Simplified HT Reporting Site

Discussions around miscellaneous technologies and projects for the general membership.
User avatar
WelchTC
Senior Member
Posts: 2088
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 7:51 am
Location: Kaysville, UT, USA
Contact:

Postby WelchTC » Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:58 am

The guidance that I would give you is this:

If you create any kind of site and promote it at the ward level, you may be in violation of Church policy. Why? Because the Church cannot ensure that content on your site properly protects personal information and complies with local and international laws. If a local unit promotes some web site, there is an implied "official sponsorship" of that site. Once that sponsorship is implied, the Church could be liable for what happens on the site.

So the next question that comes up is why can't we do a "one off" type of approach for our site? Why can't we get permission to do OUR site? The answer is that we simply do not have all of the Checks and Balances in place to do this one-off approach. We get multiple requests to do this from time to time. But we don't have a way to validate or verify that everything is handled properly.

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm working hard to open up opportunities for 3rd party programs to do official church business. HT/VT is at the top of the list. It just takes time to get the necessary resources aligned and tasked with looking at all of the issues.

Tom

User avatar
thedqs
Community Moderators
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:53 am
Location: Redmond, WA
Contact:

Postby thedqs » Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:04 am

tomw wrote:... sponsorship" of that sight. Once ...


I believe you meant site not sight.

Anyway I think this is the best explination for why the policy is there and why the church wants everything on their servers.

Also thank you for working and allowing 3rd party sites have some way to be sponsered or endorsed.
- David

User avatar
WelchTC
Senior Member
Posts: 2088
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 7:51 am
Location: Kaysville, UT, USA
Contact:

Postby WelchTC » Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:38 am

thedqs wrote:I believe you meant site not sight.

Yes, thanks. I fixed it in my original post.

Tom

frog-p40
New Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:38 pm

Postby frog-p40 » Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:50 pm

I'm looking at this thread and wondering why this couldn't all be done in email...

You can send HTML formatted text, so instead of logging onto a web site, everybody get a personalized email with their specific home teaching assignment. (yah, some people use text only clients, but in my quorum I'd guess I'm the only one not using Outlook).

As for responding... I suppose they could either respond directly to the email or perhaps they could send an HTTP response to some server through a form in the HTML email. In the second case a web server would be involved for collecting statistics, but not for distributing information.

Of course, I'd try to include general statistics in each email sent, maybe an attached png graph showing the results of the past six months or something.

I think this approach gives you most of the important/useful functionality without using a web site....

vernondcole
New Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 1:18 pm
Location: Evanston, WY, USA
Contact:

Postby vernondcole » Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:30 pm

This is a good idea. We often get "channelized" into only one way of thinking (set up a web site to...) and forget that there may be other answers. As the old saying goes: "if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
I already have the member's email address in both MLS and LUWS. (Well, actually, MLS only has ONE email address, mine, not my wife's. That needs to be fixed like our cell phone numbers.) About all that would be needed is a set of check boxes:
John Smith family: Yes[ ] No[ ] Call me to talk about this family[ ]
Fred Snow family: Yes[ ] No[ ] <and so forth>
Hit reply, put something in the check boxes, and send.
It wouldn't even be too hard to program.
--

User avatar
thedqs
Community Moderators
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:53 am
Location: Redmond, WA
Contact:

Postby thedqs » Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:30 pm

Again the same wall we hit last time could interfere with emailing. Because you would be sending personal information across computers that are not in your control you cannot insure that the information cannot be recorded onto another server and used to gather sensitive information about someone.
- David

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 29337
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:43 am

thedqs wrote:Again the same wall we hit last time could interfere with emailing. Because you would be sending personal information across computers that are not in your control you cannot insure that the information cannot be recorded onto another server and used to gather sensitive information about someone.


I think that's a stretch. I've seen nothing about to not use email, only to not upload to 3rd party servers (and not to use email lists which I understand to be things like yahoo groups, not "lists"/groups that one stores in one's own email client).

I'd agree that this route has not been approved, but I think to say it's banned is extending the original statements a bit.

I do have some issues about what can and should be discussed via email, since family members other then the intended recipient may be able to read it. But then one can say the same thing about the printed lists that are handed out too.

User avatar
brado426
Member
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Foothill Ranch, CA
Contact:

Postby brado426 » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:22 am

Regardless of whether the proposed solution is covered by Church policies, I believe that an e-mail solution is far less secure than what we have discussed before. I know it may not be against Church policy and I know that everyone probably does it, but sending confidential information around in clear text via e-mail is the most likely way for that information to get into the wrong hands.

In my opinion, an SSL secured website is the best option for functionality and security.

Brad O.

User avatar
thedqs
Community Moderators
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:53 am
Location: Redmond, WA
Contact:

Postby thedqs » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:26 am

RussellHltn wrote:I think that's a stretch. I've seen nothing about to not use email, only to not upload to 3rd party servers (and not to use email lists which I understand to be things like yahoo groups, not "lists"/groups that one stores in one's own email client).

I'd agree that this route has not been approved, but I think to say it's banned is extending the original statements a bit.

I do have some issues about what can and should be discussed via email, since family members other then the intended recipient may be able to read it. But then one can say the same thing about the printed lists that are handed out too.



It is a strech but taking Brad's view the system is even less secure then an the SSL website and that was my point in a round about way.
- David

User avatar
brado426
Member
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Foothill Ranch, CA
Contact:

Postby brado426 » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:29 am

That being said, let's get a pilot test going with a handful of stakes! :)


Return to “Other Member Technologies”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest