Anyone using JW Scheduler software?

[molnarj]

Yes. We had the same problem with some who had the older version. Once updated, the problem is over. 

[New World Explorer]

4 hours ago, Benjamin said:

I am perplexed by an issue we are having with the NW Publisher app side of the equation. The last few months we seem to be having 8-10 publishers turn in time thru the app. It shows as report sent on their app. But I never received or imported them. I have checked the app logs and there is no date sent from them. 

 

It looks as if it is usually a user with an older app version. Has anyone encountered this recurring issue?

Yes, and I had to ask publishers to turn in reports old fashion way, directly to me. 

[Aja]

5 hours ago, Benjamin said:

I am perplexed by an issue we are having with the NW Publisher app side of the equation. The last few months we seem to be having 8-10 publishers turn in time thru the app. It shows as report sent on their app. But I never received or imported them. I have checked the app logs and there is no date sent from them. 

 

It looks as if it is usually a user with an older app version. Has anyone encountered this recurring issue?

Yeah, JWS seems to be very sensitive to everyone being on the same/most up to date version. I'm constantly running around showing people how to update their apps. I've run into a lot of friends that think confirming the pop up message that there is an update available for NWP actually updates the app I have had to explain to the brothers and sisters that they are just notifying you and you still need to go to your app store to actually update the app.

 

Honestly I hope we reach a point of relative stability with the program soon. I understand and appreciate the work the individuals who work on this program are putting in to add features, especially as our meetings and preaching work evolve, buti honestly would be really happy to have a stable program that just works with minimal need to get everyone updated to the same version seemingly every month. 

[New World Explorer]

8 hours ago, Aja said:

Honestly I hope we reach a point of relative stability with the program soon. I understand and appreciate the work the individuals who work on this program are putting in to add features, especially as our meetings and preaching work evolve, buti honestly would be really happy to have a stable program that just works with minimal need to get everyone updated to the same version seemingly every month. 

I hope as well, but I do have confidence that one day we are going to have stable program. 

It must be "stressful" for developers as well, and they will be on it to fix it. 

I am sure they work very hard! 

[computerwiz]

14 hours ago, Aja said:

Yeah, JWS seems to be very sensitive to everyone being on the same/most up to date version. I'm constantly running around showing people how to update their apps. I've run into a lot of friends that think confirming the pop up message that there is an update available for NWP actually updates the app I have had to explain to the brothers and sisters that they are just notifying you and you still need to go to your app store to actually update the app.

 

Honestly I hope we reach a point of relative stability with the program soon. I understand and appreciate the work the individuals who work on this program are putting in to add features, especially as our meetings and preaching work evolve, buti honestly would be really happy to have a stable program that just works with minimal need to get everyone updated to the same version seemingly every month. 

I agree.  But man they're doing such an amazing job with new features, I equally want them to keep 'em coming!  Love all the new stuff!  

 

The fix to this issue.....very simple, easy to implement, would be to change the app message to have "update now" or "update later" buttons.  And the "update now" button takes them right to the app store.  I know plenty of apps that do that.  Would solve this issue quickly!

 

We need to submit this as a suggestion!  If enough of us do it, it will be a high priority.

[luisenriquereyes]

4 hours ago, computerwiz said:

I agree.  But man they're doing such an amazing job with new features, I equally want them to keep 'em coming!  Love all the new stuff!  

 

The fix to this issue.....very simple, easy to implement, would be to change the app message to have "update now" or "update later" buttons.  And the "update now" button takes them right to the app store.  I know plenty of apps that do that.  Would solve this issue quickly!

 

We need to submit this as a suggestion!  If enough of us do it, it will be a high priority.

Suggestion sent 😁

[Jeffjazzy]

Can't say for sure Benjamin. All of the issues we were having in service reporting seemed to have cleared up since we have made sure that everyone's NW pub app's are up to date as well as JW Pub. Since then we all are good.

[molnarj]

JW Scheduler 6.4

Release Date: 2022-07-21

Overview

This update mostly includes bug fixes and reliability improvements, especially regarding NW Publisher app and Congregation Sharing.

We have also spent time improving Public Witnessing Scheduling based on user feedback and suggestions.

Important Information

• Any congregation previously using either ‘North America East’ or ‘Pacific’ Sharing Regions, who has not already done so, will need to please re-setup Sharing on the new ‘2’ servers.

