HappyJackWagon Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 20 minutes ago, strappinglad said: Stated as such I agree. To go from the idea that exing is 1 in 5 or 1 out of 3 possibilities , which is correct, to then state that there is a 20% chance of excommunication makes the leap to probability which now can be argued is likely false because not all outcomes are equally likely. In a deck of cards there are face cards and non face cards. If I draw a card there are 2 possibilities ie. a face card or a non face card. It would be incorrect to say the chance of drawing a face card is 50% . Most people use the words possible and probable interchangeably .There is a difference that one could say was nit-picking. It is my personal nit so I picked at it. Sorry HJW. Except that's not what I said. I intentionally said the "possibility" was 1 out of 5. I never said the chance or probability was 1-5. You misread. Not a big deal. It's really not that important of a point, just pointing out that I'm right and you're wrong I said... Quote That means that for every DC there are 5 possible outcomes or a 20% possibility of excommunication. I think it would be very interesting to see actual numbers on this. Like Steve-o said, possibility and probability are not the same things.
hope_for_things Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Nevertheless, I'm not particularly interested in trying to change your mind. I'm content to let readers reach their own conclusions. To me, however, Mr. McKnight's behavior is obviously and demonstrably execrable. If he set up a website encouraging the family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. of HappyJackWagon to pilfer "sensitive documents" belonging to HappyJackWagon and secretly and anonymously (and without the consent of HappyJackWagon) submit those documents to me so I can publish them to the world, I think you would take exception to this. I think you would find my website's intended purpose to be to encourage others to steal your stuff and send it to me. In case anyone is interested, I just listened to this interview that was posted today by the SLTrib. In the interview Ryan states that they don't solicit leaks. They are also asked about the ethics of what they are doing and give some interesting answers. I'm torn about the ethics of MormonLeaks personally. While I would have a very hard time leaking a document for public consumption if I were put in that position myself, I can see how some of these leaks have been catalysts for what I think is a net positive conversation. I also don't think the church is transparent enough. I wouldn't call what MormonLeaks is doing "Stealing" that is over the top rhetoric in my opinion, but I can understand how people are concerned about what they do as well. https://www.sltrib.com/podcasts/mormonland/ 2
Popular Post smac97 Posted August 7, 2018 Popular Post Posted August 7, 2018 (edited) 48 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: In case anyone is interested, I just listened to this interview that was posted today by the SLTrib. In the interview Ryan states that they don't solicit leaks. I'm not particularly inclined to take Mr. McKnight's say-so as definitive. From his website: "[MormonLeaks] provides sources and whistleblowers the technical ability to anonymously submit sensitive documents." And here (a comment from Cinepro directed to Mr. McKnight): Quote https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/57ma2c/a_message_for_eric_hawkins_et_al_plus_an_update/ Normally I don't post links to exmormon, no vulgarity that I saw in a skim, but it is exmormon Reddit so be prepared for criticism of all types if you choose to go there. Since Fearless is posting, it seemed fair to allow the original content to be easily accessible. Quote If I have learned one thing over the last year (and more so over the last couple of weeks), it is that there is a lot less loyalty at COB than any of you realize.... It is not just what has been leaked, but what many want to share but haven't yet found the courage. One day they will find that courage and the damn will break.As for the current status of leaks....We are still working on one that could be big....it will take time....On a bigger note, I am working with a developer to create a secure, wikileaks style, site where people can submit stuff totally annonymously. I think that might help light a fire under many of those COB employees I was talking about. You are expressing a desire that COB employees will leak material to your site. How is this not solicitation? Here is a set of questions I posed to HappyJackWagon, who has declined to answer them. I invite you to respond to them: Are you suggesting that the Church has authorized its employees to send "sensitive documents" owned by the Church to Mr. McKnight? If the LDS Church is not authorizing the distribution of its materials to Mr. McKnight, then how is Mr. McKnight getting these documents? If it's not through "theft," then what is it? Why do you think Mr. McKnight has gone to such great lengths to advertise the secretive/anonymous submission process of documents to his website? Why do you think Mr. McKnight has conceded that his "sources might be [breaking the law by using his website for its intended purposes] depending on the situation?" When Mr. McKnight speaks of his website as "help[ing] light a fire under many of those COB employees," what do you think he is talking about? Light a fire under the Church's employees to do what? Why