Members without callings list in LDS tools

[russellhltn]

it seems reasonable to me to use a tool where no other church provided tool is available.)

That's not going to fly if something goes wrong and the lawyers are unleashed.

The real question is how much is too much. I don't have an answer for that. But putting personally identifiable information about others into a non-church system puts you in the game.

[chriswoodut]

it seems reasonable to me to use a tool where no other church provided tool is available.)

That's not going to fly if something goes wrong and the lawyers are unleashed.

The real question is how much is too much. I don't have an answer for that. But putting personally identifiable information about others into a non-church system puts you in the game.

It might fly, it depends on how you do it. It's this big fuzzy area depending on a lot of variables that change the answer. Put it in a locally stored spreadsheet and it probably changes the context too. How you define personally identifiable information is different person to person. What if it has nothing but a last name and first initial?

IMO, jumping straight to "you can't do that" is misleading.

[russellhltn]

How you define personally identifiable information is different person to person.

Personally Identifiable Information (PII) is a legal term that has undoubtedly been defined by law and the courts. How much is too much is likely as much local law as anything else. Unlike the Handbook, it's not something local church leadership have the keys to interpret. Those keys reside with the courts.

Much of the reason I'm being a hard-nose about this is that whoever becomes the unfortunate soul who pushes the boundaries and finds themselves facing a lawsuit, or worse - criminal charges, is likely to have a life-altering experience. And not for the better.

My rule of thumb is don't upload anything about anyone else to a non-church system (they didn't consent to) and you'll be safe. That may be overly restrictive, but if you ignore that, you're going swimming without a lifeguard. Odds are you'll be fine - until you're not. Even if many others have done so with no consequences, you may not be so lucky. While the risk may be low, the consequences can be very bad.

Because paper plays by different rules than electronic (especially anything Internet related), I think the church has made a deliberate decision to keep some information at the local level in paper form. That may well include who is and is not eligible for a calling. Personally, I think eligibility would depend a lot on the calling under consideration and the particular challenges that member faces. I'd hope that the number of members under disciplinary action wouldn't be that high.

[chriswoodut]

How you define personally identifiable information is different person to person.

Personally Identifiable Information (PII) is a legal term that has undoubtedly been defined by law and the courts. How much is too much is likely as much local law as anything else. Unlike the Handbook, it's not something local church leadership have the keys to interpret. Those keys reside with the courts.

Much of the reason I'm being a hard-nose about this is that whoever becomes the unfortunate soul who pushes the boundaries and finds themselves facing a lawsuit, or worse - criminal charges, is likely to have a life-altering experience. And not for the better.

My rule of thumb is don't upload anything about anyone else to a non-church system (they didn't consent to) and you'll be safe. That may be overly restrictive, but if you ignore that, you're going swimming without a lifeguard. Odds are you'll be fine - until you're not. Even if many others have done so with no consequences, you may not be so lucky. While the risk may be low, the consequences can be very bad.

Because paper plays by different rules than electronic (especially anything Internet related), I think the church has made a deliberate decision to keep some information at the local level in paper form. That may well include who is and is not eligible for a calling. Personally, I think eligibility would depend a lot on the calling under consideration and the particular challenges that member faces. I'd hope that the number of members under disciplinary action wouldn't be that high.

I don't totally disagree with you but take a different bent. Rather than running as far away from tech out of fear, I want to embrace it with prudence. If taken to an extreme interpretation, we shouldn't be using texting or email. We shouldn't be taking PDFs from MLS or LCR and emailing them to anyone. I fully support using the church's tools rather than 3rd party tools. IMO, there is a point at which too much caution is self defeating. IMO, we're volunteers trying to contribute our efforts to the gospel cause and we need to magnify our efforts through the use of technology to be more effective.

In reality, those of us on here are way ahead of the curve in understanding the tech and its implications. Most clerks/leaders never even give any of this any thought.

[russellhltn]

Rather than running as far away from tech out of fear, I want to embrace it with prudence. ... In reality, those of us on here are way ahead of the curve in understanding the tech and its implications. Most clerks/leaders never even give any of this any thought.

