MormonLeaks does not break the law

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not in the way you are advocating.  How the law treats them is certainly up for discussion.  But the point is that Mr. McKnight is violating the privacy of the Church regardless of its legality.  Just look at his equivocations here.  Even he admits that the conduct he is inducing others into may be illegal, but he justifies that by bragging about how he has insulated himself from that ("We break no laws, criminal or civil.  Our sources might be [breaking the law]...").  And you are defending his position.  So the law really isn't the point, is it?

Not particularly relevant to what Mr. McKnight is doing.

And for the record, the LDS Church pays taxes on its for-profit interests.

But that's hardly the point.  Mr. McKnight isn't inducing other people to steal sensitive information from the LDS Church and send it to him because of American tax policy.  He's inducing other people to steal because it's the LDS Church in the crosshairs.

And if he were to ever turn on you, you would be singing a very different tune.  You wouldn't be referencing tax policy, or what the law "should" be.  You would resent and object to Mr. McKnight setting up a website designed to coax other people to steal your private information and send it to him so that he could publish it to the world.

But since it's the LDS Church . . . 

-Smac

A church is different than Exxon or GM. I know you don't wish to admit this but I know most would agree with the distinction, even atheists. What trade secret could a church have? Should a church have any secrets? 

Now, what about the damages question? How has the church been damaged by Mr. Fixxer disclosing what we all knew? G.A.'s need to live and make money like the rest of us, so Eyring getting paid isn't a shock. Dehlin and Snuffer publicly disagree with the church, so their bubbles aren't new revelation. Recently, Mr. Fixxer disclosed that the church has a lot of money, like US News reported many moons ago. Surprised? I wasn't. 

So, where are the damages? Can they be proven? It seems to me that they are too speculative to warrant any award.

[sunstoned]

17 minutes ago, Exiled said:

If I were representing the church, I would take the same tact as you advocate. If there are no leaks because the leakers are shut down or cut off, then Mr. Fixxer doesn't have a site. I wonder if that is possible though? I don't have the computer skills to guess either way.

I am just guessing here, but some of the leaked material, such as correspondence on GA's salaries and videos of Q15 meetings would require elevated access.  I don't think rank and file level would have such access.  This type of security breach should be taken very seriously.

[Exiled]

7 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I am just guessing here, but some of the leaked material, such as correspondence on GA's salaries and videos of Q15 meetings would require elevated access.  I don't think rank and file level would have such access.  This type of security breach should be taken very seriously.

It could be disgruntled security personnel or assistants with access. It could be persons in the a.v. deptartment or whatever it is called today. Maybe a housekeeper leaked Eyring's stipend money? In any event, there are many possibilities for leaking. The church is a big organization and there has to be a cost associated with plugging leaks that may not be worth the cost to efficiency.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Perhaps but most people simply do not care.  Nothing stays in people minds more than a day.  Donald Trump is a genius in this way.  He is always doing or saying something stupid so people forget what dumb thing he said or did a week ago.  It is hard to keep up.  Overall I see most of what Mormonleaks to be harmless and boring.  Better for the Church to ignore it than give free publicity.  The Church however should go hard at those who violate their employment contracts by accessing Church information systems in an inappropriate way.  There is no reason the Church can't figure out who these people are. 

Just a question that I think is pretty relevant to this discussion.  Does anyone know what this employment contract looks like?  I did a little bit of freelance work for the church while I was in college.  Never signed anything.  I worked at BYU as well.  Never signed any employment agreement.  i have never signed an employment contract for anyone that I have worked for.  Do the housekeepers have to sign some kind of legal document to work in the church office building?  Does everyone sign this employment agreement?  And what does it prohibit them from doing exactly?  

All these assumptions of breaking the law seem to be built on a shaky foundation.

I do agree that few people care about anything Mormonleaks has published.  I can't see that any of it has damaged the church.  The real damage done to the church seems to be coming from policies instigated by church leaders.  If you did a poll asking people what they know about the Mormon Church, how much GA's make or bubble charts wouldn't even register.  They are not the big issues the church faces. I would say the top three issues that bother most people are

Polygamy

Priesthood ban

LGBT issues

Every one of those issues came from within the leadership of the church.  Of course Mormons believe they all came from God, but that is not the view held by the general public.

