Ward Area Book

[lajackson]

As you can see, since this is not a setting that would be "publicly visible" there's no need to notify each person for express permission and you can control access so only "those who need to access it to fulfill Church callings and assignments" can reach this info.

I believe something helpful, at least for my consideration, might be a valid security certificate for the site you mentioned in the original post.

I have also found that all settings are publicly visible to those who are interested in seeing them. Personally, I would default on the side of caution. Even the Church requires opt-in in most countries of the world.

[eblood66]

This info is dated. Here's a link to the church's official current policy.

https://www.lds.org/pages/internet-usage-helps

Under "Personal Internet Use in Church Callings" it states:

Use personal information found in stake and ward directories or other Church records only for Church purposes. This information should be shared carefully and only with those who need to access it to fulfill Church callings and assignments.

Store or display others’ personal information on your website, blog, social network, or other publicly visible software application only after notifying each person and obtaining his or her express permission.

As you can see, since this is not a setting that would be "publicly visible" there's no need to notify each person for express permission and you can control access so only "those who need to access it to fulfill Church callings and assignments" can reach this info.

Cheers!

Note that although the statement you quoted may apply to use of your site by your ward members, anyone else who uses the site is exposing their ward's information to you and as such violates the rule against sharing that information with "only with those who need to access it to fulfill Church callings and assignments." If you look back at the post originally mentioned, that was the primary concern:

The Church does not want other non-Church operated web sites to be aggregating data from various units around the world.

I don't see any indication in the current policies that this is not still the case.

[TimRiker]

I've contacted some others here at the Church about this. The closest thing I can point to on policy is taken from the terms of use:

http://www.lds.org/legal/terms

Which states:

You may not post material from this site on another website or on a computer network without our permission. You may not transmit or distribute material from this site to other sites.

Topher - you will likely get contacted by someone else from the church. Please keep in mind that they are trying to protect the privacy of members as best they know how. I understand that you are trying to fulfill your calling as best you know how. I appreciate the efforts everyone is making to further the work.

[topherreynoso]

Thanks for the responses. lajackson, your concern on the ssl cert is valid and will be resolved later today. I was trying to gauge what kind of interest the project might have before I decided to donate any more money to this cause. Luckily there are some pretty good discounts out there on ssl certs. I don't agree however that all settings are publicly visible, and neither do the courts. While the "everything is hackable" argument is technically true, hackable does not equal publicly visible. If it did, and if the church intended you to not share this info at all, it wouldn't have used the qualifier "or other publicly visible software application" and would have instead just said "or any other software application."

eblood66, I see your point but with encrypted databases this isn't really so much a concern. I guess I could add a layer of a "ward-wide" password that the admin chooses, that is never stored on the server but admins can distribute to their users which would be required in order to decrypt the data stored each time you access it. That wouldn't be a bad idea. I also disagree with your use of that forum post again. I mean, if you look just a couple of years before that you see the church telling every leader to shut down even the use of an email group. http://bit.ly/1coL1pB

Obviously, different counsel for different times. We live in an age where the new church policy makes it very clear that other websites and software are fine, an age when the twelve apostles have official facebook and google+ accounts, when missionaries can use social media. The more ways to get people to connect in good, safe ways the better. That's the message I take from the recent counsel and guidelines. I appreciate your concerns, but I think this is well within the requirements of the policy.

I am always open to suggestions, specific security concerns, features (current and new) or bugs.

[topherreynoso]

TimRiker thanks for the reply, I appreciate the discussion and do not mind at all getting contacted by someone.

[russellhltn]

I mean, if you look just a couple of years before that you see the church telling every leader to shut down even the use of an email group. http://bit.ly/1coL1pB

In many ways, it's still active. See Handbook 2: 21.1.22. The Handbook supersedes a mere webpage on lds.org.

