Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Lots of hate out there for the Mormonleaks guys I guess, more than I realized.  

Huh?  Who has expressed "hate" for Mr. McKnight?

Disagreement with and contempt for and disgust at his "MormonLeaks" project, yes.  But "hate?"  Nah.  Not by a long shot.

If someone came along and set up a website specifically designed to facilitate the theft of materials owned by hope_for_things, I would express disagreement with and contempt for and disgust at that as well.

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Hestia said:

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.

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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.

 

I was trying to contribute by sharing a link to an interview that was just released today that I think is relevant, and I was surprised at the response is all, but I guess I stirred the pot a little, and I won't continue.  

I disagree with those calling what Mormonleaks is doing theft.  I think what they are doing is certainly worthy of discussion and its definitely in a gray area for me and my comfort level.  Its highly relevant because this is the direction we're going in the information age, an age where privacy will be increasingly difficult to protect, and an age where we'll have to decide as a society how we wish to protect privacy and intellectual property.   

I also think transparency for very large institutions with billions of dollars of annual revenue and hundreds of billions in assets, is of increasing interest not only to the members and direct stakeholders of these institutions, but to the society at large that they operate within.  I've mentioned before that I think US laws should be changed to mirror laws in other countries that require greater transparency for church's.  

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I was trying to contribute by sharing a link to an interview that was just released today that I think is relevant, and I was surprised at the response is all, but I guess I stirred the pot a little, and I won't continue.  

Feel free to continue to contribute.  Just don't personalize the thread.

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I disagree with those calling what Mormonleaks is doing theft. 

From a strictly technical/legal standpoint, USU78 (an attorney) has stated that receiving stolen property is considered theft.  I'll defer to him on that.

My point, however, has been that Mr. McKnight - based on his own statements - is coaxing / encouraging / inducing / soliciting employees of the LDS Church to steal materials from their employer and secretly and anonymously send those materials to him.  I'm not sure how X encouraging/inducing Y to steal on X's behalf is in a morally superior position to Y.  If anything, I think Mr. McKnight is in a morally inferior position.  He has on this board bragged about how he has taken steps to insulate himself from legal fallout because of his website, while also admitting that his "sources" who use his website for its intended purpose may be breaking the law.

He is asking others to engage in potentially criminal conduct, and/or conduct that could imperil their employment with the LDS Church and/or standing in the LDS Church.  He knows he is doing this, but it seems he does not care about their welfare.  That makes his position moraly inferior to that of the thief, IMO.

Fagin, eat your heart out!  At least he was fictional.  Ryan McKnight is the real deal.  

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think what they are doing is certainly worthy of discussion and its definitely in a gray area for me and my comfort level.  Its highly relevant because this is the direction we're going in the information age, an age where privacy will be increasingly difficult to protect, and an age where we'll have to decide as a society how we wish to protect privacy and intellectual property.   

One way would be to not discriminate based on religious identity.  The LDS Church is as entitled to protect its privacy and intellectual property as any other similarly situated person or entity.  But in this thread we've seen quite a bit of the-ends-justify-the-means-so-encouraging-theft-from-the-LDS-Church-is-just-okey-dokey-with-me equivocation.

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I also think transparency for very large institutions with billions of dollars of annual revenue and hundreds of billions in assets, is of increasing interest not only to the members and direct stakeholders of these institutions, but to the society at large that they operate within. 

The answer, then, would be to have a discussion and pass legislation.

As it is, however, we have the execrable behavior of Mr. McKnight, who has decided that he and he alone gets to decide what "transparency" means, and that this self-selected arbitration involves him encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal materials from their employer and send those materials to him.  Not cool.

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I've mentioned before that I think US laws should be changed to mirror laws in other countries that require greater transparency for church's.  

Most of what Mr. McKnight has published would not be subject to such disclosure requirements.

But I appreciate your sentiment about changing laws, rather than having self-selected yahoos like Ryan McKnight circumventing this process by encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal materials from their employer and send those materials to him for publication.  In the name of "transparency."

Imagine how Mr. McKnight would respond if someone set up a website encouraging his loved ones, neighbors, friends, co-workers, etc. to steal his private information and send it anonymously to the proprietor of the website, who would then - in the name of "transparency" - publish such information to the world.  "Apoplectic hissy fit" is a phrase that comes to mind.

The Golden Rule apparently doesn't carry much weight with Mr. McKnight.  And shame on him for that.