do you think Mr. McKnight differentiates between documents he publishes from "sources" (which he might publish) and documents "the church wanted to send us" (which he categorically does not publish)? If I were to set up a website encouraging the family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. of hope_for_things to pilfer "sensitive documents" belonging to hope_for_things and secretly and anonymously (and without the consent of hope_for_things) submit those documents to me so I can publish them to the world, I think you would take exception to this. I think you would find this website's intended purpose to be to encourage ("solicit") others to steal your stuff and send it to me. And you'd be right. Quote They are also asked about the ethics of what they are doing and give some interesting answers. I'm torn about the ethics of MormonLeaks personally. While I would have a very hard time leaking a document for public consumption if I were put in that position myself, I can see how some of these leaks have been catalysts for what I think is a net positive conversation. Ah. So the ends justify the means. I have a friend who was severely abused by her ex-husband. This abuse was precipitated their divorce. She is now in a much better place, emotionally, physically, spiritually, you name it. So this means her ex-husband's abuse of her "is a net positive" thing in her life. His abuse of her is excused/justified/rationalized because it was a "catalyst" for change in my friend's life. The ends justify the means. Is that how this works? Quote I also don't think the church is transparent enough. And I don't think you are "transparent enough." So my private assessment means I get to dox you. Is that how this works? I get to impose my person notions about "transparency" on you? Without your consent? I get to force you to be "transparent?" (Don't worry, I won't dox you. I'm speaking hypothetically only.) Quote I wouldn't call what MormonLeaks is doing "Stealing" that is over the top rhetoric in my opinion, but I can understand how people are concerned about what they do as well. https://www.sltrib.com/podcasts/mormonland/ I wouldn't call what MormonLeaks is doing "stealing," either. Mr. McKnight is not "stealing" materials from the LDS Church. He is, instead, encouraging others to steal such materials and secretly and anonymously send them to him. He has bragged about insulating himself from legal repercussions of his website, while also admitting that his "sources" may well be breaking the law when they use his website for its intended purposes. What sorts of laws do you think Mr. McKnight is admitting might be getting broken by his sources? Thanks, -Smac Edited August 7, 2018 by smac97 10
HappyJackWagon Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: I'm not particularly inclined to take Mr. McKnight's say-so as definitive. From his website: "[MormonLeaks] provides sources and whistleblowers the technical ability to anonymously submit sensitive documents." And here (a comment from Cinepro directed to Mr. McKnight): Here is a set of questions I posed to HappyJackWagon, who has declined to answer them. I invite you to respond to them: Are you suggesting that the Church has authorized its employees to send "sensitive documents" owned by the Church to Mr. McKnight? NOPE If the LDS Church is not authorizing the distribution of its materials to Mr. McKnight, then how is Mr. McKnight getting these documents? If it's not through "theft," then what is it? I think "theft" is too loaded a term. I think people with access to information share information the church wishes they wouldn't. I can appreciate how that might be a breach of trust, but I don't see it as theft, or stealing. Why do you think Mr. McKnight has gone to such great lengths to advertise the secretive/anonymous submission process of documents to his website? Because people who leak want to be anonymous. They probably fear reprisal. Or maybe they're afraid of family finding out they leaked, or they're afraid to lose their job, or get called in to the bishop or SP for discipline. Why do you think Mr. McKnight has conceded that his "sources might be [breaking the law by using his website for its intended purposes] depending on the situation?" Because he's smart enough to know that it's a possibility. Doesn't mean he's encouraging it. If a gun manufacture acknowledges that their guns may be used illegally, does that mean they are encouraging that people use the gun illegally? Not a perfect analogy, but hopefully you see my point. When Mr. McKnight speaks of his website as "help[ing] light a fire under many of those COB employees," what do you think he is talking about? Light a fire under the Church's employees to do what? I don't know. I would suspect that it would be to share information. As noted earlier, even if that is done without permission, I don't necessarily see it as steeling. Why do you think Mr. McKnight differentiates between documents he publishes from "sources" (which he might publish) and documents "the church wanted to send us" (which he categorically does not publish)? I don't understand the question. Like I've stated many times, I also don't believe that CoB employees are his only source of information. They may be a source, but they're not the only source. We're not talking about "a COB employee having access" to the Church's materials. We are talking about "a COB employee" stealing those materials and sending them to Mr. McKnight, per the publicly-stated purpose