Users struggling with having to deal with usernames and passwords? Sadly I can totally buy that. I do some software troubleshooting as part of my job and there have been too many times now when I send someone a screenshot with written instructions on what they should do, they do nothing and basically expect me to do it for them. Some people want to be completely spoonfed when it comes to technology (and doing their jobs).
"because some participants struggled with a login system that required a username and password."
I feel like this is the worst explanation possible. Because it implies a) you had a better security solution, b) enough participants were unable to figure out how passwords work to make that a problem so c) you chose the worst possible security solution.
Like teenagers with basic networking skills could easily spin up an unsecured local server such that it isn't accessible to the whole world.
Not knowing whether "security through obscurity" is sufficient for a long-running headline event (as opposed to being sufficient to plan the games for a friend's surprise baby shower) is covered in the section on ignorance, it seems to me https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2076.htm
in the sort of detail and gradations that one would expect.
Do they understand *now* that this was the equivalent of making a photocopy of everything and tacking it to a community-use bulletin board in the back of a 24/7 laundromat and telling the address of the 24/7 laundromat to *only* the people who were having trouble figuring out how to work the combination lock on the gym locker where the originals had been stored? My guess is no because otherwise they would have said thank you.
I'm going to start invoking Belloc's Law: proof that "no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted as fortnight."
"“As I said before,” Ruffini said in response to questions, “there is nothing secret about it. But the desire of the General Secretariat of the Synod is to maintain confidentiality on the individual reports of each small group. "
There's nothing secret about the behind-the-scenes machinations occurring within the Synodal small-groups, but nobody is allowed to speak about, share, or discuss topics, personnel, or what the Holy Spirit was whispering in their ears with any outside individuals or groups in perpetuity. What was the definition of secret again?
The hallmark of this pontificate is speaking out of both sides of one's mouth, and assuming that the people you're speaking to are as stupid as you are.
Yup, millennial troglodytes like myself just don't have the comprehension to understand the new 1970's way of "being Church." Listening and discernment is really for those sheep "outside" orthodox teaching and not for us in the middle of the flock. To the wolves with us!
The photos of round tables set up in the Paolo VI Audience Hall (as if this were some radical innovation) were reminiscent of SO many gatherings of American religious and clerics over the decades since the Council. Round tables are much less hierarchical (ick!), don'tcha know?
"The prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Communications has told reporters that confidential working documents from the ongoing synod on synodality were posted to an unsecured cloud server because some participants struggled with a login system that required a username and password."
So the luddites participating in the synod had trouble with basic technological security measures that have been standard in computing platforms since the 80's. Lord help us all if they would have been required to use something even more fitting to the "secret not secret" nature of the synod like Two-Factor Authentication.
We have a pope who abstains from all types of electronic communication (by his own admission) colliding with the New Evangelization happening on the digital frontier that was pushed into existence by St. Pope John Paul II. No wonder the shepherds under him don't have the impetus to join the modern world of communication. What's (almost) worse is that there seems to be no greater understanding of how this form of communication magnifies clarity and ambiguity of teaching to the faithful throughout the world. Give ambiguous answers and the world will stretch it as far as they can to suit secular sensibilities.
If the open cloud-server was installed to aid participants who can’t access the Synod documents, and now the username/password security check is (re?)-instated, doesn’t this just (re?)-create the problem that the unsecured server was meant to solve?
And if, now, there participants who struggled with usernames and passwords still do so, are they effectively “blocked” from accessing the server? Or if they can use login credentials now, within a few days of the unsecured server being noticed, why not just do that in the first place?
Typing that out makes it read like a conspiracy. But I’m actually only interested in what I perceive to be a nonsense answer to a question.
I mean, I get someone in their 80s maybe having some difficulty, but they should have sorted that out with a help desk on arrival, not dumped everything on an unsecured server. If you can’t wrap your head around a basic password and username should you be there? 🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️
Not only that, but I presume that there are many minions around the Synod who are in place to assist the participants with navigating the Vatican, Rome and the meetings. One would think that such minions could help with boring necessities such as usernames and passwords.
I doubt there are ‘many’. The Vatican’s total staff are about 500 people give or take. The Secretariat of State, which has to run the diplomatic relations of the Holy See with 180 (ish) countries has maybe 30 staff. The US State department has 1500 staff to cover the same kind of relationships. There aren’t a lot of spare bodies in the Vatican.