Thanks

-Smac

[Jeanne]

Huh..there a church and religion websites that may be charged with theft...They steal your minds.🙁☺️

[SouthernMo]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Imagine how Mr. McKnight would respond if someone set up a website encouraging his loved ones, neighbors, friends, co-workers, etc. to steal his private information and send it anonymously to the proprietor of the website, who would then - in the name of "transparency" - publish such information to the world.  "Apoplectic hissy fit" is a phrase that comes to mind.

This is often called “Doxing” and is a pretty serious attack in the hacker community.  Makes me wonder if there is a different standard between doxing an individual vs. a corporation?

Are they morally or legally different scenarios?

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

This is often called “Doxing” and is a pretty serious attack in the hacker community.  Makes me wonder if there is a different standard between doxing an individual vs. a corporation?

Are they morally or legally different scenarios?

How can you dox a corporation when you can look up their legal address at any time via the state they're registered in? It's already by law public information.

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

How can you dox a corporation when you can look up their legal address at any time via the state they're registered in? It's already by law public information.

Traditional doxing goes beyond phone numbers and addresses. It can include as much personal information as can be dug up.

I think an argument can be made that McKnight and team are doxing the church.

Maybe not a perfect comparison...

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From a strictly technical/legal standpoint, USU78 (an attorney) has stated that receiving stolen property is considered theft.  I'll defer to him on that.

My point, however, has been that Mr. McKnight - based on his own statements - is coaxing / encouraging / inducing / soliciting employees of the LDS Church to steal materials from their employer and secretly and anonymously send those materials to him.  I'm not sure how X encouraging/inducing Y to steal on X's behalf is in a morally superior position to Y.  If anything, I think Mr. McKnight is in a morally inferior position.  He has on this board bragged about how he has taken steps to insulate himself from legal fallout because of his website, while also admitting that his "sources" who use his website for its intended purpose may be breaking the law.

He is asking others to engage in potentially criminal conduct, and/or conduct that could imperil their employment with the LDS Church and/or standing in the LDS Church.  He knows he is doing this, but it seems he does not care about their welfare.  That makes his position moraly inferior to that of the thief, IMO.

Fagin, eat your heart out!  At least he was fictional.  Ryan McKnight is the real deal.  

I think there is a difference between "asking" for leaks of information, and providing a platform where people can safely leak information.  It might not be a difference in the law, I can't speak to that, but I think its a difference in kind.  But I can see how people are uncomfortable with it.  If I put myself in the position of an employee for the church, it would be very difficult for me to feel comfortable releasing any information if I knew I'd signed an NDA

If Mormonleaks didn't exists, people could still leak information to the press or other outlets, but I would argue that less information would come forward.  I think that since the creation of Mormonleaks there has been an increase of information flowing, because they provide a safe platform for people who want to disseminate information that they think would be of interest to the public.  

From what I've listened to from Mr. McKnight, he's constantly "reviewing the situation" when it comes to whether or not to make information he receives public, and I appreciate that they take efforts to corroborate information, and that they have developed principles that they try to operate within and that they won't just release anything they receive.  

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

One way would be to not discriminate based on religious identity.  The LDS Church is as entitled to protect its privacy and intellectual property as any other similarly situated person or entity.  But in this thread we've seen quite a bit of the-ends-justify-the-means-so-encouraging-theft-from-the-LDS-Church-is-just-okey-dokey-with-me equivocation.

I recall in their Sunstone presentation I believe, that they've setup a leak site for leaks from other religions as well.  https://faithleaks.org/

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The answer, then, would be to have a discussion and pass legislation.

As it is, however, we have the execrable behavior of Mr. McKnight, who has decided that he and he alone gets to decide what "transparency" means, and that this self-selected arbitration involves him encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal materials from their employer and send those materials to him.  Not cool.

I agree that discussion on this topic is needed.  I haven't written my congress reps about this yet, but this is a good reminder that I should do that.  

I think Mr. McKnight is only one piece of a puzzle, the people leaking the information are other pieces.  He's setup a platform and brought publicity to that, but people would still leak things without Mormonleaks.  

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Most of what Mr. McKnight has published would not be subject to such disclosure requirements.

But I appreciate your sentiment about changing laws, rather than having self-selected yahoos like Ryan McKnight circumventing this process by encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal materials from their employer and send those materials to him for publication.  In the name of "transparency."

Imagine how Mr. McKnight would respond if someone set up a website encouraging his loved ones, neighbors, friends, co-workers, etc. to steal his private information and send it anonymously to the proprietor of the website, who would then - in the name of "transparency" - publish such information to the world.  "Apoplectic hissy fit" is a phrase that comes to mind.