of his website. If Mr. McKnight set up a website encouraging the family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. of hope_for_things to pilfer "sensitive documents" belonging to hope_for_things and secretly and anonymously (and without the consent of hope_for_things) submit those documents to me so I can publish them to the world, I think you would take exception to this. I think you would find this website's intended purpose to be to encourage ("solicit") others to steal your stuff and send it to me. And you'd be right. Ah. So the ends justify the means. I have a friend who was severely abused by her ex-husband. This abuse was a catalyst for her divorce. She is now in a much better place, emotionally, physically, spiritually, you name it. So this means her ex-husband's abuse of her "is a net positive" thing in her life. The ends justify the means. Is that how this works? You really jumped the shark with that one. And I don't think you are "transparent enough." So my private assessment means I get to dox you. Is that how this works? I get to impose my person notions about "transparency" on you? Without your consent? I get to force you to be "transparent?" Go ahead, dude. But in my mind there is a difference between an individual and an organization of which I'm a member and donate money to. I think it's reasonable to expect transparency from the organization I've donated countless hours and dollars to. I get that you disagree with that. No skin off my nose. (Don't worry, I won't dox you. I'm speaking hypothetically only.) Phew! I was sweating. I wouldn't call what MormonLeaks is doing "stealing," either. Mr. McKnight is not "stealing" materials from the LDS Church. He is encouraging others to steal such materials and secretly and anonymously send them to him. Thanks, -Smac I haven't "declined" to answer. That's a misrepresentation. I haven't responded at all. The only reason being that your posts are so long I don't often feel I have the time to respond and I thought most of the answers were implied in my other posts. But I've got a few minutes now so I'll try. Answers in red. 1
USU78 Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 26 minutes ago, smac97 said: I'm not particularly inclined to take Mr. McKnight's say-so as definitive. From his website: "[MormonLeaks] provides sources and whistleblowers the technical ability to anonymously submit sensitive documents." And here (a comment from Cinepro directed to Mr. McKnight): Here is a set of questions I posed to HappyJackWagon, who has declined to answer them. I invite you to respond to them: Are you suggesting that the Church has authorized its employees to send "sensitive documents" owned by the Church to Mr. McKnight? If the LDS Church is not authorizing the distribution of its materials to Mr. McKnight, then how is Mr. McKnight getting these documents? If it's not through "theft," then what is it? Why do you think Mr. McKnight has gone to such great lengths to advertise the secretive/anonymous submission process of documents to his website? Why do you think Mr. McKnight has conceded that his "sources might be [breaking the law by using his website for its intended purposes] depending on the situation?" When Mr. McKnight speaks of his website as "help[ing] light a fire under many of those COB employees," what do you think he is talking about? Light a fire under the Church's employees to do what? Why do you think Mr. McKnight differentiates between documents he publishes from "sources" (which he might publish) and documents "the church wanted to send us" (which he categorically does not publish)? If I were to set up a website encouraging the family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. of hope_for_things to pilfer "sensitive documents" belonging to hope_for_things and secretly and anonymously (and without the consent of hope_for_things) submit those documents to me so I can publish them to the world, I think you would take exception to this. I think you would find this website's intended purpose to be to encourage ("solicit") others to steal your stuff and send it to me. And you'd be right. Ah. So the ends justify the means. I have a friend who was severely abused by her ex-husband. This abuse was precipitated their divorce. She is now in a much better place, emotionally, physically, spiritually, you name it. So this means her ex-husband's abuse of her "is a net positive" thing in her life. His abuse of her is excused/justified/rationalized because it was a "catalyst" for change in my friend's life. The ends justify the means. Is that how this works? And I don't think you are "transparent enough." So my private assessment means I get to dox you. Is that how this works? I get to impose my person notions about "transparency" on you? Without your consent? I get to force you to be "transparent?" (Don't worry, I won't dox you. I'm speaking hypothetically only.) I wouldn't call what MormonLeaks is doing "stealing," either. Mr. McKnight is not "stealing" materials from the LDS Church. He is, instead, encouraging others to steal such materials and secretly and anonymously send them to him. He has bragged about insulating himself from legal repercussions of his website, while also admitting that his "sources" may well be breaking the law when they use his website for its intended purposes. What sorts of laws do you think Mr. McKnight is admitting might be getting broken by his sources? Thanks, -Smac A quibble: receiving stolen property is by definition stealing.