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, PacMan said:

Edited to be nice:

Out of curiosity, what's he "Fixxing?"

Not at all responsive to the topic, but this reminded me of something I heard from a veterinarian I knew. His name was Fixx.  He went into a practice with another veterinarian named Killum.  He said that he had more patients than his partner because if your cat or dog was sick, who would you rather take it to?  Dr. Fixx or Dr. Killum?

This is not intended to imply agreement with the OP; it's just funny, that's all.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, PacMan said:

Robert, you know better than to lead with argumentum ad silentio.

 

I decline to get between two legal-beagles as they throw legal catch-phrases and case law back and forth willy-nilly, but I have to correct you here.

It's not argumentum ad silentio -- that would be arguing with someone until they shut up.  Or something else, but it's not what you meant.

It's argumentum ex silentio -- argument from (or out of) silence.

I have to thank you for making this little goof. My two years of Latin in high school is what piqued my realization that this was not the right phrase ("ad" vs "ex"), and it caused me to do a lookup.  It's an interesting subject!  I was particularly interested that an argument from silence can sometimes lead towards a conclusion, but not decide issues.

Quote

"...although arguments from silence can be used to draw conclusions about the intent of the Framers of the US Constitution, their application can lead to two different conclusions and hence they can not be used to settle the issues."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence#Legal_aspects

 

 

[Duncan]

The question I have about all this is............ what does it mean to "pound sand" I have never ever heard that expression before

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Just a question that I think is pretty relevant to this discussion.  Does anyone know what this employment contract looks like?  I did a little bit of freelance work for the church while I was in college.  Never signed anything.  I worked at BYU as well.  Never signed any employment agreement.  i have never signed an employment contract for anyone that I have worked for.  Do the housekeepers have to sign some kind of legal document to work in the church office building?  Does everyone sign this employment agreement?  And what does it prohibit them from doing exactly?  

All these assumptions of breaking the law seem to be built on a shaky foundation.

Maybe we just have experience in different industries, but I have never worked for a  company that didn't have it's employees sign some sort of confidentiality agreement.  

 

Quote

I do agree that few people care about anything Mormonleaks has published.

Exactly. Hardly anybody on the planet knows that MormonLeaks is even a thing. 

 

[LittleNipper]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Then why do we know virtually nothing of what was taught to the Apostles in his 40 Day post-resurrection ministry. Seems like it might have been important but none of the gospel writers wrote it down...........almost as if they purposely left it out for some reason.

I don't see this as true. It was during that time Christ gave the great commission. And Christ's work was essentially OVER. He was revealing the fact of His resurrection. He had taught His disciple during His ministry and now He was sending them out.

Edited June 19, 2018 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

9 hours ago, JAHS said:

 

Here's another one. In John 16:12 Jesus said this to His apostles, " I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now."  He was even hiding things from His own Apostles.

The Church Age had not yet begun and Christ had not yet ascended into heaven. There is essentially NOTHING yet to reveal with regard to salvation and the ministry of Christ's Church. The next chapter comes upon the catching away of the Church. And Mormon's don't seem anymore  (if not less) acquainted than most Fundamentalist Bible Christians with regards to that RAPTURE (catching away).

Edited June 19, 2018 by LittleNipper

[FearlessFixxer]

There seems to be some confusion in this thread and others as to the meaning/origin of my online moniker of FearlessFixxer.

In 2006 I had an idea to create a website that was modeled after the Drudge Report but for sports only.  I created the website and maintained it briefly.  The name of the sit was Sports Fixx.

While 99% of the site was links to other news articles, I did have a page where I would occasionally write something.  I signed those pieces as Fearless Fixxer.  I don't know where I came up with that, it just came to me.

The site only lasted a couple of weeks mainly because I have no talent in running a site, but I started to use FearlessFixxer as my username for anything and everything on the internet.

When I signed up for reddit in 2013, naturally, I used that as my name.  Because of the November policy and later the October videos, when went viral mainly from reddit, the moniker basically stuck to me perfectly.