The Golden Rule apparently doesn't carry much weight with Mr. McKnight.  And shame on him for that.

I've pointed out before why your comparison between an individual citizen and a large institution is a poor comparison and I know you disagree with me on this.  But I'll just say it again.  An individual and their family's finances and personal information is not at all the same as a large institution.  They aren't treated the same by society and shouldn't be because they aren't even remotely the same.  

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

This is often called “Doxing” and is a pretty serious attack in the hacker community.  

Yep.  And Mr. McKnight would be understandably upset if a Mr. McKnight-esque character turned the tables and did to Mr. McKnight what Mr. McKnight is doing to the LDS Church.  

For the record, I do not advocate doxing Mr. McKnight.  I want Mr. McKnight to have control over his private and sensitive information.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 

I disagree with those calling what Mormonleaks is doing theft.  I think what they are doing is certainly worthy of discussion and its definitely in a gray area for me and my comfort level.  Its highly relevant because this is the direction we're going in the information age, an age where privacy will be increasingly difficult to protect, and an age where we'll have to decide as a society how we wish to protect privacy and intellectual property.   

I also think transparency for very large institutions with billions of dollars of annual revenue and hundreds of billions in assets, is of increasing interest not only to the members and direct stakeholders of these institutions, but to the society at large that they operate within.  I've mentioned before that I think US laws should be changed to mirror laws in other countries that require greater transparency for church's.  

I don't disagree with anything you have said here save the first sentence.  While I do not see what they are doing as theft themselves, apparently the law as cited by USU and Smac iirc does define receiving stolen property as stealing.  Whether it is justified may be something the law can address (whistleblower statutes).  I think there may be some cases of theft that would be illegal, but still might be moral.

At this point however, nothing ML has posted of the property of the Church appears in my view to morally justify theft.  Fear or belief of possible fraud or abuse is not enough.  I can see the logic of needing to steal until one finds actual evidence of fraud one believes is there, but it is wrong making public materials one acquires in the process that have nothing to do with actual fraud, but are posted pretty much just because they can or out of trivial curiosity (what is the intellectual benefit of putting up a temple purchase catalog? What significant insight is provided?)  If one was stealing jewelry from a store in an attempt to prove the owners were trafficking in illegally obtained diamonds (blood diamonds are illegal, right?), but upon finding that all the diamonds one had stolen were quite legal one went and sold the legal diamonds on the black market...there is no justification for that immorality by pointing out to the possibility that if one keeps stealing, one is going to find evidence of illegal diamonds eventually.

There have been a few significantly interesting and even a very few helpful in terms of apologetic discussions items, but the few significant benefits do not outweigh the moral cost, imo.

[Calm]

Quote

I think there is a difference between "asking" for leaks of information, and providing a platform where people can safely leak information.  It might not be a difference in the law, I can't speak to that, but I think its a difference in kind

Would you feel that way if it were abuse we were talking about?  They didn't ask for pictures or conversation promoting abuse, but they provided a platform where it could be safely shared?

My issue is if it really makes a difference whether or not they officially ask for it.....when being a safe haven for something we don't think a person should be asking for in the first place for moral reasons is the primary purpose for the existence of the website, that website is highly problematic and imo immoral in and of itself.

It is pretty clear when we use extreme examples such as the abuse site above, less clear when it becomes something trivial...let's say secret family recipes that are treasured by very few people but they like the idea of being able to create something no one else can and it has become part of the family identity, think of a website titled "Family Recipes They Don't Want to Share" with the info "we will post any recipe that you can show is a guarded family secret".  The principle remains the same, imo, even if the danger level of the website's existence is limited to hopefully minor resentment that a family treasure is no longer unique to one's family.  The first is very dangerous and evil, the second has no danger attached at all and is petty.  The first is immoral, the second is immoral.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Calm

[mnn727]

On 7/31/2018 at 1:26 PM, ALarson said:

You're right about the name!

But there are a lot of problems, errors and inconsistencies with the story as told in conference. 

Here's a good overview of these and it's interesting read:

https://wheatandtares.org/2017/10/28/fact-vs-fiction-john-rowe-moyle/

It certainly made a great faith promoting story though and I get that.

ETA:

This was stated in a comment on this blog:

Does anyone know more about this regarding Moyle?  (I was kind of skipping around the comments, so I'll keep looking too).  

So after reading your link. Elder Holland related the story exactly as it was printed by Moyle's son, yet people call Elder Holland a liar because Moyles son got some of the details wrong --- and thats Elder Hollands fault???