Release Notes

UPDATES

CONGREGATION SHARING

• New North America East 2 and Pacific 2 Sharing Servers. Other servers will be gradually updated, in due time.
• Congregation Administrators can now Backup “Shared Persons” including User Access, and Restore if needed. Occasionally, new Sharing Servers are created or existing ones are updated, which requires re-setting up Congregation Sharing. If you backup your Shared Persons, this will be a much quicker and easier process.
• Non-Administrators can no longer accidentally “re-setup” Congregation Sharing.

PERSONS

• Added “Assign” Filter to Persons.
• “Active Brothers” filter has been renamed and adjusted to “Non-appointed Active Brothers”.

ME – QUICK STEPS

• New Service Overseer Quick Step: Send Public Witnessing Schedule to all approved publishers.
• Updated Public Talk Coordinator Quick Step: Weekend Assignments Reminder. The Chairman Assignment now includes details of the upcoming Public Talk, including speaker, congregation, outline and song.

SCHEDULE – PUBLIC WITNESSING

• When creating a Public Witnessing Reservation in JW Scheduler, a warning will display if the person will be away.
• Using JW Scheduler, can now make multiple Public Witnessing Reservations for the same publisher on the same shift. (E.G. They are bringing a friend from another congregation)
• NW Publisher app notifications are now sent for Public Witnessing Reservations created in JW Scheduler.
• Can now display the Public Witnessing Schedule on the NW Publisher app and not allow publishers to make Reservations (see App Features).

EMAIL

• Email Send To now includes more filter options, including Assign. (e.g. it is now much easier to send to all Approved for Public Witnessing)
• New Email Tags for First Name [TO_FIRST_NAME], Last Name [TO_LAST_NAME] and Gender Title [TO_GENDER_TITLE], e.g. Dear Brother Smith.

NEW & UPDATED REPORTS & TEMPLATES

• New 4 Weeks per page for Public Witnessing
• Territory Assignment Records now includes the explanatory message down the bottom to help brothers understand what the Last Completed column actually means
• Maintenance Duties by Person now includes the description of the task
• Public Speaker Exchange Summary added an option to Show Contact Information. Also, if no Outline has been assigned, the speakers “Public Talks can give” will be included instead
• Away Public Talks List now includes an option to Show Contact Information
• Missing Reports now includes an option for One page per group

NW PUBLISHER APP (*requires NW Publisher app 2.5.0 or greater*)

• Added a new App Feature Allow Public Witnessing Reservations. This will either allow or disallow publishers to make reservations using the NW Publisher app. (NOTE: Publishers must be using NW Publisher app 2.5.0 or greater!)
• App Logs – Public Witnessing has now been separated and is much clearer.
• Many other bug fixes and improvements, especially regarding to sending Field Service Reports.

BUG FIXES

• Bug fixes are usually released in Build Updates. If you have a problem or bug, please click Me > Updates > Check for Updates
• This release also fixed several bugs relating to NW Publisher app, Congregation Sharing and more

[quincy]

I am sure this was addressed in this thread somewhere but I didn't look back far enough to find it. Is there any way to use this software on a M1 MacBook air other than using fusion or another partitioned windows OS?

[molnarj]

Maybe you can find your answer here:

 

JW Scheduler - JW Scheduler for MAC

[quincy]

3 hours ago, molnarj said:

Maybe you can find your answer here:

 

JW Scheduler - JW Scheduler for MAC

yup haha that's what I was looking for. I knew it was somewhere, thank you very much. We are looking to switch over but a couple of our elders and myself all run mac systems. So they asked me to find out the easiest method and how it works. 

[Sooner Guy 89]

Just curious if anyone has seen this message. It was brought to my attention, asking if we should be using JWS. My understanding is that our data is saved on your local computer. Any thoughts on how to respond? Thanks.

[computerwiz]

7 minutes ago, Benjamin said:

Just curious if anyone has seen this message. It was brought to my attention, asking if we should be using JWS. My understanding is that our data is saved on your local computer. Any thoughts on how to respond? Thanks.

Hadn't seen that particular message, but I had the same concerns.  Knowing how the sharing in JWS works, I am not worried about their methods.

 

https://jwscheduler.com/how-to/congregation/how-does-congregation-sharing-work/

[howudodat]

The next sentence says, easily exchange encrypted files via email.  This is no different than what JWS is doing.  Either share the data or dont, doesn't matter how you do it.  It will be as secure / in-secure as you make it.  Print the data out, post it on the information board, not very secure.  Use invisible ink on light sensitive auto destructing paper, well maybe a bit more secure.  Send an email using gmail and the whole world knows your business.  Double encrypt the data with a shared key, wrapped with PKI and by the time the data is cracked, dinosaurs might roam the earth again.

