All Activity

Vatican will not participate in Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/18/europe/pope-leo-board-of-peace-refusal-intl

Just found it for myself this week, glad that other like it as well. 4 more episodes to go ♡

I would like to share a historical reflection to explain why data minimisation matters. In the Netherlands, we learned a very painful lesson about centralized personal records. Before World War II, the Dutch population registry was considered one of the most accurate and well-organized in Europe. Municipal records included detailed information such as: Religious affiliation Parents’ background Address history Family composition For many years, this was simply good administration. It only became a problem after the regime change in 1940, when Nazi Germany occupied the Netherlands and took control of those records. Because the data was centralized, detailed, and well maintained, it became significantly easier for the occupiers to identify and locate Jewish citizens. The result was tragic. Approximately 75% of the Jewish population in the Netherlands was deported and murdered — a percentage far higher than in neighboring countries such as Belgium (~40–45%), France (~25%), or Denmark (~1–2%). The lesson is not that administration is wrong. The lesson is that centralized, detailed personal records can become dangerous when circumstances change.

Regardless of personal convictions, we operate within legal frameworks. In many countries — especially within the EU — religious organizations must comply with strict privacy regulations such as GDPR. Religious affiliation data is classified as special category data under GDPR and therefore receives heightened protection. If we build or use a planning system that processes personal data, we are legally required to: Minimize the data we collect Secure it appropriately Limit access Be able to justify how and why it is processed This is not about paranoia. It is about stewardship and compliance. If a congregation uses digital tools, those tools must be designed in a way that respects both spiritual responsibility and civil legal obligations.

Not all overseers need to hold the same personal data. Baruch follows a principle of role-based custody: The secretary maintains the official congregation records locally. A group overseer may maintain contact details for his own group locally. There is no automatic global synchronization of contact or emergency data. If a phone number changes, it is updated by the responsible brother in his local records. It is not broadcast to every device. This is intentional. Regarding security risk: it is true that blindly replicating a full personal dataset to many devices would increase exposure. But Baruch does not replicate a centralized personal database across all devices. The model is: No central PII repository in the cloud No automatic full replication to all clients Only minimal, role-appropriate local custody So the trade-off is not “many full copies vs one copy.” The real comparison is: One central, internet-facing system holding all personal data versus No central PII target, and limited local custody based on responsibility. Baruch removes the central high-value target. That is the architectural decision.

I understand where that perspective comes from. It can feel safer to have a PC physically located in someone’s home rather than “somewhere in the cloud.”. However, from a technical standpoint, a server is not a special type of hardware. A server is simply a role a system performs in a network. If a personal laptop is permanently connected to the internet to host data or provide synchronization, then that laptop is functioning as a server. And that comes with the same exposure: It is internet-facing It must be patched continuously It must be hardened and monitored It becomes a potential attack surface Professional hosting environments typically: Apply security patches quickly Use hardened operating systems Run behind managed firewalls Monitor for intrusion attempts Isolate workloads A privately managed home PC usually does not have that level of operational security. It may feel safer because it is physically visible and under personal control, but technically, it is often less secure than professionally managed infrastructure. I know NWS uses a PC of a brother connected to the internet for congregation sharing. The real question is: Where is personal data stored? And how exposed is that storage role? In Baruch’s case, the server role is minimized and does not contain personal contact data at all. Baruch makes use of a professional hosting partner for security.

I know I and many of my brothers and sisters have each other's names, numbers and addresses in their contact lists on their phones. I have had either a written or electronic contact list for more than 50 years. In fact, I remember moving into a new congregation many years ago and getting a nice paper copy of everyone's info as a gift. It was wonderful. I can't help but wonder if people are just more paranoid than before. Anyway, Satan know where we all are. He too has a list. You can't hide away and assume that if somehow your personal info isn't written anywhere that you can escape what's coming. Jesus said, " if they persecuted me, they'll persecute you." (John 15:20). We'll be ok if we stay close to Jehovah's people and that is going to require them to know your personal info and for you to know theirs.

