MormonLeaks does not break the law

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I've said it would depend on the purpose. I don't know how to be clearer than that. It's the same standard for my personal information as it is for the church's information.

A few years ago, someone apparently gave my wife's email address to some overzealous apologists. I have no idea who did it or what they intended. What I took exception to was their sending a series of threatening emails to my wife, triggering a pretty bad episode of PTSD--all because they didn't like my blog. That's what I would call malicious use of personal information. You seem to believe Ryan is analogous to the apologists, assuming they solicited my wife's information and then used it for evil purposes. I'm sorry, I don't see him inducing anyone, let alone bragging or taunting. 

I'm about done here. I don't agree with everything Ryan has done, but this Bond villain portrait is ridiculous.

Yeah, this is crazy to read through!

I’ve not seen McKnight personally attack anyone here (only clarify and defend attacks made against him).

If we tallied up the rude, personal insults and attacks against him vs. any he’s thrown back, he’d come out looking stellar, IMO.  

Edited June 19, 2018 by JulieM

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I've said it would depend on the purpose. I don't know how to be clearer than that. It's the same standard for my personal information as it is for the church's information.

Let's say that you just have someone who dislikes you and wants to make you look bad.  Or he wants to embarrass you.  Or he wants to make your life difficult.  Or he personally thinks that you are not sufficiently "transparent" with your personal life.  So this guy sets up a website that he describes as "providing sources and whistleblowers the technical ability to anonymously submit sensitive documents and information about the private life jkwilliams.  This website notably lacks any caution or prohibition against "sources and whistleblowers" using unlawful or unethical means to obtain your "sensitive" documents and information.  And this fellow reserves to himself the sole arbitration of what parts of your information he publishes to the world.  Any parts.  All parts.  Some parts.  Whatever. 

You have no say in the matter.  You may even have asked this person to take down his website, to stop advertising it as ""providing sources and whistleblowers the technical ability" to transmit your documents and information taken from you without your consent by any and all means.

C'mon, man.  This is not rocket science.  The Golden Rule.  Would you want your personal information to be taken without your consent and published to the world without your consent?

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

A few years ago, someone apparently gave my wife's email address to some overzealous apologists. I have no idea who did it or what they intended. What I took exception to was their sending a series of threatening emails to my wife, triggering a pretty bad episode of PTSD--all because they didn't like my blog.

I am very sorry to hear that.  Truly.  There is no excuse for such behavior.

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That's what I would call malicious use of personal information. You seem to believe Ryan is analogous to the apologists, assuming they solicited my wife's information and then used it for evil purposes. I'm sorry, I don't see him inducing anyone, let alone bragging or taunting. 

I'm about done here. I don't agree with everything Ryan has done, but this Bond villain portrait is ridiculous.

Now you are the one doing the caricaturing.

I find it reprehensible that Mr. McKnight has set up a website to facilitate the anonymous submission of documents taken from the LDS Church (along with any other "sensitive" documents from other sources).

I find it reprehensible that Mr. McKnight neither prohibits nor discourages "sources" from breaking the law by using his website for its intended purpose.

I find it reprehensible that Mr. McKnight recognizes that the behavior his webiste is designed to facilitate may be illegal, but he doesn't care about that.

I find it reprehensible that Mr. McKnight's website does not warn "sources" that their use of his website for its intended purpose may be a violation of the law on their part.

I find it reprehensible that Mr. McKnight is essentially inducing or inviting others to (potentially) break the law, while purportedly insulating himself from any legal consequences stemming from the conduct he is encouraging others to perform for his benefit.

I have said these things in a few different ways.  I have generally focused on Mr. McKnight's behavior.  I do not know him as as whole person, nor have I called him "evil," nor have I characterized him as anything approaching a "Bond villain."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Yeah, this is crazy to read through!

I’ve not seen McKnight personally attack anyone here (only clarify and defend attacks made against him).

If we tallied up the rude, personal insults and attacks against him vs. any he’s thrown back, he’d come out looking stellar, IMO.  

I think personal attacks are inappropriate, and I hope those on my "side" of this discussion will stop doing that.

However, Mr. McKnight's specific behaviors relating to his website are very much open for critique.  Would you agree with that?

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Yeah, this is crazy to read through!

I’ve not seen McKnight personally attack anyone here (only clarify and defend attacks made against him).

If we tallied up the rude, personal insults and attacks against him vs. any he’s thrown back, he’d come out looking stellar, IMO.  

Yes but I think the following quote applies:
"What you do speaks so loudly, I can't hear what you're saying." (Ralph Waldo Emerson)

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think personal attacks are inappropriate, and I hope those on my "side" of this discussion will stop doing that.

However, Mr. McKnight's specific behaviors relating to his website are very much open for critique.  Would you agree with that?

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course.  I think it just shouldn’t get personal.  I think he’s fine discussing any critique of his website as well (from what I’ve seen).

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Assuming Mr. McKnight has breached some duty owed to the church or aided and abetted a breach, what damages has the church suffered?

"Invasion of privacy" damages are, I understand, a bit tricky.  But the Church is not litigious, I think.  I don't think it wants to litigate matters unless they are pretty important.  So far, the thievery which Mr. McKnight is facilitating by his website appears to be insufficient to warrant legal action by the Church.  But if it did, I'm not sure it would seek damages.  I think it would prefer to have Mr. McKnight stop encouraging employees of the Church to steal stuff and send it to him.

'Cuz at the end of the day, that's what he is doing, directly or impliedly.  And I think we all know that.

-Smac

[JulieM]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

Yes but I think the following quote applies:
"What you do speaks so loudly, I can't hear what you're saying." (Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Ok.  That still doesn’t justify or make it right to personally attack someone.  As smac just posted, keep the discussion to what the website states and what its purpose is.  To some, Ryan is a villain and to others, he’s a hero.   

[Hestia]

Pac Man has been banned from the thread for personal insults and inflammatory language.