clarkgoble Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I think "theft" is too loaded a term. I think people with access to information share information the church wishes they wouldn't. I can appreciate how that might be a breach of trust, but I don't see it as theft, or stealing. You realize the law treats it as theft, right? I guarantee if you're an Apple employee and leaks something to a rumor site Apple wishes you wouldn't that you will be prosecuted for industrial theft. (They've prosecuted before) I doubt the Church would prosecute, but you can be darn sure they'd be fired and likely have a very hard time finding a good job around private information again. 16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I don't understand the question. Like I've stated many times, I also don't believe that CoB employees are his only source of information. They may be a source, but they're not the only source. Contractors from other companies who see the information are probably the majority of leakers. Not that that makes it any better - and may make it worse since they're not just risking their own job but contracts for the company they are working for and thus their coworkers jobs. Edited August 7, 2018 by clarkgoble 2
Popular Post smac97 Posted August 7, 2018 Popular Post Posted August 7, 2018 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Here is a set of questions I posed to HappyJackWagon, who has declined to answer them. I invite you to respond to them: Are you suggesting that the Church has authorized its employees to send "sensitive documents" owned by the Church to Mr. McKnight? NOPE So the Church's property has ended up in the possession of Mr. McKnight without the consent of the Church. And that possession is not the result of theft? 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: If the LDS Church is not authorizing the distribution of its materials to Mr. McKnight, then how is Mr. McKnight getting these documents? If it's not through "theft," then what is it? I think "theft" is too loaded a term. I think people with access to information share information the church wishes they wouldn't. I can appreciate how that might be a breach of trust, but I don't see it as theft, or stealing. So if I were to break into your home and steal valuables, could I mount a legal defense that "'theft' is too loaded a term?" That I instead merely took your property when you "wished" I wouldn't? Good luck with that. 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Why do you think Mr. McKnight has gone to such great lengths to advertise the secretive/anonymous submission process of documents to his website? Because people who leak want to be anonymous. They probably fear reprisal. Reprisal for what? The obvious answer, for me, is "The probably fear reprisal because they have stolen materials from their employer and sent them to Mr. McKnight without their employer's consent." But what's your answer? If their behavior is not "theft," then what is it? 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Or maybe they're afraid of family finding out they leaked, or they're afraid to lose their job, or get called in to the bishop or SP for discipline. Why would they be afraid of losing their jobs? The obvious answer, for me, is "They're afraid to lose their jobs because they have stolen materials from their employer and sent them to Mr. McKnight without their employer's consent." But what's your answer? If their behavior is not "theft," then what is it? 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: When Mr. McKnight speaks of his website as "help[ing] light a fire under many of those COB employees," what do you think he is talking about? Light a fire under the Church's employees to do what? I don't know. Oh, come on. 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I would suspect that it would be to share information. "Share information" in this context, is "theft." That's all it is. The LDS Church's property is being stolen by people who are using Mr. McKnight's website for its intended purpose, which is to transmit those stolen materials to him. 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: As noted earlier, even if that is done without permission, I don't necessarily see it as steeling. Then what is it? If the conduct being described is not "theft," then what is it? 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Why do you think Mr. McKnight differentiates between documents he publishes from "sources" (which he might publish) and documents "the church wanted to send us" (which he categorically does not publish)? I don't understand the question. Like I've stated many times, I also don't believe that CoB employees are his only source of information. They may be a source, but they're not the only source. Never mind. 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: We're not talking about "a COB employee having access" to the Church's materials. We are talking about "a COB employee" stealing those materials and sending them to Mr. McKnight, per the publicly-stated purpose of his website. If Mr. McKnight set up a website encouraging the family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. of hope_for_things to pilfer "sensitive documents" belonging to hope_for_things and secretly and anonymously (and without the consent of hope_for_things) submit those documents to me so I can publish them to the world, I think you would take exception to this. I think you would find this website's intended purpose to be to encourage ("solicit") others to steal your stuff and send it to me. And you'd be right. Ah. So the ends justify the means. I have a friend who was severely abused by her ex-husband. This abuse was a catalyst for her divorce. She is now in a much better place, emotionally, physically, spiritually, you name it. So this means her ex-husband's abuse of her "is a net positive" thing in her life. The ends justify the means. Is that how this works? You really jumped the shark with that one. Okay. I think you're just sidestepping difficult questions, but I won't press the matter. 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: And I don't think you are "transparent enough." So my private assessment means I get to dox you. Is that how this works? I get to impose my person notions about "transparency" on you? Without your consent? I get to force you to be "transparent?" Go ahead, dude. Surely you don't mean that. 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: But in my mind there is a difference between an individual and an organization of which I'm a member and donate money to. Ah. Ad hoc justifications. That's all you've got. 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I think it's reasonable to expect transparency from the organization I've donated countless hours and dollars to. I get that you disagree with that. No skin off my nose. The question, I think, is whether it's reasonable to coerce "transparency" from a person (or organization) who, in my personal opinion, is not sufficiently "transparent." The question is whether it's reasonable to encourage others to steal materials from a person or organization and secretly send it to me so I can publish it to the world. 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: (Don't worry, I won't dox you. I'm speaking hypothetically only.) Phew! I was sweating. Easy for you to make light of this. It's not your property that is being stolen. But since the property being stolen belongs to the LDS Church, then the rules change. One set of rules for people and groups you like, and another set of rules for people and groups you don't. Remind me not to get on your bad side. Thanks, -Smac 5
HappyJackWagon Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: You realize the law treats it as theft, right? I guarantee if you're an Apple employee and leaks something to a rumor site Apple wishes you wouldn't that you will be prosecuted for industrial theft. (They've prosecuted before) I doubt the Church would prosecute, but you can be darn sure they'd be fired and likely have a very hard time finding a good job around private information again. Contractors from other companies who see the information are probably the majority of leakers. Not that that makes it any better - and may make it worse since they're not just risking their own job but contracts for the company they are working for and thus their coworkers jobs. Are you stating that every leak of employer information is industrial theft and can be prosecuted? Or are there levels or degrees of information, kind of like, private, confidential, top secret etc? Limits? Are there circumstances or types of information that may not be industrial theft? I don't know but I think it's very possible that not every piece of information or document has been shared illegally. Smac is saying that everything on the website has been stolen. And because FF deals in stolen information, the mere presence of his website encourages people to steal. I'm suggesting that is a leap of logic based on his assumptions. He can't possibly know the sources of all the documents. There are many sources and situations in which individuals may come in contact with information or documents that may not be "stealing" which means having the website isn't necessarily encouraging theft.