Forgive me, friends, but I still fail to understand. I am not talking about "the cloud" (some service provider who-knows-where). I am talking about "local" devices of the friends from one congregation. The server has to be one of those devices, correct? Also, all the overseers need to have the personal data available to some degree, no? Even if it's just the emergency phone number for the publishers in a group - both the group overseer and the secretary will need to update that number. Do they do it separately on each of their devices, or is it done once (by either) and synched? And if each device must have a local copy of the data (even if encrypted), it's more of a security risk than having just one device (a local server) holding the data, no?

In JWLManager you can export only the notes you choose (the ones you want to share) - in Excel format or as a custom text file. On the other end, your friend uses JWLManager to import your shared notes. Very easy ;-) All you need is to have a Linux/macOS/Windows device to run the app.

Thank you Connie for enquiring. Glad you have been enjoying the Photo Drama of the Bible. Yes, should be posting it tomorrow. Have a great day.

January 2026 Global Temperature Update, Fifth Warmest January on Record +1.43°C👇 Temperature Mean January (1880-1920)NASA Current record (2025) (+1.71C) Second record (2024) (+1.58C) +1.43°C For the Year Hottest year (2024) 1.56c Second hottest year (2025) 1.46c Third hottest year (2023) 1.45c +1.44°C Last 12 Months

I appreciate the comparison about rain and oversaturation. It makes me think of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 9:26. He wasn’t just busy—he was intentional. If our reading becomes just another box checked, we may technically “cover ground,” but we’re not really running with direction. Sometimes I’ve noticed that when I slow down enough to sit with a single verse—turn it over, connect it with something in my life, maybe even pray about it—that one verse stays with me longer than three chapters read quickly. It’s similar to what Psalm 1:2 says about the one who reads in a low voice day and night. That suggests lingering, not racing.

Because it’s a privacy risk, I guess

I am not avoiding the cloud. Baruch does use a server. However, the server is not designed as a centralized “single source of truth” for personal data. Instead, it acts primarily as a message broker. It does not store contact information or personal records. That architectural choice reduces the blast radius of any potential breach while still allowing coordinated planning.

The responsible brother does not need to contact both publishers. If two brothers attempt to book the same cart (or territory), the system processes bookings in order. The later booking will receive a notification that the resource is no longer available. So instead of raising a conflict that requires manual mediation, the system prevents double booking at confirmation stage. The goal is to reduce coordination work, not increase it.

Baruch does not push a centralized master list of personal data to all nodes. The initial publisher list is created locally by the responsible brothers (e.g., secretary). Personal data such as names and contact information remain local and are never stored in the cloud. Each congregation maintains its personal data locally under the responsibility of the appointed brothers. This design is intentional for security and GDPR compliance. If personal data is centrally stored, a single defect can expose the full dataset. From a GDPR perspective, encryption does not remove personal data from scope. If data can be decrypted using a key, it is still considered personal data (PII). Under GDPR Articles 5 and 32, data minimization is fundamental. Religious affiliation data is special category data under GDPR. Breach notification obligations can be severe. Elders effectively act as data controllers. Centralizing PII increases liability and exposure. Baruch reduces the blast radius of any potential incident by ensuring that the cloud never contains identifiable information. In the Netherlands a major Dutch telecom provider was recently hacked. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/dutch-telecom-odido-hacked-6-million-accounts-affected-2026-02-12/ Security is never absolute. The key is not preventing all risk — but limiting the consequences.

Hello all I just have a question for a friend who is not on this thread. They have been using NWS for a few years and decided to import territory functions and info from Territory Helper. He says he followed all the import instructions completely. However, none of the territory map boundaries imported. Any ideas what may be the issue?

Paul, I don't think there's a straightforward way to share only the notes for that school. As far as I know all the notes and highlights are stored together in a single file. You can share that file, but it will contain all your notes for all books and articles. One possibility would be to use some app that allows you to edit JW Library backups and remove all notes except those for the school. Then use some app to merge those with the other elder's notes. It's doable but requires some knowledge and time.