 

 

[Amulek]

14 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

We break no laws, criminal or civil.  Our sources might be depending on the situation and we have made statements in the past that they should take these things into consideration.

Where would I find such statements on your website?

I understand you don't have a duty to warn people that leaking confidential information may be in violation of civil or criminal laws, but you say you have advised people to take those things into consideration in the past, so I was wondering if you would please direct me to these statements as they are not prominently displayed anywhere on your website - not that they have to be, of course.

 

[FearlessFixxer]

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Where would I find such statements on your website?

I understand you don't have a duty to warn people that leaking confidential information may be in violation of civil or criminal laws, but you say you have advised people to take those things into consideration in the past, so I was wondering if you would please direct me to these statements as they are not prominently displayed anywhere on your website - not that they have to be, of course.

 

We have said it in multiple interviews and I say it to sources if it comes up.  We also usually discuss unintended, non-legal consequences that could occur if their identity is discovered.  This sometimes discourages people from going through with sending us stuff.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

We have said it in multiple interviews and I say it to sources if it comes up.  We also usually discuss unintended, non-legal consequences that could occur if their identity is discovered.  This sometimes discourages people from going through with sending us stuff.

What if a church employee sends you internal church documents in violation of the person's employment contract with the Church?  Do you accept such documents?  Do you warn them of the potential ramifications of their conduct?  Do you warn them before or after the fact?

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

I believe some of what you say.  I believe you when you brag about having employees of the LDS Church pilfering (stealing, really) materials and passing them on to you.  It is precisely because I believe you on this point that I find your conduct so reprehensible.

That's just a matter of common sense.  Of course you would not publicly admit to breaking the law, and would instead assert that you have taken precautions to "[not] break the law."

That says nothing about your reprehensible conduct, except that it may not technically be illegal.   

In case you hadn't noticed, reprehensible runs in the family. Not coincidentally, readings on the evil meter have spiked since I moved back to Utah last month.

Disclaimer: I am not and have never been a contributor to or participant in MormonLeaks. Ryan told me about it after the fact, when it was already being discussed in places like this one. 

In the end, how you see Ryan's actions (and the rest of the ML team's) is a moral value judgment. One person's whistleblowing and transparency is another person's pilfering and stealing. If I were a believer, I suppose I'd prefer having Ryan run such a web site, instead of someone with genuine animosity toward the church.

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, PacMan said:

Edited to be nice:

I've been watching McKnight browse for 20 minutes.  I'm disappointed he left without addressing my rebuttal to his OP.  I think he's wrong and that I demonstrably showed why.

You seem obsessed with McKnight. You're tracking his browsing and calling him out for not talking to you? Sounds a bit stalker...ish. Did he kick your dog or something? Why so much personal animosity?

 

 

 

"Unbridled anger is evidence of a blackened soul."

[Amulek]

9 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

We have said it in multiple interviews and I say it to sources if it comes up.  We also usually discuss unintended, non-legal consequences that could occur if their identity is discovered.  This sometimes discourages people from going through with sending us stuff.

Thank you for your reply. I didn't really doubt you; I was just trying to get an idea of how that all works. 

Thanks again. 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

In the end, how you see Ryan's actions (and the rest of the ML team's) is a moral value judgment.

I suppose so.  The Golden Rule seems like a good way to go.  As applied here . . . 

Quote

One person's whistleblowing and transparency is another person's pilfering and stealing.

If someone you trust were to take (steal) your private information (as in without your consent or permission), and send it to a third party whose stated intention is to publish such private information to the world, how would you respond?

And if you found out that the person you trust did these things at the request/inducement of that third party, what sort of "moral value judgment" would you render as to that third party's behavior?

Quote

If I were a believer, I suppose I'd prefer having Ryan run such a web site, instead of someone with genuine animosity toward the church.

Encouraging other people to steal documents and send them to him demonstrates . . . what?  Love and affection?

Are you saying his animosity is only apparent?

