Tech Forum

Someone made a blanket statement that ymyw.org violates federal child privacy laws. The only federal child privacy law that I am aware of is COPPA.

http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/coppa1.htm

Granted, I'm a tax attorney and might be missing something. If so, just tell me. But reading that law, ymyw.org clearly is not in violation since it is not:

* an operator of a website or online service directed to children, or

* an operator that has actual knowledge that it is collecting personal information from a child.

The website is not directed to children. It's directed to the advisers and parents of children. The websites that the feds are attempting to regulate are webkinz, facebook, and those type of sites - not sites collecting information on scouting/DTG progress. I don't know many kids who would EVER be inticed to join ymyw.org because it was a neat place to hang out on (enabling predators to contact them). (It's hard enough to persuade the ADULTS to participate, let alone believe that the youth would be all over it.)

Second, the children are not the ones who set up the information for each unit. It's an adult administrator. Further, you have to find "actual knowledge" which is a heightened standard. You aren't going to be able to prove that the operator of ymyw.org has "actual knowledge" even if a youth is the one who "collects the information."

I think that it would be advisable to inform the parents of the youth what the ward is doing in setting up the site. And if they object to speak up and leave that youth off. Or maybe even go further and only permit tracking of DTG/PP for those youth that parents authorize in writing. But in real life you would do that anyway. The DTG program works BECAUSE the parents are involved. Without the parents it will fail.

In our stake, ymyw.org is being rolled out to all ward units. So that eliminates this theoretical predator who fakes out a ward ymyw.org setup. Since there can only be one per ward, a predator is locked out of harming anyone in our stake (since we have already taken all the units online). And we personally know the administrators.

In our rollout, we are reaching out to the PARENTS and asking them to become involved in their children's lives via personal interviews on a weekly basis to track DTG/PP with each youth. And we ask that they track this progress through the web site, with the wards filling in the gaps only as needed, e.g., parents who aren't web savvy or lack access.

RussellHltn wrote:The rest is just social engineering. Perhaps registering with a name like "President". And when contacted the first thing "President" says is to go ahead and upload the information. I think it's quite likely that anyone stumbling across the site will register and explore first, and report in a meeting later. A clever social engineer can con the user into uploading before that first meeting.

Regardless of the probability of the scenario you put forth, I believe this thread is discussing if websites not owned by the Church can be used 1) under Church policy; and 2) responsibly and safely. I'm sure anyone would acknowledge that the Church's own local unit web sites can easily be abused if people are careless with information and naive about threats. We can also imagine entire sites set up by predators, careless use of public sites, and a host of other threats.

But the basic question in this instance is really: Can ymyw.org be used responsibly and safely? I believe so. But wards do have to have a reasonable plan for implementing it, and that is easily done.

• The bishop assigns someone to be ward administrator.
• The administrator is assigned to register with the site and report back before any information is uploaded.
• The administrator makes sure he is the only one on the site to start with.
• The bishop designates who will then tell the administrator who may have access to the site, and which rights they should have.

A reasonable ward implementation is thus not vulnerable to the threat being discussed. On the other hand, if there is an ad hoc approach to using this site, then there is some risk of abuse (a very low probability, but I will grant that it is nonzero). But anyone who takes that kind of cavalier attitiude towards confidential data is subject to a wide variety of threats on many other sites.

Alan_Brown wrote:...I believe this thread is discussing if websites not owned by the Church can be used 1) under Church policy; and 2) responsibly and safely.

The question I have is your #1 above, which I believe is the core question. Regardless of everything else, if it's an "approved" site by the Church, then I think we should be promoting it as such and encourage other units to participate. However, If it's not a site approved by the Church for LDS use, then we should make that known also. I just don't have the answer (yet).

Mikerowaved wrote:The question I have is your #1 above, which I believe is the core question. Regardless of everything else, if it's an "approved" site by the Church, then I think we should be promoting it as such and encourage other units to participate. However, If it's not a site approved by the Church for LDS use, then we should make that known also. I just don't have the answer (yet).

There are sites and programs available for the LDS community to use but many times the Church will not officially endorse them. These forums are a great place to find such sites and product. Not every product or site will the Church provide guidance on.

Tom

I am reminded of my mission president who once expressed exasperation with those elders who asked for his blessing on everything that they did, as opposed to those who sought to understand the rules and policies and implemented them as they felt best.

I highly doubt that SLC wants to command in all things.

There's a difference between being commanded in all things and moving out on your own in areas forbidden by the First Presidency. This is where my concerns are.

Mikerowaved wrote:There's a difference between being commanded in all things and moving out on your own in areas forbidden by the First Presidency. This is where my concerns are.

I am certainly a strong proponent of following policy set by the Church. But the letter you referenced forbids units from having their own web sites. It says nothing about using other sites. It seems to me that the question discussed in this thread turns on issues of privacy and the security of confidential records.

I can see how some people could read the letter and say it forbids units to sponsor web sites, but that other sites (such as returnandreport.org or ymyw.org) can be used. I can also see how the letter might be interpreted more broadly to prohibit the use of any sites for ward purposes. But since either reading is possible, it seems to me that it becomes a local decision. If the Church wants to clarify the policy one way or the other, we would all comply with the new clarification, but as it stands now, it is a matter of local policy unless it directly goes against the Church policy.

I'm for informing oneself on the policies, seeking understanding on them, and asking questions as appropriate. But not continuing to ask and ask when the people who set the policy are not specific - in essence demanding specifics when perhaps the authorities would rather we use judgment.

I think that when we pester people enough, we end up with a response that no one is happy with.

I doubt that anyone is suggesting that a person ignore the First Presidency. Remember, the stake from which my stake was split from did inquire and was given a nod of approval to go forward. Given that word, our current stake doesn't see a need to ask again.

(Kind of reminds me of children who keep asking parents for approval, almost guaranteeing a no in the end.)

tortdog wrote:I'm for informing oneself on the policies, seeking understanding on them, and asking questions as appropriate. But not continuing to ask and ask when the people who set the policy are not specific - in essence demanding specifics when perhaps the authorities would rather we use judgment.

Well said.

Tom

Just before the roll out of ymyw.org to the new stake, the SP put it on hold. He wants confirmation from the presiding seventy for explicit approval of ymyw.org, as opposed to relying on the permission granted to the prior stake by LDS Scouting Relationships.

So I will advise once I hear.

For the wards that came from the prior stake that used ymyw.org, it's kind of awkward. Those units are still using it for the time being, but depending on what Elder Anderson says they might have to stop using it.