Request a clarification on usage of non-church owned websites

[WelchTC]

You question whether there is significant need to communicate confidential information. I think there is a large need, and wards are already using conventional email in ways that are outside the bounds of tomw's simple example of welfare. That generalizes to other topics. Many communications that a bishop might have with the RSP, EQP, Welfare Committee, etc., would be held behind closed doors if conducted in person. And many -- including tomw above -- say such content should not be transmitted by email because it is insecure.

Please be aware that I was just giving examples and certainly not setting any kind of precedence or policy. I'm trying to point out that there may be occasions where email may not be the best tool to share confidential information. With a lack of clear policy direction, it is up to the ecclesiastical leaders in the local units to use prudence and the guidance of the Spirit in their decision as to what to share and how.

Tom

[daddy-o-p40]

It's certainly good to be aware of privacy laws. But I don't see how you can make a blanket statement about this site violating those laws. That site does not make the information public to anyone except those who are authorized within the ward or stake. Also, that information is not necessarily any more than a name, or initials -- it depends on how the leaders use it.

...
Just a thought question -- how does ymyw.org differ from the local unit web sites? With LUWS, the names, addresses, and phone numbers of hundreds of minors per stake are listed on a web site. Thousands of people (all the stake members, but not the general public, of course) can see this information. Although any member can opt out of his/her information being listed, by default it is listed. We only have the security of the site protecting the entire world from seeing all that private information. Now I know who the Church is, and I know they are working very hard to have a secure site. But ymwy.org would have even less private information. From a legal standpoint, what's the real difference?

The violation is taking information without consent and using it. Accessibility and security of the data is important but has nothing to do with violating the law in this regard. The church is allowed to have this kind of information on their websites because we are members of the church.

RussellHtn had asked if this was covered by COPPA. Not entirely. You see COPPA covers children 13 years and younger. This law is geared to making children safe from preditors. It does add specific requirements to web administrators which ymyw.org does not advertise as having in place. If those requirements are not there then ymyw.org has violated COPPA. What I had referred to earlier is public record laws. There are federal laws and then specific ammendments that will vary from state to state. These laws determine what can be used with consent and how. These are the laws the leaders using ymyw.org have violated.

My local congressman is on some of the key committees that involve protecting children. I learned a lot by writing to his office. So again my recommendation is that leaders using and/or planning to use ymyw.org contact the church's legal department about instructions to protect the church from inadvertant legal transgressions.

[Mikerowaved]

If you could be more specific as to the laws you are referring to (chapter and verse) it would most helpful to the discussion. The only laws I'm familiar with (including COPPA) only deal with websites for profit. Most non-profit online organizations including ymyw.org, scouting.org, lds.org, etc., are exempt.

These laws were put into place to prevent unfair marketing practices targeting young people.

Mike

[russellhltn]

As far as I can tell, COPPA only applies to the taking of information from children younger then 13, not about children younger then 13.

Still, the legal issues are a valid concern. If anone knows of specific laws, particularly local laws, I'm sure the Church would like to be aware of that. Trying to keep up with all the local laws must be quite a challenge and it could be that something has slipped though.

[russellhltn]

The only laws I'm familiar with (including COPPA) only deal with websites for profit. Non-profit online organizations including ymyw.org, scouting.org, lds.org, etc., are exempt.

Not completely, from the link I gave before: "Most recognized non-profit organizations are exempt from most of the requirements of COPPA. However, the Supreme Court ruled that non-profits operated for the benefit of their members' commercial activities are subject to FTC regulation and consequently also COPPA."

I don't think that changes anything as far as the church is concerned, but the standard "I'm not a lawyer" disclaimers apply.

[Mikerowaved]

Not completely, from the link I gave before: "Most recognized non-profit organizations are exempt from most of the requirements of COPPA. However, the Supreme Court ruled that non-profits operated for the benefit of their members' commercial activities are subject to FTC regulation and consequently also COPPA."

Thanks for the clarification. I went back and added the word "Most" to my post. Yeah, this legal stuff is not my forte either.

[daddy-o-p40]

I do not have or want to have any more detail. Contact your local district attorney or lawmaker for more info on this. I just want to re-emphasize that we should take care to not confuse COPPA which is a predatory protection law from information privacy laws that cover everything including the internet.

[Mikerowaved]

I do not have or want to have any more detail. Contact your local district attorney or lawmaker for more info on this.

Hummm.,, Your other postings seem to imply you had specific knowledge of some important legal info that we were not aware of. I must have been mistaken.

I just want to re-emphasize that we should take care to not confuse COPPA which is a predatory protection law from information privacy laws that cover everything including the internet.

I hate to sound disagreeable, but COPPA (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act) was not written to specifically stop predator-type people, rather is was designed to regulate unfair and deceptive acts and practices in connection of collection and use of personal information from and about children on the Internet.

[daddy-o-p40]

Hummm.,, Your other postings seem to imply you had specific knowledge of some important legal info that we were not aware of. I must have been mistaken.

I hate to sound disagreeable, but COPPA (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act) was not written to specifically stop predator-type people, rather is was designed to regulate unfair and deceptive acts and practices in connection of collection and use of personal information from and about children on the Internet.

Mikerowaved, I do have experience I collected by working with knowledgeable subject matter experts like my congressman's office as I mentioned previously.

Let me clarify that the definition of predator in the context I was referring to includes pedophiles as well as people who commit unfair and deceptive acts relating to children.

[WelchTC]

I do not have or want to have any more detail. Contact your local district attorney or lawmaker for more info on this. I just want to re-emphasize that we should take care to not confuse COPPA which is a predatory protection law from information privacy laws that cover everything including the internet.

As everyone can see from this discussion, the issues are complex. This is why the Church does have a policy and unfortunately there are some gray areas still left.

I appreciate everyone's comments.

Tom