 

Same thing holds true for both KHS and JWS.  While I highly disagree and can easily de-bunk most of what JWS says on their website about sharing, I can do the same for KHS.  I successfully decrypted both systems and decoded the data in under 30 minutes  (but I had access to the computer, I didn't try to access data on the sharing server).  

 

Obfuscated, encrypted data is as secure as it can get.  

[Sooner Guy 89]

27 minutes ago, howudodat said:

The next sentence says, easily exchange encrypted files via email.  This is no different than what JWS is doing.  Either share the data or dont, doesn't matter how you do it.  It will be as secure / in-secure as you make it.  Print the data out, post it on the information board, not very secure.  Use invisible ink on light sensitive auto destructing paper, well maybe a bit more secure.  Send an email using gmail and the whole world knows your business.  Double encrypt the data with a shared key, wrapped with PKI and by the time the data is cracked, dinosaurs might roam the earth again.

 

Same thing holds true for both KHS and JWS.  While I highly disagree and can easily de-bunk most of what JWS says on their website about sharing, I can do the same for KHS.  I successfully decrypted both systems and decoded the data in under 30 minutes  (but I had access to the computer, I didn't try to access data on the sharing server).  

 

Obfuscated, encrypted data is as secure as it can get.  

Thank you for your response. Loved the context, reasoning and slight touch of sarcasm.😁 Speaking my language.

[Jared]

This was discussed last September and I agree with @howudodat. If you anyone is going to start condemning JWS they better not be using email, WhatsApp, or any other service that send data over the internet.

[howudodat]

I will say that I find it interesting, even suspicious that the example JWS uses for obfuscating and sharing is data that can be publicly shared.  It would be more appropriate to give an example of actual private data being obfuscated so that peer analysis can be made.

 

I also, personally, would feel more comfortable if JWS purged data once it had been shared with all connected elders.  It's less common that actual pub information is updated and once that data is shared, who cares if someone knows peter has a clm part.  I can't find in their documentation that they purge data once shared with everyone.  They really should regularly delete this data.

 

Depending on how you interpret the instructions, KHS shared using only JWPUB email, or passing around a USB flash drive, would be marginally more in harmony with the directions.  JWS can be setup the same way.  make a backup and pass that around using JWPUB email.

 

I dont believe there is anything "confidential" in either KHS or JWS, but certainly "sensitve".  Once "sensitive" information is no longer tied to a person can it still be considered "sensitve" 🤔  If you find a publisher record card with no name on it and only the hours / placements would it be sensitive?  I'm not sure I can answer my own question.  

 

(disclaimers:  I dont use google, I dont share pub information using google docs, I run my own servers and while my contacts include publishers and other elders, I dont sync using google, I sync to my own server that has a kill switch on it that will delete all contacts on my phone if compromised.  So while I do lean towards the more secure side, some would say paranoid, and while I think JWS can make things better, we do use JWS in our cong)

[Aja]

3 hours ago, howudodat said:

I will say that I find it interesting, even suspicious that the example JWS uses for obfuscating and sharing is data that can be publicly shared.  It would be more appropriate to give an example of actual private data being obfuscated so that peer analysis can be made.

 

I also, personally, would feel more comfortable if JWS purged data once it had been shared with all connected elders.  It's less common that actual pub information is updated and once that data is shared, who cares if someone knows peter has a clm part.  I can't find in their documentation that they purge data once shared with everyone.  They really should regularly delete this data.

 

Depending on how you interpret the instructions, KHS shared using only JWPUB email, or passing around a USB flash drive, would be marginally more in harmony with the directions.  JWS can be setup the same way.  make a backup and pass that around using JWPUB email.

 

I dont believe there is anything "confidential" in either KHS or JWS, but certainly "sensitve".  Once "sensitive" information is no longer tied to a person can it still be considered "sensitve" 🤔  If you find a publisher record card with no name on it and only the hours / placements would it be sensitive?  I'm not sure I can answer my own question.  

 

(disclaimers:  I dont use google, I dont share pub information using google docs, I run my own servers and while my contacts include publishers and other elders, I dont sync using google, I sync to my own server that has a kill switch on it that will delete all contacts on my phone if compromised.  So while I do lean towards the more secure side, some would say paranoid, and while I think JWS can make things better, we do use JWS in our cong)

Bro... at some point you just gotta trust the angels😂 We use Signal for our everyday communications as a BoE's (still probably in a bit of a grey area depending on what's being discussed) but you already know that any and all security measures are only as good as the weakest link. You have one brother on your body with face unlock turned on on his cell phone and they've likely got plenty of info on your BoE. To each his own, but I hope trying to maintain that level of heightened security doesn't stress you out. It stressed me out just reading it. I'll just do my best and trust that the rest is handled (2 Kings 6:16-18)

[computerwiz]

11 hours ago, howudodat said:

I will say that I find it interesting, even suspicious that the example JWS uses for obfuscating and sharing is data that can be publicly shared.

