tomw wrote:1. Apps that deal with membership data from the Church MUST have approval. The Church owns all of the data and protects the privacy of members of the Church worldwide and also respects the laws of the various countries we operate in. Misuse of that data may significantly harm individuals and/or the Church. Specific examples of this are when people screen scrap the data and store it on their servers (proxying).
Not arguing that such a policy might or might not be desirable. But as far as I can tell that sweeping first sentence is not in the published terms of use for LUWS anywhere, or in the Presiding Bishopric's policies governing MLS. This seems to be another case (like the so-called "third-party-server rule" for MLS data) of a policy that is not really promulgated anywhere but in forum comments. Probably 99+ percent of users, members and leaders never read forum comments like this one.
One abusive case of which I am aware involving the use of LUWS membership data on third-party servers (proxying) actually violates a different policy, which
is expressly written into the terms of use of LDS Account credentials for
any purpose. There may be a separate violation of capturing the LUWS data "on another web site or on a computer network without our permission." (But allegedly the Church tolerates this app, so maybe permission is implied.) However, I can't find any policy in the published terms of use for LUWS that prohibits other standalone, client-side apps from scraping LUWS membership and storing it locally in a user's own application without using such a proxy server. If scraping is to be disallowed without permission, that could be done in a formal policy. (That's what Google does, for example. Scraping Google sites without permission is prohibited. Instead, several public APIs are provided to manage programmatic access.)
If the policies are now supposed to be so restrictive as to require permisssion for any offline app that imports membership data, that would be a radically restrictive change. Many helper apps discussed and disseminated via this forum would probably be in violation of such a general new policy. If the general policy is being tightened in this way, perhaps it is time to do so officially in published policy and TOU documents. The existing documents are
so 20th Century.