It's not a question of fear of technology, but concern of law.

To most members, information is information and there's no difference between paper and electronic as long as access controls are in place. But the law isn't written that way. It most likely was written in the web 1.0 era and is quite far behind the times. But that doesn't mean it can't bite you, no matter how unfair it may seem. I'd suggest it's impossible to be prudent if you're not aware of applicable laws. Time and again, the courts have found that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

As for myself, I've only had a glimpse of what exists and that electronic information has more restrictive rules/laws than paper. Just for fun, search for "Privacy Impact Assessment" and you'll see what I mean.

[chriswoodut]

Rather than running as far away from tech out of fear, I want to embrace it with prudence. ... In reality, those of us on here are way ahead of the curve in understanding the tech and its implications. Most clerks/leaders never even give any of this any thought.

It's not a question of fear of technology, but concern of law.

To most members, information is information and there's no difference between paper and electronic as long as access controls are in place. But the law isn't written that way. It most likely was written in the web 1.0 era and is quite far behind the times. But that doesn't mean it can't bite you, no matter how unfair it may seem. I'd suggest it's impossible to be prudent if you're not aware of applicable laws. Time and again, the courts have found that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

As for myself, I've only had a glimpse of what exists and that electronic information has more restrictive rules/laws than paper. Just for fun, search for "Privacy Impact Assessment" and you'll see what I mean.

You say I can't be prudent because I'm not aware of every single detail of a group of laws. I say I can. For example, I rented a car in the UK. I've never driven in the UK and I don't have a UK driver's license. I've never taken a driver's test in the UK. I don't know all the laws around driving in the UK. Did they rent me a car and let me drive? Yes. Did I drive successfully? Yes. Was I cautious and prudent? Yes. Could I have done something wrong and gotten in an accident? Yes. Did I choose to avoid all potential badness by avoiding driving? No.

Yes, it is about the law but your avoidance seems not to be based on a full understanding of every single statute but a general idea that bad things could happen if there's a law out there that's accidentally crossed that a person didn't know about. Thus, from your perspective, everything should be avoided. Without knowing what is being stored, where it is being stored, the country that has jurisdiction, etc, a blanket statement saying it is all bad has it's flaws.

I don't disagree with the idea that doing nothing is the safest route. I argue that doing "something" isn't necessarily wrong by default.

[russellhltn]

I argue that doing "something" isn't necessarily wrong by default.

True, but what I'm saying is that when you:

• Upload personally identifiable information about someone else,
• Without the approval of that person,
• to an electronic system that isn't sanctioned by the church.

You're quickly entering a gray zone. How gray it becomes depends on what kind of information in involved and local laws. Something I don't think either of us have the expertise to advise.

As long as everything works as intended, the odds of a problem are low. But what happens if things go wrong? Perhaps there was a data breach. Or the member found out their information was being used in a way they didn't consent to because of the terms of where the data was stored (Perhaps a "free" messaging system)? And this member is one of those "difficult" ones? If you want to take that risk, I can't stop you. But it's your fortunes on the line.

But to paraphrase my former stake president (who went on to become a GA), why are we debating shades of gray when there's so much white? There are other ways of accomplishing the need. They many not be as convenient, but they're not "gray".

[davesudweeks]

This is my personal opinion only, but for what it's worth, I side with russelhltn on this discussion. I did not attend our ward Christmas party this year, in large part because some of our ward leaders (including the bishop) think nothing of taking my picture at the event and uploading it to social media without my permission. They seem to think that if I attend, it's OK. I know at least one member of our ward who has marked their information "private - leadership only" for the exact same reason.

To me, the policy is clear: no member information that resides in MLS may be stored in the cloud (this would include member names). I know of no instruction from the church that states it is OK to bend the policy for leader convenience, no matter how well-meaning that convenience may be.

We have options to make a case for church tools and systems that will assist in our callings. Bending the rules because no tool currently exists is a poor excuse, in my mind. Again, this is my opinion only and I know there are those who disagree with me. But I believe ward and stake leaders do not have the right to put my name on random documents out on the cloud somewhere without my permission.