RussellHltn wrote:So you see streaming screenshots as being sufficiently different that we can disregard whatever security concern that prompted that statement?
No. I just see such facts as being so different from those covered by that statement that the situations are not materially equivalent. There would be no "upload," and no "information that you have downloaded from MLS or LUWS." And the third-party server tomw was talking about in the quoted case was, by design, a database or file server with persistent storage of the uploaded data, not a communications server designed to pass packets through on the fly.
And I do not presume to speculate about "whatever security concern prompted that statement." I am not even sure it was a "security concern" at all. It could have been a legal concern associated with uploading such downloaded data to someone else's server regardless of how secure the process is, as some other comments by tomw have indicated.
So maybe tomw's reasoning and motives would extent to this case, and maybe not.
Rather than put words in his mouth and spin my own speculation about what he might have meant into some more generalized and amorphous "third-party server rule" -- especially when the Presiding Bishopric document does not remotely allude to such a rule -- in the absence of more information I carefully go by what tomw actually wrote.
In some other cases -- for example, in the case of uploading to Google Contacts
-- it is clear to me that the facts fit his guidance so I think it does apply, and I support it regardless of my own policy preference or opinion about the technical merits.
In yet other cases, such as email using third-party servers, tomw has stated that he does not mean to forbid their use as a matter of policy, and has deferred to the inspired judgment of priesthood leaders. So I am certain that he makes at least some distinctions between types of servers.
I don't know where he would draw the line in the case of remote-access utilities. I don't even know if he would attempt to draw a line in such a case. And, I suggest, neither do you.
I have noticed that tomw's comments about policy matters in this forum have always seemed deliberately restrained and carefully drafted. He certainly does not hold himself out to be the Policy Czar. When he does venture such limited comments about particular cases, I think we do not serve him or the Church well if we expand the comments to fit our own conceptions of what broad policy ought to be.