Read between the lines much?  Lol.  Yeah....I wouldn't call that suspicious, unless our brothers are not to be trusted.  

 

11 hours ago, howudodat said:

I also, personally, would feel more comfortable if JWS purged data once it had been shared with all connected elders.

To me, it doesn't matter.  All it would take is one elder (and we got that one) that doesn't connect for months, and you're in the same situation....data staying on the server.  I'd argue it's better to just leave it, which also makes the "restore from cong sharing" work as intended.  And then you also have an online backup, in their safe, obfuscated method, as opposed to you trying to do your own backup in a common online storage system, which is more likely to get hacked.

[howudodat]

12 minutes ago, computerwiz said:

Read between the lines much?  Lol.  Yeah....I wouldn't call that suspicious, unless our brothers are not to be trusted.  

 

To me, it doesn't matter.  All it would take is one elder (and we got that one) that doesn't connect for months, and you're in the same situation....data staying on the server.  I'd argue it's better to just leave it, which also makes the "restore from cong sharing" work as intended.  And then you also have an online backup, in their safe, obfuscated method, as opposed to you trying to do your own backup in a common online storage system, which is more likely to get hacked.

It's not reading between the lines, it's an observation.  Why would their documentation on possibly the single most sensitive part of their software, show an obviously worthless example. Our brothers are to be trusted, but software developers are inherently lazy.  

 

I would also suggest an elder that doesn't connect for months, doesn't need access to the software.  In fact he is likely to cause data corruption as has so frequently happened when someone who is only one minor build behind connects.  Files can be kept securely outside of the hall, but I can guarantee that our Secretary isn't going to give a key to his house to every elder.

 

JWS recommends you keep a backup and not use cong sharing for backup.  In fact the FAQ specifically says dont do it.

8 hours ago, Aja said:

Bro... at some point you just gotta trust the angels😂

This is only partially true, first we must follow directions.

 

Remember, even though we are in a technical discussion here, the real reasoning shouldn't be "it's ok to use JWS because our elders text like teenagers anyways".  The SFL is clear.  So the real question is: is the data sufficiently sanitized such that it would no longer be considered sensitive.  If a body feels that it is, then use sharing.  If a body feels that it is not, then make a backup and use JWPUB to email the backup around.

[computerwiz]

2 hours ago, howudodat said:

Why would their documentation on possibly the single most sensitive part of their software, show an obviously worthless example.

Because it's just an example.  No one is looking at it that deeply.  Does showing "sensitive" information really contribute to understanding?  In my experience....you are actually right, people get "hung up" on nit-picky details like that and miss the point.  But I would like to believe the people reading that part aren't being nit-picky, and are simply seeking to understand...

 

2 hours ago, howudodat said:

software developers are inherently lazy

We also have inherited sin.  Though JWs tend to shine compared to the rest of the world.  And considering how many features they add, and how frequently they do updates & bug fixes (if only you knew how many emails I sent them), I'd hardly call them lazy.

 

"Lazy" is a poor choice of words, especially in the context of why you're concerned about our JWS developers.  You may not have directly called them that, but it was in the context.    "Overlook things" is more appropriate.  Or perhaps "do not thoroughly test".  But definitely not lazy.

 

 

You said you decoded the data in 30 minutes.  I'm curious how...though of course this info shouldn't be public.  In my case, I exported some data, determined it was a Zip file (just exported as ".jws"), but after opening it, I couldn't open the files themselves.  They seem to be password protected.

2 hours ago, howudodat said:

the real question is: is the data sufficiently sanitized such that it would no longer be considered sensitive. 

Yes.  Because if the government really wanted to get info on us, they could break into our Halls and crack open the filing cabinets with all the info we got.  They can crack our phones and get our contacts, texts, etc.  Even tap our phone calls or put bugs in our Halls.  And as we've seen with some of our recent videos, they could even plant moles.

 

So you really have to ask the question, who are we keeping the sensitive info from?  How paranoid do we need to be?

 

The data just needs to be hidden from the average person.  If the gov is after us, we'd have to wipe & burn everything.  Nothing we have now is absolutely 100% safe, period...