If X were to encourage Y (Y being someone you know and trust, and who has access to your private information) to steal your private information and send it to X, for the stated purpose of X publishing such information to the world, would you seriously suggest that X does not have "genuine animosity" toward Y?

And if Y ends up breaking the law and suffering adverse consequences because he complied with X's inducements to engage in culpable conduct, what sort of "moral value judgment" would you render as to X's behavior?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 19, 2018 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suppose so.  The Golden Rule seems like a good way to go.  As applied here . . . 

If someone you trust were to take (steal) your private information (as in without your consent or permission), and send it to a third party whose stated intention is to publish such private information to the world, how would you respond?

Encouraging other people to steal documents and send them to him demonstrates . . . what?  Love and affection?

Are you saying his animosity is only apparent?

Again, if X were to encourage Y (Y being someone you know and trust, and who has access to your private information) to steal your private information and send it to X, for the stated purpose of X publishing such information to the world, would you seriously suggest that X does not have "genuine animosity" toward Y?

And if Y ends up breaking the law and suffering adverse consequences because he complied with X's inducements to engage in culpable conduct, what sort of "moral value judgment" would you render as to X's behavior?

Thanks,

-Smac

By that standard, there would never be any whistleblowers at all. But you're right that the people who are giving that private information to ML are knowingly violating the trust of their employer or church, whichever the case may be (if I recall correctly, I had to sign some kind of NDA when I worked at the church--not that I've ever leaked anything confidential from my days there). They have to answer for their actions and motivations. But as I said, if someone is going to leak confidential information (and that was happening long before Ryan was even born), I'd rather it go to someone like Ryan, who does have a sense of ethics and morality, than to someone like the guy who's been filming the endowment. 

I get it. What Ryan is doing is seen as a malicious attack on the church. I probably would have seen it the same way back when I was a believer. 

Edited June 19, 2018 by jkwilliams

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

By that standard, there would never be any whistleblowers at all.

Not really.  A whistleblower is, by definition, "a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity."

The LDS Church is not engaged in "illicit activity."  In fact, the only parties who are engaged in "illicit activity" (or at least potentially so) are - even by Mr. McKnight's own admission - the people who steal private information from the LDS Church and send it to Mr. McKnight.  You know, the guy who has set up a website for that exact purpose.  The guy who publicly brags about having "sources" who are employees of the LDS Church.  The guy who has come to this board to gloat about how he may be able to get away with such things while leaving his "sources" to suffer the consequences of doing what he is inviting them to do.

Quote

But you're right that the people who are giving that private information to ML are knowingly violating the trust of their employer or church, whichever the case may be (if I recall correctly, I had to sign some kind of NDA when I worked at the church--not that I've ever leaked anything confidential from my days there).

So you refused to engage in the conduct that Mr. McKnight is inviting other people to perform.  I'm glad of that.  But I'm a bit befuddled why you then turn around and defend Mr. McKnight's solicitations for behavior you recognize as violative of the law.  Blood is thicker than water?  The ends justify the means?  

Quote

They have to answer for their actions and motivations.

Those "actions and motivations" being . . . cooperating with Mr. McKnight.  Doing what he has invited them to do.  Using his website for its intended purpose.

Meanwhile, do you think Mr. McKnight should answer for his "actions and motivations?"  He is inviting other people to steal from the Church and send it to him, in such a way as will (potentially) shield him from having to "answer" for such things, while leaving his "sources" to "answer for their actions and motivations."

I'm reminded here of a character from Oliver Twist:

Quote

Fagin /ˈfeɪɡɪn/ is a fictional character in Charles D|ckens's novel Oliver Twist. In the preface to the novel, he is described as a "receiver of stolen goods". He is the leader of a group of children (the Artful Dodger and Charley Bates among them) whom he teaches to make their livings by pickpocketing and other criminal activities, in exchange for shelter. A distinguishing trait is his constant - and insincere - use of the phrase "my dear" when addressing others. At the time of the novel, he is said by another character, Monks, to have already made criminals out of "scores" of children. Nancy, who is the lover of Bill Sikes, one of the novel's major villains, is confirmed to be Fagin's former pupil.

