Who can see "private" profiles?

Hello,

I just got a call from one of the high councilors in our stake looking for the phone number of a fellow high councilor. He said that they were not on the directory nor was he listed as a member of the high council anymore. I went to the directory and was able to see that the "missing" high councilor has marked his profile as private. I don't know if I can see this info because I am the stake website admin or the assistant stake clerk, but for some reason I am able to.

When I read the info about private profiles, it says that "church leaders" can see it. A call to Clerk Support indicated (she thought) that only the bishopric and stake presidency members can see a private profile. I was somewhat surprised that the high council is not also considered leadership and can see these.

Any comments? Who exactly can see private profiles and should the high council be added to this list (assuming it is not and there is some other problem that prevented the other high councilor from seeing this)?

Thanks,
Rick Klaus

The person in Clerk Support you talked to was wrong. Clerks can definitely see private profiles. The list of administrators is found on the Directory roles and responsibilities page; they can see private profiles. But high councilors are not administrators, and in my opinion should not have the same access level as clerks and the stake presidency.

There are additional roles that I'm not quite sure of that can affect access to some information. For example, Find a member in another ward in your stake discusses how the stake Primary president can see information about children throughout the stake that regular members can't.

Thanks. I agree that the high council shouldn't be able to edit, but they certainly can claim the status of church leaders with a "need to know". I just read last night in the D&C about how they are equal in authority to the Twelve in a stake.

It looks to me like the problem is that there are only 2 roles, so you currently either have to give them all or nothing. It sounds like there is a need for another "leader" role that doesn't have edit privileges but can see all of the member information - even those marked as private.

Rick

rickk wrote:It looks to me like the problem is that there are only 2 roles, so you currently either have to give them all or nothing. It sounds like there is a need for another "leader" role that doesn't have edit privileges but can see all of the member information - even those marked as private.

There aren't only two roles. That's why I mentioned the case of the stake Primary president, who clearly has a different ability to see members (children, in this case) from normal members, but certainly doesn't have any edit permissions like clerks and bishoprics and stake presidencies. But that case of the stake Primary president is mentioned casually in the documentation, with no additional details about just what she can see, or who else in the stake might have additional viewing capabilities.

I was simply repeating what the page says at the link you included, but after I had posted, I realized that must not be the case based on your primary president comment. So, I guess my question would be (to any developers on the forum), can the high council members be assigned to a role that allows them to see private records without also given them edit capability?

High Councilors do not have permission to see a member's information that has been marked as private. This is a policy of the church department tasked with protecting member information and is not likely to change anytime soon.

rickk wrote: I went to the directory and was able to see that the "missing" high councilor has marked his profile as private.

The only person I've encountered with a profile marked "private," (by unchecking the top box on the profile page) didn't intend to have it that way, and swears they didn't ever uncheck it.

Much more common in my experience is many leaders choose "don't show email in ward directory," but don't understand this choice has far more reaching effects such as lds.maps and the calendar, (and I believe the leader tools -notifications.) I suspect if you talked to that High Councilor, he would change his setting, or ask you to do it for him.

Perhaps correcting the wording in the directory to reflect the true nature of your selections may solve some of the problems easier than creating a separate "role" for a high councilor.

I might be able to get the high councilor to change his setting, but my bigger concern is that the high council is asked to perform most of the stake callings and need to contact members all of the time. If they have to ask a clerk to get a phone number whenever they need it, that gets in the way of them performing their duties. Luckily we are in an opt-out country, so it isn't as big of a problem as it might otherwise be. I have "stirred the pot" a bit with MLS support and requested that this policy be reviewed, but until something changes, the high council will need clerk support whenever they need to contact a member with a private profile.

rickk wrote: but until something changes, the high council will need clerk support whenever they need to contact a member with a private profile.

I don't see this as a problem from a privacy point of view. I think we need to do a better job educating our members of what the "opt-out" option means and perhaps adjust the codes so someone can, for example, opt-out of e-mails without hiding their entire profile.

Someone who marked their information private, may be unhappy if it was only private to general members and not to folks in various leadership positions that they may or may not agree with. I know it may make it more difficult for the High Council to complete their assignments, but that would force them to be more aware of the member they are trying to speak with if they had to get their information from the Clerk (perhaps try to find out why it is marked private to begin with?).

davesudweeks wrote:I don't see this as a problem from a privacy point of view. I think we need to do a better job educating our members of what the "opt-out" option means

As well as educating them on just who can see their profile in the first place.

davesudweeks wrote: I think we need to do a better job educating our members of what the "opt-out" option means and perhaps adjust the codes so someone can, for example, opt-out of e-mails without hiding their entire profile.

I think these two ideas, together, will solve the problems....better understanding and some privacy "improvements" in the tools.

davesudweeks wrote:I think we need to ... perhaps adjust the codes so someone can, for example, opt-out of e-mails without hiding their entire profile.

Just to be clear, users have that particular option right now. The household e-mail address and each individual e-mail address all have a checkbox by them that allows them to opt out of e-mails without hiding the entire household profile. I have seen some understandable confusion caused by the fact that these checkboxes are labeled "Show in ward directory" when they actually have a much broader effect -- they will prevent e-mail messages from being sent in a variety of contexts (but will still allow leaders to send e-mails to them).

But the functionality to individually disable each of these e-mails does indeed exist. That's true unless you mean by "opt-out of e-mails" that no one, not even leaders, could send them e-mail messages. But if that's their intent, they can just choose not to enter an e-mail address at all -- after all, there's not much point in entering an e-mail address in your profile if you don't want anyone to see it or to use it.