They are preening themselves over getting laity and women involved in this synod, and they can't even get professional support for basic services.
It's like when I go to an industry conferences and they can't even get the A/V equipment to work. I really wonder if they understand about getting the basics done.
If it is the voice of the Holy Spirit that is speaking through this, why the need for the confidentiality?
Is it because only the selected invitees to the Synod are worthy of witnessing the Holy Spirit in action? Are they the only ones capable of understanding its processes?
Or is it because the Holy Spirit is so shy that we are worried that outsiders peeking in might somehow throw it off course?
I understand your frustration, but I don't think one is an indicator of the other. It seems fairly universally accepted that the conclave should be kept confidential, and of course we all hope the participants are listening to the Holy Spirit there.
I think the bigger issue is the way in which people (especially people who should know better) talk about how the Holy Spirit works in all these situations. Some people act like a Synod of (primarily) bishops is the Holy Spirit speaking to us almost in the way we hear Him speak to us in scripture. There is is often zero understanding that what the Holy Spirit is saying at a Synod (or a conclave for that matter) gets filtered through sinful individuals who are perfectly capable of misunderstanding or ignoring what He says.
But, but, but... I thought we were *all* participants, that the whole point of this Synod on Synodality was that it was supposed to be the most participatory synod *ever*. How is it that, in this age when the virtue of transparency is so loudly and frequently proclaimed, we are in the midst of the most opaque synod in modern times? Why should those who participated in good faith, at parish and diocesan level, not know what is being said in the Aula on our behalf?
Users struggling with having to deal with usernames and passwords? Sadly I can totally buy that. I do some software troubleshooting as part of my job and there have been too many times now when I send someone a screenshot with written instructions on what they should do, they do nothing and basically expect me to do it for them. Some people want to be completely spoonfed when it comes to technology (and doing their jobs).
Whoever is staffing that participant help desk has definitely cleared their purgatory time
(And I hope they have access to the magic synodal "bar service" too)
"because some participants struggled with a login system that required a username and password."
I feel like this is the worst explanation possible. Because it implies a) you had a better security solution, b) enough participants were unable to figure out how passwords work to make that a problem so c) you chose the worst possible security solution.
Like teenagers with basic networking skills could easily spin up an unsecured local server such that it isn't accessible to the whole world.
My faith in these people who can't use usernames and passwords to redefine church isn't too high surprisingly...
I know JD frequently says "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence" but hooboy this takes the cake.
Good question.
Not knowing whether "security through obscurity" is sufficient for a long-running headline event (as opposed to being sufficient to plan the games for a friend's surprise baby shower) is covered in the section on ignorance, it seems to me https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2076.htm
in the sort of detail and gradations that one would expect.
Do they understand *now* that this was the equivalent of making a photocopy of everything and tacking it to a community-use bulletin board in the back of a 24/7 laundromat and telling the address of the 24/7 laundromat to *only* the people who were having trouble figuring out how to work the combination lock on the gym locker where the originals had been stored? My guess is no because otherwise they would have said thank you.
I'm going to start invoking Belloc's Law: proof that "no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted as fortnight."
I seem to invoke it a couple times a year over the past 10 years 😀
Knavish imbecility is certainly on the rise.
"“As I said before,” Ruffini said in response to questions, “there is nothing secret about it. But the desire of the General Secretariat of the Synod is to maintain confidentiality on the individual reports of each small group. "
There's nothing secret about the behind-the-scenes machinations occurring within the Synodal small-groups, but nobody is allowed to speak about, share, or discuss topics, personnel, or what the Holy Spirit was whispering in their ears with any outside individuals or groups in perpetuity. What was the definition of secret again?
The hallmark of this pontificate is speaking out of both sides of one's mouth, and assuming that the people you're speaking to are as stupid as you are.
Yup, millennial troglodytes like myself just don't have the comprehension to understand the new 1970's way of "being Church." Listening and discernment is really for those sheep "outside" orthodox teaching and not for us in the middle of the flock. To the wolves with us!
The photos of round tables set up in the Paolo VI Audience Hall (as if this were some radical innovation) were reminiscent of SO many gatherings of American religious and clerics over the decades since the Council. Round tables are much less hierarchical (ick!), don'tcha know?