Wednesday, February 18 The way I am running is not aimlessly.—1 Cor. 9:26. Reading the Bible is a commendable goal. But more is needed if we are to benefit fully from reading God’s Word. Think of this comparison: Water, often in the form of rain, is essential to life. But if too much rain falls within a short amount of time, the ground may become oversaturated. When that happens, more rain will not be beneficial. The soil needs time to absorb the rain that has fallen and make it available to the vegetation. Likewise, we should avoid reading the Bible in a hurried manner, that is, so quickly that we fail to absorb and remember and use what we read. (Jas. 1:24) Have you found that on occasion you are merely speed-reading the Bible? What should you do? Slow down. Make the effort to think about what you are reading or have just read. You may decide to lengthen your study period to include time for such thinking, or meditation. w24.09 4 ¶7-9

@Jonathan1, I'm glad you won't get offended, but... your responses sound like AI-generated - very... verbose :-) How is data initially synched? As an example, the list of publishers with their contact info (and emergency contact info). A master list has to be pushed out to all the "nodes". After that, yes, they can be identified by a UUID, but even then, what if the contact info is updated by the secretary or group overseer? Two brothers book the same cart/hospitality (or territory, etc.) and a conflict flag is raised for the responsible brother to contact both and resolve... That adds work/complication to a system meant to simplify coordination, no? You have a very noble objective: privacy and security by avoiding "the cloud". But you still include a server. Why not use that server for a centralized "single source of truth" instead of a distributed model? Or did I misunderstand?

Another functional aspect of Baruch is how assignments are handled. Assignments (for example, for the Christian Life and Ministry Meeting) are never immediately finalized when they are scheduled. Instead, the system works with an AssignmentRequest model. Here is how it works: An assignment is proposed by the overseer. The publisher receives an AssignmentRequest on their device. The assignment is only confirmed once the publisher explicitly accepts it. Only after acceptance is the assignment finalized in the schedule. Until that moment, the assignment remains in a pending state. In the interface, this is visually indicated by color coding: One color for requested (pending) assignments Another color for confirmed assignments This approach has several advantages: It prevents accidental overbooking It avoids assumptions about availability It improves communication clarity It gives publishers a sense of responsibility and confirmation It reduces last-minute misunderstandings Technically, this also aligns well with the event-driven architecture, since an AssignmentRequest and an AssignmentConfirmation are separate domain events. The goal is simple: Assignments should be coordinated — not imposed silently.

Please have a look at this post: https://jwtalk.net/topic/55712-a-way-to-merge-jw-library-files/?do=findComment&comment=1067215

Thank you — this is a very practical example, and it helps a lot. Public witnessing carts and speaker hospitality are exactly the kind of real-world scenarios where concurrency matters. Let me clarify how Baruch approaches this. Baruch does not silently “auto-resolve” conflicts by overwriting based purely on timestamps. Instead, it uses: version tracking on objects change comparison during synchronization and conflict detection when two devices modify the same booking slot If two users book the same cart or hospitality slot while offline: When reconciliation happens, the system detects that the same resource/time slot was modified independently. It does not blindly overwrite. The intended behavior is: flag the conflict notify the responsible role require an explicit resolution So rather than automatic resolution, the design favors explicit conflict visibility. Your suggestion about notifications is very valuable. A practical implementation could be: During reconciliation, if a booking conflict is detected The system generates a notification: “This slot was already booked by another user.” The conflicting entry is marked visually until resolved That keeps the process transparent and prevents silent data loss. Because Baruch is pull-based and offline-first, reconciliation is the natural moment to detect these issues. One important difference is that Baruch does not require manual import actions to keep environments aligned. Synchronization happens automatically through the pull mechanism. Each device periodically checks for updates and applies them automatically. So in normal operation, there are no manual steps required to keep devices synchronized. This reduces administrative friction and avoids situations where environments drift because someone forgot to import changes.

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/teenagers/whiteboard-animations/stop-gossip-how/