[howudodat]

35 minutes ago, computerwiz said:

Because it's just an example.  No one is looking at it that deeply.  Does showing "sensitive" information really contribute to understanding?

Showing how they obfuscate data that doesn't need obfuscated is a thin veil.  Being able to verify that actual sensitive data is adequately obfuscated does contribute greatly to understanding and does a lot to quiet concerns.

 

38 minutes ago, computerwiz said:

"Lazy" is a poor choice of words

Perhaps it is a poor choice, but consider the definition: Laziness is disinclination to activity or exertion despite having the ability to act or to exert oneself.   40 years of programming and watching trends of bugs / beta testing and software releases,  I stand by the generalization that programmers are lazy.  more often than not we (myself included) will search the easier way to handle a matter rather than work through the possible scenarios.  We allow our users to become unwilling beta testers and we shrug our shoulders when data gets lost or corrupted.

 

43 minutes ago, computerwiz said:

You said you decoded the data in 30 minutes

Yeah as you stated a public forum is not the place, however here is a sanitized snippet from the normally encrypted Config.json.  

{"pr*****ID":"JW____","DA*****Y":"Zq____","PUBLIC_********_********_KEY":"s2____" }

 

46 minutes ago, computerwiz said:

So you really have to ask the question, who are we keeping the sensitive info from?  How paranoid do we need to be?

 

The data just needs to be hidden from the average person.  If the gov is after us, we'd have to wipe & burn everything.  Nothing we have now is absolutely 100% safe, period...

Indeed most times when this discussion is made everyone immediately goes to the government.  While I cannot read the mind / intentions of the GB on the direction, I suspect it has less to do with a government getting our data and more to do with data protection laws and not getting hit with lawsuits from disgruntled individuals.

 

However, we dont need to be asking who are we keeping it from, or how paranoid.  That is a question we ask on our own data and our own devices.  In this case we only need to ask 2 questions per the SFL.  Is it being stored, is it sensitive (or confidential).  

 

As I have stated in previous posts we use JWS and I dont have any major qualms about it.  But some do.  Knowing how they sanitize actual sensitive data and not just some clm assignment which doesn't even need to be obfuscated and knowing that the data gets purged after synchronization would put a lot of minds at ease.  Purging the data after synchronization is imo an absolute necessity.

 

All of that being said, lets not allow this to turn into a large debate.  To summarize:

• For those who feel it is adequately sanitized to no longer be sensitive, use congregation sharing
• For those who dont, share the backup file by means of JWPUB email.

[Floyd]

On 7/27/2022 at 7:42 PM, Jared said:

This was discussed last September and I agree with @howudodat. If you anyone is going to start condemning JWS they better not be using email, WhatsApp, or any other service that send data over the internet.

I use jwpub email (or jw.org for online forms) which is the only means that has been approved by the organization for sending confidential information over the internet.

 

[Floyd]

On 7/27/2022 at 1:18 PM, howudodat said:

The next sentence says, easily exchange encrypted files via email.

I would assume they mean jwpub email which has been approved for sending confidential information.

[Floyd]

On 7/28/2022 at 10:32 AM, howudodat said:

The SFL is clear.  So the real question is: is the data sufficiently sanitized such that it would no longer be considered sensitive.  If a body feels that it is, then use sharing.  If a body feels that it is not, then make a backup and use JWPUB to email the backup around.

I am glad I am not the only one asking the question. I see a lot of brothers jumping on board without analyzing how this works. The SFL makes no distinction between unencrypted files and encrypted files being stored on cloud storage. 

I have started wondering what they mean by cloud storage. Would they consider the "sharing server" to be cloud storage? Or do they mean the typical cloud server like Google, Apple, Microsoft, Dropbox, etc.? I don't know. I do use a personal server to store my old jwpub email so I always have access to it but only I have access to it. Its just as safe as my home computer.

If the data on the sharing server can be decoded by an outsider within 30 minutes certainly those who are running it can decode it. If I was using cloud storage I would encrypt it with at least 256 bit AES and I would trust that file more on Google Drive than on the sharing server. 

I don't try to tell people they shouldn't use it. But I do try to educated them so they can make an informed decision. I only use the means officially approved to transmitted congregation data. I am not against using something new. I was one of the first in my area to us jwpub to send letters of introduction. Elders would ask when I was going to send the letter and I would tell them I sent it to their jwpub inbox a week ago. So I am all for electronic communication and distribution of data, but only in the officially approved manner.

 

I feel like one day we will clarification on the matter just like we did with use of cell phones and confidential talk. I am waiting for that day.