Fagin is a self-confessed miser who, despite the wealth he has acquired, does very little to improve the squalid lives of the children he guards, or his own. In the second chapter of his appearance, he is shown (when talking to himself) that he cares less for their welfare, than that they do not "peach" (inform) on him and the other children. Still darker sides to the character's nature are shown when he beats the Artful Dodger for not bringing Oliver back; in his attempted beating of Oliverfor trying to escape; and in his own involvement with various plots and schemes throughout the story.

A "receiver of stolen goods."

A "leader" who "teaches" others to steal on his behalf.

A "miser" who feigns sincerity about those who steal on his behalf ("my dear"), but in reality doesn't care about their welfare ("Our sources might be [breaking the law by using our website in exactly the way we intend it to be used]...").

A person whose focuses on ways to insulate himself from any repercussions of the thievery he induces others to commit on his behalf.

Quote

But as I said, if someone is going to leak confidential information (and that was happening long before Ryan was even born), I'd rather it go to someone like Ryan, who does have a sense of ethics and morality, than to someone like the guy who's been filming the endowment. 

Moral relativism at its finest.

Are we really going to rationalize/excuse Mr. McKnight's conduct by A) saying "hey, he's not the only one who's done this" and B) comparing his conduct to something worse?  

• "Hey, as an employee I have a strong sense of ethics and morality.  I only stole $5,000 from my employer, whereas my predecessor stole twice that much."
• "Hey, as a politician I have a strong sense of ethics and morality.  I admit I took kickbacks from the mob, but at least I didn't ask them to whack my opponent in last year's elections."
• "Hey, as a husband I have a strong sense of ethics and morality.  While I do step out on my wife, at least I don't beat her."

This is your measure of Mr. McKnight's "ethics and morality?"

Quote

I get it.

You are also defending and justifying it.

Quote

What Ryan is doing is seen as a malicious attack on the church.

Put aside, for the moment, what it "is seen as."  Look at it for what it actually is. 

How would you feel if someone did to you what Mr. McKnight is doing here?  How would you feel if someone induced your family members to steal your private information and send it to that someone, whose stated intention is to publish that information to the world?

Quote

I probably would have seen it the same way back when I was a believer. 

So the Golden Rule is fine and dandy.  Unless it's the Mormons.  In which case . . . anything goes.  Such are the "ethics and morality" of Ryan McKnight.

Here are my questions again:

If someone you trust were to take (steal) your private information (as in without your consent or permission), and send it to a third party whose stated intention is to publish such private information to the world, how would you respond?

And if you found out that the person you trust did these things at the request/inducement of that third party, what sort of "moral value judgment" would you render as to that third party's behavior?

Edited June 19, 2018 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  A whistleblower is, by definition, "a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity."

The LDS Church is not engaged in "illicit activity."  In fact, the only parties who are engaged in "illicit activity" (or at least potentially so) are - even by Mr. McKnight's own admission - the people who steal private information from the LDS Church and send it to Mr. McKnight.  You know, the guy who has set up a website for that exact purpose.  The guy who publicly brags about having "sources" who are employees of the LDS Church.  The guy who has come to this board to gloat about how he may be able to get away with such things while leaving his "sources" to suffer the consequences of doing what he is inviting them to do.

So you refused to engage in the conduct that Mr. McKnight is inviting other people to perform.  I'm glad of that.  But I'm a bit befuddled why you then turn around and defend Mr. McKnight's solicitations for behavior you recognize as violative of the law.  Blood is thicker than water?  The ends justify the means?  

Those "actions and motivations" being . . . cooperating with Mr. McKnight.  Doing what he has invited them to do.  Using his website for its intended purpose.

Meanwhile, do you think Mr. McKnight should answer for his "actions and motivations?"  He is inviting other people to steal from the Church and send it to him, in such a way as will (potentially) shield him from having to "answer" for such things, while leaving his "sources" to "answer for their actions and motivations."

I'm reminded here of a character from Oliver Twist:

A "receiver of stolen goods."

A "leader" who "teaches" others to steal on his behalf.

A "miser" who feigns sincerity about those who steal on his behalf ("my dear"), but in reality doesn't care about their welfare.