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think there is a difference between "asking" for leaks of information, and providing a platform where people can safely leak information. 

An exceeding trivial distinction, I think.

And in this case, a moot one.  Mr. McKnight has admitted that his website is designed to "help" (his word) employees of the LDS Church who lack "loyalty" to it (again, his word) to transmit to him "sensitive documents" which they have stolen from the LDS Church.

Quote

It might not be a difference in the law, I can't speak to that, but I think its a difference in kind.  But I can see how people are uncomfortable with it.  If I put myself in the position of an employee for the church, it would be very difficult for me to feel comfortable releasing any information if I knew I'd signed an NDA.

What if it was your personal, "sensitive" documents/data were at issue?  If X who had a beef with you set up a website designed to "help" your family members / friends / neighbors / co-workers to transmit your stolen information to X, with X's stated intention being to publish that information online to the entire world, would be be okay with that?

Quote

If Mormonleaks didn't exists, people could still leak information to the press or other outlets, but I would argue that less information would come forward. 

"Less information would come forward" = "Less information would be stolen and transmitted for the express purpose of being published to the world."

The amount of theft is not really the issue.  The existence of theft is the issue.  Mr. McKnight's encouragement of others to commit theft and send the stolen items to him is the issue.

Quote

I think that since the creation of Mormonleaks there has been an increase of information flowing, because they provide a safe platform for people who want to disseminate information that they think would be of interest to the public.  

"People who want to disseminate information" = "People who want to steal materials from the LDS Church and secretly and anonymously send them to Mr. McKnight without the Church's knowledge or consent, so Mr. McKnight can publish such materials to the world."

The Golden Rule.   Do you dig it?

Quote

From what I've listened to from Mr. McKnight, he's constantly "reviewing the situation" when it comes to whether or not to make information he receives public, and I appreciate that they take efforts to corroborate information, and that they have developed principles that they try to operate within and that they won't just release anything they receive.  

Ah.  So if I were to set up a website designed to "help" your family members / friends / neighbors / co-workers to transmit your stolen information to X, with X's stated intention being to publish that information online to the entire world, would you "appreciate" my efforts?  As long as I don't publish everything that is stolen from you, then such thievery is okay?

Quote

I've pointed out before why your comparison between an individual citizen and a large institution is a poor comparison and I know you disagree with me on this.  But I'll just say it again.  An individual and their family's finances and personal information is not at all the same as a large institution. 

Tell that to Apple.  Are you suggesting that Apple doesn't have the right to protect it's sensitive/proprietary information because it is "a large institution?"

What are the differences you are proposing here?  What limiting principle do you have in mind?  How big does an "institution" get to be until it loses its right to control its own property?  Is there a set number of employees?  Annual revenues?  Why does size matter at all?  Why do "large institutions" lose such rights?  Says who?  And what is the authority of this person to make such decisions?  

Am I at liberty to decide how much security you get to have for your private/sensitive data?  If not, why not?  Mr. McKnight selected himself as the arbiter for how much "transparency" the LDS Church should have.  Mr. McKnight selected himself as the arbiter of which of the stolen materials he has received gets published.  Mr. McKnight can select himself to make such decisions as to the private data of the LDS Church, why can't I select myself to make such decisions as to your private data?

I honestly have a hard time comprehending your position here.  Are you just making this up as you go along?

I am reminded here of an amazing scene from A Man for All Seasons.  This film, based on a play, is about Sir Thomas More during the reign of Henry VIII.  More is appointed by the king as Lord Chancellor, but thereafter finds that the appointment comes with expectations from the king that are not compatible with More's sense of ethics.  The scene in question involves More interacting with a poor but ambitious young man, Rich, who wants More's help in obtaining political power.  More declines, and Rich hints that he (Rich) might be willing to pursue his ambitions in other ways, including ways that could injure More.  More nevertheless lets Rich go, much to the consternation of his (More's) wife (Alice), daughter (Margaret) and soon-to-be-son-in-law (Roper).  Here's a link to the video and the dialog:

Quote

Alice More: Arrest him! 
Sir Thomas More: For what? 
Alice More: He's dangerous! 
Will Roper: For lying, lord, he's a spy! 
Margaret More: Father, that man's bad! 
Sir Thomas More: There's no law against that. 
Will Roper: There is - God's law. 
Sir Thomas More: Then God can arrest him. 
Alice More: While you talk he's gone! 
Sir Thomas More: And go he should if he were the devil himself until he broke the law. 
Will Roper: So, now you'd give the devil benefit of law? 
Sir Thomas More: Yes, what would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil? 
Will Roper: Yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that? 
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down and the devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, - man's laws not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes. I give the devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake. 