clarkgoble Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Are you stating that every leak of employer information is industrial theft and can be prosecuted? Or are there levels or degrees of information, kind of like, private, confidential, top secret etc? Limits? Are there circumstances or types of information that may not be industrial theft? I don't know but I think it's very possible that not every piece of information or document has been shared illegally. I'm saying that if they knew they weren't supposed to share it they could likely be prosecuted. I'm no lawyer - and clearly there's not degrees of classification as there is with certain departments in the Federal Government. However it seems pretty clear it's illegal. A prosecutor may well not think it worth the trouble and expense to prosecute, but suggesting it's not illegal seems questionable. Typically employees sign contracts tied to not disclosing information. There's different law for contractual vs. non-contractual leaking. You'd have to talk to a lawyer for the rest. I'm just saying that from what I can see this is pretty thin ice to be treading upon. More or less you're assuming that the Church will be nice. I think the deeper issue is that if there's regular leaking the natural response is to tighten security and the like. This ironically may well lead to less public transparency rather than less. As soon as things tighten up because of leaks the natural way to do that is to restrict everything since it's hard to tell what should or shouldn't be restricted in simple monitoring. Edited August 7, 2018 by clarkgoble 1
HappyJackWagon Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: So the Church's property has ended up in the possession of Mr. McKnight without the consent of the Church. And that possession is not the result of theft? So if I were to break into your home and steal valuables, could I mount a legal defense that "'theft' is too loaded a term?" That I instead merely took your property when you "wished" I wouldn't? Good luck with that. Reprisal for what? The obvious answer, for me, is "The probably fear reprisal because they have stolen materials from their employer and sent them to Mr. McKnight without their employer's consent." But what's your answer? If their behavior is not "theft," then what is it? Why would they be afraid of losing their jobs? The obvious answer, for me, is "They're afraid to lose their jobs because they have stolen materials from their employer and sent them to Mr. McKnight without their employer's consent." But what's your answer? If their behavior is not "theft," then what is it? Oh, come on. "Share information" in this context, is "theft." That's all it is. The LDS Church's property is being stolen by people who are using Mr. McKnight's website for its intended purpose, which is to transmit those stolen materials to him. Then what is it? If the conduct being described is not "theft," then what is it? Never mind. Okay. I think you're just sidestepping difficult questions, but I won't press the matter. Surely you don't mean that. Ah. Ad hoc justifications. That's all you've got. The question, I think, is whether it's reasonable to coerce "transparency" from a person (or organization) who, in my personal opinion, is not sufficiently "transparent." The question is whether it's reasonable to encourage others to steal materials from a person or organization and secretly send it to me so I can publish it to the world. Easy for you to make light of this. It's not your property that is being stolen. But since the property being stolen belongs to the LDS Church, then the rules change. One set of rules for people and groups you like, and another set of rules for people and groups you don't. Remind me not to get on your bad side. Thanks, -Smac You keep asking the same questions. I've tried answering. This is getting really boring. This isn't an interrogation or cross examination. I get that you don't agree with me and that's fine. I think you're consistently overstating your case and are unwilling to consider any other possibility. For example, if you can't conceive of how a person would be nervous about reprisal or retaliation from a company or manager, and therefore desire anonymity, then why are we bothering to talk to each other. You seem to think that the fear of negative consequences from an employer proves wrong doing and I think that is naïve. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: I'm saying that if they knew they weren't supposed to share it they could likely be prosecuted. I'm no lawyer - and clearly there's not degrees of classification as there is with certain departments in the Federal Government. However it seems pretty clear it's illegal. A prosecutor may well not think it worth the trouble and expense to prosecute, but suggesting it's not illegal seems questionable. I'm not an attorney either but it doesn't seem clear to me that it must be illegal. If I were to share confidential information from my company I would expect my company to discipline me but I wouldn't expect to be prosecuted for committing a crime. Maybe it is a crime. I don't know. But I'm not going to assume it is. Can any attorneys out there help me with this? Can COB employees be prosecuted for sharing something like a paystub, or a PowerPoint presentation?