A person whose focuses on ways to insulate himself from any repercussions of the thievery he induces others to commit on his behalf.

Moral relativism at its finest.

Are we really going to rationalize/excuse Mr. McKnight's conduct by A) saying "hey, he's not the only one who's done this" and B) comparing his conduct to something worse?  

• "Hey, as an employee I have a strong sense of ethics and morality.  I only stole $5,000 from my employer, whereas my predecessor stole twice that much."
• "Hey, as a politician I have a strong sense of ethics and morality.  I admit I took kickbacks from the mob, but at least I didn't ask them to whack my opponent in last year's elections."
• "Hey, as a husband I have a strong sense of ethics and morality.  While I do step out on my wife, at least I don't beat her."

This is your measure of Mr. McKnight's "ethics and morality?"

So the Golden Rule is fine and dandy.  Unless it's the Mormons.  In which case . . . anything goes.

Here are my questions again:

If someone you trust were to take (steal) your private information (as in without your consent or permission), and send it to a third party whose stated intention is to publish such private information to the world, how would you respond?

And if you found out that the person you trust did these things at the request/inducement of that third party, what sort of "moral value judgment" would you render as to that third party's behavior?

Not moral relativism at all. I don't have a problem with what he's doing, obviously. I don't find it morally wrong or reprehensible. And it's not because "anything goes" with the Mormons (sheesh, Spencer, enough with the nastiness). I feel the same way about other leaks as well. I think what, say, Bradley Manning did was reprehensible, as I don't think there was even a pretense of whistleblowing. But the reporters who received what he leaked are not the ones at fault, IMO. 

Like I said, I understand where you're coming from. As for your questions, I suppose it depends on what was revealed and for what purpose. If I did something wrong that I was trying to hide and it was revealed in an effort to expose my wrongdoing, I might be angry and upset, but I wouldn't think it was morally wrong. Context and purpose matter.

[ksfisher]

12 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

The biblical Christian view is that everything Christians do should be open for public observation

And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves.

And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.

(Mark 9:8-9)

There seems to be biblical precedent, from the Savior himself, that some things should not be for public consumption.

 

 

[PacMan]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was not making an assertion about stare decisis, but only the normal observation that journalism is concerned with the broadest possible interests of the public.  You are playing games.

I was trying to cover all manner of criminal and civil matters, and so used an infelicitous word or phrase.  You seem focused on denying the right of journalists to cover their stories in the ways which they traditionally do, without violating any law.  You are intent on finding any possible violation of law.  Do such violations occur?  Yes, but do they fit within your imaginary categories for MormonLeaks?  No.  For many people in modern society, free speech and free press have little value and their enemies are constantly trying to find ways in which to limit them.  Nothing you have said thus far is a limitation on legitimate freedom of the press.

Robert, then why are you making normal observations that have nothing to do with the conversation at hand?  What journalism is "concerned" with has nothing to do with anything. We are talking about their legal rights.

And, I've said nothing to deny them their rights of journalism.  But that does not extend to participating in illegal conduct, particularly when it is a tort in a private civil action having nothing to do with the government.  And aiding and abetting the breach of fiduciary duty is illegal conduct.  Journalists, however legitimate or not, are not above the law.

You may hold whatever opinion you'd like.  But do not hold it out to be well-informed.  It is not.  And it is completely unsupported.  If you have an actual case that you would like to present, I'd be happy to read it.  But I'm not interested in you sharing an uneducated opinion with no basis no law.

[PacMan]

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

IMO you provide a needed service.  You give transparency to areas where it is needed.  The popularity of your site and of the material that you provide is evidence of this.

The needed service is to violate the law?  So do you also support gangs, insurrections, and mobs?  And ad populum is the support for your conviction?  And, pray tell, why is this "needed?"

Heaven help us.

[PacMan]

8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I am just guessing here, but some of the leaked material, such as correspondence on GA's salaries and videos of Q15 meetings would require elevated access.  I don't think rank and file level would have such access.  This type of security breach should be taken very seriously.

Wait.  I thought you said this "service" was needed.  Will you make up your mind?