I hope you someday come to recognize, HFT, that the rule of law means that there is no cause celebre that can give others the power to dispense with your rights. For your own safety's sake, I hope you come to appreciate the value of the law.  And I hope you eventually find a willingness to let the LDS Church receive protections under it.

As it is, however, you seem to be taking the Will Roper approach.  Cut down (or ignore) the laws if it facilitates injuring the LDS Church.  This is a reckless course of action.  And it violates the Golden Rule.  Big time.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 7, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

At this point however, nothing ML has posted of the property of the Church appears in my view to morally justify theft.  Fear or belief of possible fraud or abuse is not enough.  

Mr. McKnight is not attempting this line of justification.  See here:

Quote

Re: I am the founder of MormonLeaks - AMA

• Quote

2018 May 25, 5:40 pm

captainfearnot wrote: ↑

2018 May 25, 1:15 pm

FF, I'm interested in what you have found to be enlightening or surprising since taking on this project. What you have learned, what turned out to be different than you expected when you started?

Did you expect to uncover more or less evidence of malfeasance? Have ordinary members and church employees been more or less forthcoming than you imagined?

We have sources that are both former and current employees of the church. Nothing has really surprised me per se, but I am fascinated by many of the leaks. 

I don't ever expect to uncover institutionally supported illegal activity.

"I don't ever expect to uncover institutionally supported illegal activity."

He's not claiming that MormonLeaks is supposed to perform some sort of "whistleblowing" function.  It's not about him having "fear or belief of possible fraud."  So his motives arise from something else.

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

I can see the logic of needing to steal until one finds actual evidence of fraud one believes is there, but it is wrong making public materials one acquires in the process that have nothing to do with actual fraud, but are posted pretty much just because they can or out of trivial curiosity (what is the intellectual benefit of putting up a temple purchase catalog? What significant insight is provided?)  

Again, Mr. McKnight is not claiming any such whistleblowing justification or "logic."

His motive is . . . something else.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Mr. McKnight is not attempting this line of justification.  See here:

"I don't ever expect to uncover institutionally supported illegal activity."

He's not claiming that MormonLeaks is supposed to perform some sort of "whistleblowing" function.  It's not about him having "fear or belief of possible fraud."  So his motives arise from something else.

Again, Mr. McKnight is not claiming any such whistleblowing justification or "logic."

His motive is . . . something else.

Thanks,

-Smac

I know, but I have seen others use it to justify that if the demand for transparency is not met, leaking is okay because they might find something.

Add-on:  this comment from HFT from a post below seems to imply this "You seem to not want to acknowledge problems of abuse of power that the church is frequently a party to".

HFT:

Quote

An individual and their family's finances and personal information is not at all the same as a large institution. 

One of the items posted was a person's paycheck stubs.

Individual names have been attached to released memos.  Individuals are the ones on the released films.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Calm

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

 

Your point is valid, and I doubt there would me much argument in a court of law.  I have been in high tech senior managment for many years.  I do know that if an employee leaks company information he/she is guilty of breaking confidentially laws.  Most organizations, (and I would assume this is the same with the chruch) have employees sign a NDA (non disclosure agreement).   Regardless of what someone thinks about the Church's lack of transparency, stealing private information is not the solution.

Edited August 7, 2018 by sunstoned

[hope_for_things]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't disagree with anything you have said here save the first sentence.  While I do not see what they are doing as theft themselves, apparently the law as cited by USU and Smac iirc does define receiving stolen property as stealing.  Whether it is justified may be something the law can address (whistleblower statutes).  I think there may be some cases of theft that would be illegal, but still might be moral.

At this point however, nothing ML has posted of the property of the Church appears in my view to morally justify theft.  Fear or belief of possible fraud or abuse is not enough.  I can see the logic of needing to steal until one finds actual evidence of fraud one believes is there, but it is wrong making public materials one acquires in the process that have nothing to do with actual fraud, but are posted pretty much just because they can or out of trivial curiosity (what is the intellectual benefit of putting up a temple purchase catalog? What significant insight is provided?)  If one was stealing jewelry from a store in an attempt to prove the owners were trafficking in illegally obtained diamonds (blood diamonds are illegal, right?), but upon finding that all the diamonds one had stolen were quite legal one went and sold the legal diamonds on the black market...there is no justification for that immorality by pointing out to the possibility that if one keeps stealing, one is going to find evidence of illegal diamonds eventually.