smac97 Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 Just now, HappyJackWagon said: You keep asking the same questions. I've tried answering. Mostly dodging, I think. You say that the nonconsensual dispossession of the LDS Church's materials is not "theft," but you studiously, over and over again, decline to say what it is. But we all know it's theft. We're in "patently absurd" territory here. If I were to take, say, your personal financial data without your knowledge or consent and give it to someone else with the express intention of them publishing it to the world, I have stolen it. That my motive is "I just think HappyJackWagon isn't transparent enough" doesn't convert my conduct into something-other-than theft. Just now, HappyJackWagon said: This is getting really boring. This isn't an interrogation or cross examination. I get that you don't agree with me and that's fine. Okay. I think I've made my point. I'm content to move on. Just now, HappyJackWagon said: I think you're consistently overstating your case and are unwilling to consider any other possibility. Sure I am. Why do you think I have been asking questions? If I were to take, say, your personal financial data without your knowledge or consent and give it to someone else with the express intention of them publishing it to the world, I have stolen it. You apparently disagree. But if what I have done is not "theft," then what is it? Just now, HappyJackWagon said: For example, if you can't conceive of how a person would be nervous about reprisal or retaliation from a company or manager, and therefore desire anonymity, then why are we bothering to talk to each other. You seem to think that the fear of negative consequences from an employer proves wrong doing and I think that is naïve. Sure, I acknowledge that. I just think it doesn't matter. If X takes the materials of Y without Y's knowledge or consent and secretly and anonymously sends it to Z with the intention of Z publishing it to the world, then X has engaged in theft. You deny this is theft, but can't or won't explain what it is. There is an elephant in the room, and you aren't addressing it. And at this point, I don't really expect you to. Mr. McKnight is encouraging others to steal materials from the LDS Church and send them to him. That's theft. Thanks, -Smac 3
USU78 Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Are you stating that every leak of employer information is industrial theft and can be prosecuted? Or are there levels or degrees of information, kind of like, private, confidential, top secret etc? Limits? Are there circumstances or types of information that may not be industrial theft? I don't know but I think it's very possible that not every piece of information or document has been shared illegally. Smac is saying that everything on the website has been stolen. And because FF deals in stolen information, the mere presence of his website encourages people to steal. I'm suggesting that is a leap of logic based on his assumptions. He can't possibly know the sources of all the documents. There are many sources and situations in which individuals may come in contact with information or documents that may not be "stealing" which means having the website isn't necessarily encouraging theft. HJW, the default position is that it is theft. The legislatures decided this may not be a just outcome in all situations, and so crafted whistleblower statutes so that the risk incurred by the whistleblower of prosecution or civil suit might be ameliorated. But "whistleblower" is a defined term. It doesn't apply here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act 1
Popular Post smac97 Posted August 7, 2018 Popular Post Posted August 7, 2018 (edited) 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I'm not an attorney either but it doesn't seem clear to me that it must be illegal. If I were to share confidential information from my company I would expect my company to discipline me Why? What have you done (hypotehtically) that merits discipline from your employer? Sounds like the conduct would be described as . . . theft. Quote but I wouldn't expect to be prosecuted for committing a crime. Which is a separate question from whether or not it is a crime. People commit crimes all the time. And if they get away with it, that doesn't mean what they have done is not a crime. It just means . . . they got away with it. Quote Maybe it is a crime. I don't know. But I'm not going to assume it is. Can any attorneys out there help me with this? Can COB employees be prosecuted for sharing something like a paystub, or a PowerPoint presentation? Utah Code Ann. sec. 78B-6-408(1): Quote A person commits theft if he receives, retains, or disposes of the property of another knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it probably has been stolen, or who conceals, sells, withholds or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding the property from the owner, knowing the property to be stolen, intending to deprive the owner of it. "Property" is defined in Utah Code Ann. sec. 78B-6-401(1): Quote "Property" means anything of value, including real estate, tangible and intangible personal property, captured or domestic animals and birds, written instruments or other writings representing or embodying rights concerning real or personal property, labor, services, or otherwise containing anything of value to the owner, commodities of a public utility nature such as telecommunications, gas, electricity, steam, or water, and trade secrets, meaning the whole or any portion of any scientific or technical information, design, process, procedure, formula or invention which the owner thereof intends to be available only to persons selected by him. So yes, a PowerPoint presentation (which the Church paid someone to prepare, and hence is work product) has "value" and is "intangible" and falls within the meaning of "written instruments or other writings representing or embodying rights concerning real or personal property, labor, services, or otherwise containing anything of value to the owner." But here's the thing: Mr. McKnight knows that the LDS Church is generally averse to litigation. And he has taken steps to reduce his risk of legal liability (he has bragged about that on this very board, in fact). And he would probably move heaven and earth to mount a publicity campaign against the Church if it dared assert its property rights. This only makes Mr. McKnight's behavior all the more contemptible. He is doing these things because he thinks he can get away with it. And he's probably right. -Smac Edited August 7, 2018 by smac97 6
hope_for_things Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 1 hour ago, smac97 said: He has bragged about insulating himself from legal repercussions of his website, while also admitting that his "sources" may well be breaking the law when they use his website for its intended purposes. What sorts of laws do you think Mr. McKnight is admitting might be getting broken by his sources? Apparently I jumped into the thick of a heated debate. Its kind of hard to have a reasonable conversation in this environment. I've listened to McKnight a few times, most recently on that podcast I linked to and at Sunstone. I also mentioned I have some concerns about how I view Mormonleaks. But this seems to go much further for some individuals on this thread. I don't have a zeal to defend Mormonleaks on this message board, they are getting along fine as far as I can tell without my defense. I also don't think those who have a serious bone to pick with them are making any headway here. Perhaps a letter writing campaign, boycott, hunger strike or something would be more effective? Hopefully letting out some frustration on MDDB is therapeutic for those who feel so inclined.