As for the "Members’ Use of the Internet in Church Callings" it does contain the prohibition on "Photographs of other individuals or personal information about them should not be displayed without their consent." There's nothing that makes an exception for "private" or "leader only" web pages.

[topherreynoso]

Sorry, I'm not trying to cause problems but I just don't agree. The website is the most up to date source of that information. Updates are made through means like these or letters from authorities before handbooks are updated. That handbook talks about ward and stake websites, which don't even exist anymore. The new posted guidelines omit the section about stake and ward websites because they are more updated. The fact that the updated guidelines make a distinction for "leader only" access and "publicly visible" software should be a solid indication that they are allowing more access, not the same or less.

[russellhltn]

The website is the most up to date source of that information.

The on-line handbook is more authoritative and it is updated as policy changes. If you want an example, look at the age limit for Single Adult wards. That's a recent change in the past few months.

[eblood66]

eblood66, I see your point but with encrypted databases this isn't really so much a concern. I guess I could add a layer of a "ward-wide" password that the admin chooses, that is never stored on the server but admins can distribute to their users which would be required in order to decrypt the data stored each time you access it. That wouldn't be a bad idea.

The problem is that without the ability to access your server at the system level, others have no way to verify that your server doesn't have a back door that let's you access the information anyway (and most people aren't capable of such an analysis anyway). So they have to trust you. And I'm not saying you are untrustworthy. I sincerely expect that you are. But I don't know for certain and so I would not recommend use of your site for my ward even though it could be very useful.

I also disagree with your use of that forum post again. I mean, if you look just a couple of years before that you see the church telling every leader to shut down even the use of an email group. http://bit.ly/1coL1pB

My point was not whether the policy was still in force or not. My point was the motivation given for the policy. In nothing since then have I seen any sign that the church is more comfortable about having membership information for multiple wards on a third-party server. Yes, encouragement to use the internet to connect people has expanded but access to membership information has actually gone the other way. Back when that post was made many leaders were using the Ward Tools smartphone software (which used the MLS export) to have handy access to membership information. Since then the church acquired that software and shut it down. They replaced it with the official LDS Tools application which very tightly controls which leaders have access to which information. Since then they have also removed the MRN from the MLS export. The new lds.org Directory that replaced the old stake and ward websites shows less information on members of other wards in the same stake (i.e. children are not visible). Concern with protecting member information seems to be even greater than it was then.

Don't get me wrong. I applaud your efforts to help your ward and your desired to make this available to others is admirable. But personally I think the privacy issues are too touchy for this kind of app to be used by units generally unless it's an official part of lds.org.

[topherreynoso]

eblood66, that's fair and I'd be happy to post the entire project on github and let anyone see the way that it works. I'd actually appreciate that, I would rather have it open to expose and address possible weaknesses and if you're interested, I would love the help.

I also see the cramping down on what is accessible as a sign that what's accessible is less risky, which means it's probably heading in the direction of being capable of integration into other software, coupled with the new policy saying it's okay to integrate, as long as the right precautions are being taken, that sounds like we're encouraging innovation and utilization of this data, specifically ward and stake directory info. This app only imports member info from the csv that the lds.org website intends for exporting. If they changed the data exported in that file to be more restricted, that is fantastic, less data for other software applications to deal with.

russelhltn, I completely agree that once those updates are made, the on-line handbook is the authority. Clearly though, tech policy changes have been made that have not propagated to the handbook yet (e.g. stake and ward websites, etc) and traditionally, that's not unusual. I've seen policies change that took quite some time to propagate to handbooks (even as a missionary!).

I think I'll just have to await that contact from someone else from the church. This started by quoting a comment on a tech forum as authority and told me there were no updates to this topic since 2007 and now, after learning that there is an updated policy, I'm told that the policy on the website is not authoritative. At the very least, that's confusing. I really do appreciate the time you've each given to this topic (and all of the time you sacrifice to this community, for that matter). Hopefully we will be able to bring some clarity for others going forward with current policies.