There have been a few significantly interesting and even a very few helpful in terms of apologetic discussions items, but the few significant benefits do not outweigh the moral cost, imo.

I definitely don't know the law, but I found it interesting that when the church tried to shut down ML when they released the infamous bubble chart, that they were stopped by the ML attorney's letter.  If there are laws against leaking information, apparently they don't allow the institution to shut down the dissemination of that information in all circumstances.  Wouldn't the church have pursued this avenue if they believed they were standing on solid legal grounds?  

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

Would you feel that way if it were abuse we were talking about?  They didn't ask for pictures or conversation promoting abuse, but they provided a platform where it could be safely shared?

My issue is if it really makes a difference whether or not they officially ask for it or not... when being a safe haven for something we don't think a person should be asking for in the first place for moral reasons is the primary purpose for the existence of the website, that website is highly problematic and imo immoral in and of itself.

It is pretty clear when we use extreme examples such as the abuse site above, less clear when it becomes something trivial...let's say secret family recipes that are treasured by very few people but they like the idea of being able to create something no one else can and it has become part of the family identity, think of a website titled "Family Recipes They Don't Want to Share" with the info "we will post any recipe that you can show is a guarded family secret".  The principle remains the same, imo, even if the danger level of the website's existence is limited to hopefully minor resentment that a family treasure is no longer unique to one's family.  The first is very dangerous and evil, the second has no danger attached at all and is petty.  The first is immoral, the second is immoral.

Yes I would feel differently, but pictures of abuse would get into different territory with respect to public decency and harm to individuals portrayed in those pictures.  I'm not sure this comparison works.  I do think the type of information definitely changes the situation.  

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I hope you someday come to recognize, HFT, that the rule of law means that there is no cause celebre that can give others the power to dispense with your rights. For your own safety's sake, I hope you come to appreciate the value of the law.  And I hope you eventually find a willingness to let the LDS Church receive protections under it.

I'm not advocating for getting rid of all protections, thats a strawman of my position.  I believe in a society that has laws and abides by them. I also see concerns on the other side.  You seem to not want to acknowledge problems of abuse of power that the church is frequently a party to.  Corporate interests are often in conflict with individual interests.  I'm concerned about both.  I'd like to find compromise and establish a middle ground.  

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Wouldn't the church have pursued this avenue if they believed they were standing on solid legal grounds?  

Seriously?  Don't think the Church wants to play Whack A Mole.  It would have been an easy solution if he had complied.  Other steps have additional consequences that leadership probably thinks about.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not advocating for getting rid of all protections,

Nor am I.

Quote

I believe in a society that has laws and abides by them.

I'm glad to hear it.

Quote

I also see concerns on the other side.  You seem to not want to acknowledge problems of abuse of power that the church is frequently a party to. 

Huh?  "Abuse of power" has not been discussed here.  At all.

Quote

Corporate interests are often in conflict with individual interests. 

I have no idea what this means.

Quote

I'm concerned about both.  I'd like to find compromise and establish a middle ground.  

Okay.

Meanwhile, I think Sunstoned has it right: "Regardless of what someone things about the Church's lack of transparency, stealing private information is not the solution."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 7, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Seriously?  Don't think the Church wants to play Whack A Mole.  It would have been an easy solution if he had complied.  Other steps have additional consequences that leadership probably thinks about.

But the church has a history of using the courts to fight for its interests.  Even when the odds look bleak.  

[Duncan]

I am part of class action lawsuit. My personal information was stored on an external hard drive but some government employee "lost" it... "The results of the RCMP investigation were inconclusive as to whether the hard drive was lost or stolen. Affidavit evidence from the Government of Canada confirms that the government is not aware of any evidence that the personal information from the hard drive has been compromised". To that end like 583,000 of us plus are involved in this thing and so when it got discovered  the Canadian Government had to pay for credit protection every month for every person who had their information stolen, plus we get a whopping 60 clams for inconvenience. So, this info stealing or misplacing or whatever has real world consequences and I wouldn't want to be that employee

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

But the church has a history of using the courts to fight for its interests.  Even when the odds look bleak.  

Huh?  Can you elaborate on this?  My perception is that the LDS Church is quite averse to litigation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

plus we get a whopping 60 clams for inconvenience

I was not aware that the clam had become legal tender in Canada.  Or was it just you that requested compensation in clams?  Me, I'd much prefer shrimp.

Edited August 7, 2018 by ksfisher