Popular Post Calm Posted August 7, 2018 Popular Post Posted August 7, 2018 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: In case anyone is interested, I just listened to this interview that was posted today by the SLTrib. In the interview Ryan states that they don't solicit leaks. And a person who stands on the corner all night dressed up to party isn't soliciting either, but is just available if needed. 5
Okrahomer Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, Calm said: And a person who stands on the corner all night dressed up to party isn't soliciting either, but is just available if needed.
Ryan Dahle Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 Quote D&C 10 24 Yea, he stirreth up their hearts to anger against this work. 25 Yea, he saith unto them: Deceive and lie in wait to catch, that ye may destroy; behold, this is no harm. And thus he flattereth them, and telleth them that it is no sin to lie that they may catch a man in a lie, that they may destroy him. 26 And thus he flattereth them, and leadeth them along until he draggeth their souls down to hell; and thus he causeth them to catch themselves in their own snare. Although it is not exactly analogous, this passage seems to have some relevance to this discussion. Mr. McKnight is essentially saying: "There is no sin in deceiving your employers and stealing intellectual property that doesn't belong to you. It's all for a good cause, right? We need to use unethical and illegal means to catch the deception practiced by the Church and its leaders. There is no harm in this." 3
hope_for_things Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 5 minutes ago, Calm said: And a person who stands on the corner all night dressed up to party isn't soliciting either, but is just available if needed. Lots of hate out there for the Mormonleaks guys I guess, more than I realized.
Calm Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Apparently I jumped into the thick of a heated debate. Its kind of hard to have a reasonable conversation in this environment. Not that hard. Just read Smac's post above yours listing the law statues and respond to that. 1
Popular Post Calm Posted August 7, 2018 Popular Post Posted August 7, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Lots of hate out there for the Mormonleaks guys I guess, more than I realized. Oh please. I love mindreading. Should I start accusing people defending McKnight's behaviour of hating the Church? Why is it so important to you to put this on an emotional basis? Perhaps to make it easier to dismiss comments? Or are you projecting your own emotions on to others and it makes you feel better about yourself to think others get all riled up like you are... What a waste of time to play armchair psychologist. The above comments are completely useless to a conversation as are yours going on about the hate you see in others here. You might as well say "I can see the devil looking out of your eyes." I am in this argument because I see it as bizarre to say it is not theft and he is not encouraging stealing. I don't have the least bit of hate for either McKnight or the people who are okay with what he does or just don't want his activities to be described as solicitation of stolen property. Edited August 7, 2018 by Calm 7
clarkgoble Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Lots of hate out there for the Mormonleaks guys I guess, more than I realized. Can't speak for anyone else but I don't hate them. Honestly I rarely think about them and think most of what they've released is a pretty big "meh." But I think the way some treat them is kind of silly. I don't understand why people are risking their jobs or the contracts of their employers to release pretty boring stuff. Edited August 7, 2018 by clarkgoble 2
Hestia Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Apparently I jumped into the thick of a heated debate. Its kind of hard to have a reasonable conversation in this environment. I've listened to McKnight a few times, most recently on that podcast I linked to and at Sunstone. I also mentioned I have some concerns about how I view Mormonleaks. But this seems to go much further for some individuals on this thread. I don't have a zeal to defend Mormonleaks on this message board, they are getting along fine as far as I can tell without my defense. I also don't think those who have a serious bone to pick with them are making any headway here. Perhaps a letter writing campaign, boycott, hunger strike or something would be more effective? Hopefully letting out some frustration on MDDB is therapeutic for those who feel so inclined. Watch it HFT. You're treading on shaky ground by implying that those who see things differently than you do are emotional and unreasonable. Any further and it will cross the line to personal insults.