It's practically Arthurian!
"The prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Communications has told reporters that confidential working documents from the ongoing synod on synodality were posted to an unsecured cloud server because some participants struggled with a login system that required a username and password."
So the luddites participating in the synod had trouble with basic technological security measures that have been standard in computing platforms since the 80's. Lord help us all if they would have been required to use something even more fitting to the "secret not secret" nature of the synod like Two-Factor Authentication.
We have a pope who abstains from all types of electronic communication (by his own admission) colliding with the New Evangelization happening on the digital frontier that was pushed into existence by St. Pope John Paul II. No wonder the shepherds under him don't have the impetus to join the modern world of communication. What's (almost) worse is that there seems to be no greater understanding of how this form of communication magnifies clarity and ambiguity of teaching to the faithful throughout the world. Give ambiguous answers and the world will stretch it as far as they can to suit secular sensibilities.
If the open cloud-server was installed to aid participants who can’t access the Synod documents, and now the username/password security check is (re?)-instated, doesn’t this just (re?)-create the problem that the unsecured server was meant to solve?
And if, now, there participants who struggled with usernames and passwords still do so, are they effectively “blocked” from accessing the server? Or if they can use login credentials now, within a few days of the unsecured server being noticed, why not just do that in the first place?
Typing that out makes it read like a conspiracy. But I’m actually only interested in what I perceive to be a nonsense answer to a question.
They said they're going to set up a "tech support" desk for participants who don't know their passwords/can't handle logging in
I mean, I get someone in their 80s maybe having some difficulty, but they should have sorted that out with a help desk on arrival, not dumped everything on an unsecured server. If you can’t wrap your head around a basic password and username should you be there? 🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️
Not only that, but I presume that there are many minions around the Synod who are in place to assist the participants with navigating the Vatican, Rome and the meetings. One would think that such minions could help with boring necessities such as usernames and passwords.
I doubt there are ‘many’. The Vatican’s total staff are about 500 people give or take. The Secretariat of State, which has to run the diplomatic relations of the Holy See with 180 (ish) countries has maybe 30 staff. The US State department has 1500 staff to cover the same kind of relationships. There aren’t a lot of spare bodies in the Vatican.
Is there going to be some clarity about getting some professional IT support?
Because this is sad.
They are preening themselves over getting laity and women involved in this synod, and they can't even get professional support for basic services.
It's like when I go to an industry conferences and they can't even get the A/V equipment to work. I really wonder if they understand about getting the basics done.
"Consider that we are governed by fools" is now used as an affirmative defense
I repeat my question from the podcast thread:
Serious question:
If it is the voice of the Holy Spirit that is speaking through this, why the need for the confidentiality?
Is it because only the selected invitees to the Synod are worthy of witnessing the Holy Spirit in action? Are they the only ones capable of understanding its processes?
Or is it because the Holy Spirit is so shy that we are worried that outsiders peeking in might somehow throw it off course?
I understand your frustration, but I don't think one is an indicator of the other. It seems fairly universally accepted that the conclave should be kept confidential, and of course we all hope the participants are listening to the Holy Spirit there.
I think the bigger issue is the way in which people (especially people who should know better) talk about how the Holy Spirit works in all these situations. Some people act like a Synod of (primarily) bishops is the Holy Spirit speaking to us almost in the way we hear Him speak to us in scripture. There is is often zero understanding that what the Holy Spirit is saying at a Synod (or a conclave for that matter) gets filtered through sinful individuals who are perfectly capable of misunderstanding or ignoring what He says.
After the wind there was an earthquake; after the earthquake came a fire; after the fire came a synod on synodality (perhaps).
This verse did occur to me as I was typing it out -- somehow I didn't think it was what they had in mind...
So was the URL something easy like www.domain.com/synod, or was it somethign like www.domain.com/synod/#JD(#CJDK@(DDMWDKDdhe3#n93Dneid,.
Because if the latter, that is basically password protected...just that the password is part of the URL
But, but, but... I thought we were *all* participants, that the whole point of this Synod on Synodality was that it was supposed to be the most participatory synod *ever*. How is it that, in this age when the virtue of transparency is so loudly and frequently proclaimed, we are in the midst of the most opaque synod in modern times? Why should those who participated in good faith, at parish and diocesan level, not know what is being said in the Aula on our behalf?