sold the video to MormonLeaks it didn't matter.

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The question isn't whether it does matter but whether it should matter. Clearly to the person who sold the video to MormonLeaks it didn't matter.

I just finished listening to the podcast with Ryan on it (MormonLeaks) and I'd highly recommend that you listen to it.  Of course it's up to you and I understand if you choose not to.  But it does give some more details and information on this topic.

He shared that no money was paid for this video (or any of the material he has received and published).  So it was not "sold".

He also made it clear that it was not the manager who offered them the video.

He also stated that he'd had the video for several months, that it was a very difficult decision determining whether or not to publish it and then he goes through the reasons and the thought process involved. He knows that many disagree with him doing it and he understands why they'd feel that way.

One more thing (but there was a lot more if you choose to watch it) is that he stated this was about to hit the news (from what he's been told) even without the video going public (and hinted that the video would be shared whether they did it or not).

I am not defending him, I'm just reporting what was stated in the interview.  There were 3 people who were interviewed on the podcast (including Ryan).

Edited September 1, 2017 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

39 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I just finished listening to the podcast with Ryan on it (MormonLeaks) and I'd highly recommend that you listen to it.  Of course it's up to you and I understand if you choose not to.  But it does give some more details and information on this topic.

He shared that no money was paid for this video (or any of the material he has received and published).  So it was not "sold".

He also made it clear that it was not the manager who offered them the video.

He also stated that he'd had the video for several months, that it was a very difficult decision determining whether or not to publish it and then he goes through the reasons and the thought process involved. He knows that many disagree with him doing it and he understands why they'd feel that way.

One more thing (but there was a lot more if you choose to watch it) is that he stated this was about to hit the news (from what he's been told) even without the video going public (and hinted that the video would be shared whether they did it or not).

I am not defending him, I'm just reporting what was stated in the interview.  There were 3 people who were interviewed on the podcast (including Ryan).

Thanks for the summary.  One thing I understood differently, it wasn't clear to me that Ryan had the video for several months ahead of time, only that he was aware of the video, maybe that's not an important distinction, but that's how I understood it.  Also, that the person who gave him the video requested that the voice of the person recording the video be altered as to protect that person from blowback, and that MormonLeaks chose to honor that request.  

I also thought it interesting that other news organizations were about the break this news, which I think adds an additional layer of complexity. 

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the summary.  One thing I understood differently, it wasn't clear to me that Ryan had the video for several months ahead of time, only that he was aware of the video, maybe that's not an important distinction, but that's how I understood it.

I might have misunderstood or heard wrong (I was trying to multitask while listening and was cleaning out my office ).  

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Also, that the person who gave him the video requested that the voice of the person recording the video be altered as to protect that person from blowback, and that MormonLeaks chose to honor that request.  

Yes, he said that the person giving him the video stated that manager's voice was "very recognizable" and wanted to protect him.

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I also thought it interesting that other news organizations were about the break this news, which I think adds an additional layer of complexity.

Yes, I thought that was interesting.  I also find it interesting that the Deseret News was the first to write about the video (from what I saw...).  

Edited September 1, 2017 by ALarson