Popular Post smac97 Posted August 7, 2018 Popular Post Posted August 7, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: Are you stating that every leak of employer information is industrial theft and can be prosecuted? Or are there levels or degrees of information, kind of like, private, confidential, top secret etc? Limits? Are there circumstances or types of information that may not be industrial theft? I don't know but I think it's very possible that not every piece of information or document has been shared illegally. I agree. Ms. Denson's recording, for example, appears to have been shared by Ms. Denson. So it wasn't stolen. That raises an interesting question, though. If Mr. McKnight had obtained Ms. Denson's recording through theft (let's sa that a friend of hers secretly downloaded it from Ms. Denson's laptop without Ms. Denson's consent) and published it without Ms. Denson's consent, would you be willing to call that theft? Or is it only not-theft when the material being sent to Mr. McKnight is owned by the LDS Church? Quote Smac is saying that everything on the website has been stolen. No, I'm not. Quote And because FF deals in stolen information, the mere presence of his website encourages people to steal. I'm not saying that, either. It's not its mere "presence," though that is certainly part of it. The website was created for the express and primary (but not necessarily exclusive) purpose of facilitating the transfer of "sensitive documents" owned by the LDS Church to Mr. McKnight so that he can publish them to the world. Mr. McKnight acknowledges that some of the documents he has received are or could be stolen. See here: Quote Not only do we not solicit, we take precautions even after a source contacts us to not solicit from them. For example, we once had a source tell us there had a window of time where they could access the church's network and basically download a bunch of drives. They asked if we wanted them to do that. We said no. I suppose that person could have done that without asking us and we would have never known, but they did ask us and we said no. Here Mr. McKnight admits that, but for the "sources" inquiry, he (Mr. McKnight) could have received through his website "a bunch of drives" of data illicitly taken from the LDS Church. Had the source not asked, and instead just gone ahead and sent the stolen data, Mr. McKnight would have been in possession of . . . stolen property. And he would have been in possession of stolen property because . . . he has set up a website to facilitate the secret and anonymous transmission of stolen property to him. Because Mr. McKnight's "source" used Mr. McKnight's website for its intended purpose. Quote I'm suggesting that is a leap of logic based on his assumptions. But I am not presenting "assumptions" ("a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof"). I am presenting conclusions ("a judgment or decision reached by reasoning"). I have presented evidence and explained my reasoning. Quote He can't possibly know the sources of all the documents. I agree. But we know that the primary purpose of Mr. McKnight's website is to induce employees of the LDS Church to steal materials from their employer and secretly and anonymously transmit those materials to Mr. McKnight. See here: Quote If I have learned one thing over the last year (and more so over the last couple of weeks), it is that there is a lot less loyalty at COB than any of you realize.... It is not just what has been leaked, but what many want to share but haven't yet found the courage. One day they will find that courage and the damn will break. ... On a bigger note, I am working with a developer to create a secure, wikileaks style, site where people can submit stuff totally annonymously. I think that might help light a fire under many of those COB employees I was talking about. Mr. McKnight here is talking about his "MormonLeaks" website. He specifically states that his website "might help light a fire under" employees of the Church. "Light a fire" is a phrase meaning "[to] stimulate someone to work or act more quickly or enthusiastically." So he hopes his website will induce employees of the LDS Church to "work or act" to do what? The answer, from the context, is plain as day: His website is intended to induce/encourage employees of the LDS Church (those who, he notes, lack "loyalty" to the LDS Church) to steal materials from the LDS Church and "leak" those materials to him. Quote There are many sources and situations in which individuals may come in contact with information or documents that may not be "stealing" which means having the website isn't necessarily encouraging theft. Agreed. That doesn't detract from the point here, though, which is that Mr. McKnight's website is intended - by his own words - to "help" "[dis]loyal" employees of the LDS Church ("COB employees") secretly and anonymously "leak" materials to which were have been stolen from the LDS Church and transmitted without the Church's knowledge or consent. That's theft. Thanks, -Smac Edited August 7, 2018 by smac97 6
smac97 Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Apparently I jumped into the thick of a heated debate. Its kind of hard to have a reasonable conversation in this environment. Not really. Nobody is screaming or jumping around. However, I would encourage you to get more up to speed on this issue. 36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I've listened to McKnight a few times, most recently on that podcast I linked to and at Sunstone. I also mentioned I have some concerns about how I view Mormonleaks. But this seems to go much further for some individuals on this thread. "Much further" than what? 36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I don't have a zeal to defend Mormonleaks on this message board, they are getting along fine as far as I can tell without my defense. I also don't think those who have a serious bone to pick with them are making any headway here. I do. "Headway" in clarifying the impropriety of Mr. McKnight's behavior is what I see. Ad hoc justifications, weird logic (taking materials owned by the LDS Church without its knowledge or consent isn't "theft," it's . . . something else), and avoidances is what I am seeing in response. 36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Perhaps a letter writing campaign, boycott, hunger strike or something would be more effective? Nah. I think Mr. McKnight's execrable behavior has been laid bare on this board. A few times now. And every time we get down to brass tacks, the discussion peters out. I don't blame you, really. Life is short. But for my interest in the LDS Church, I wouldn't really care about Mr. McKnight. Thanks, -Smac 2
Recommended Posts