Genealogy Chat

Over the months and years the issue of tree viewing has been a regular on the boards. There is a DISTINCT difference between allowing access to a tree and granting permission for that information to be uced/copied/entered onto another tree, either on here or a nother tree builder or website. Have you ever been asked for permission to use details from your tree? have you granted permission even when not asked? If you have access to another tree can you honestly say that on EVERY occassion you have asked for AND been granted permission. Genes don't make it obvious about asking permission, nor do the majority of users of the site even bother to read the T&C . If both GR and the site users obeyed a few simple rules then it would not be an issue, but human nature and the ethics of GR mean it will never happen. People can trace a tree to the present day without it being laid on a plate, bmd and certs would see to that. You can never stop a determined and skilled researcher, but do you want to reveal chapter and verse about your nearest and dearest to virtual strangers? That is what you do by opening your tree on this site whether you like it or not.

One other thing I've noticed is that people have added photographs and often very detailed information about themselves on their trees. For instance, a contact of mine who had done huge amounts of work has added lots of information about themselves, from their job to the dates of their marriage, their date of birth (and those of partners, children and grandchildren). Clearly they have done huge amounts of work on their tree, but I think you can get too specific. This contact has even included names of maternity hospitals etc as places of birth. If someone knows the locality of this contact's home and their job, and the name of their partner I think it would be all too easy to trace them. I only add birthdates for those relatives who are dead (if I know them). My own birth information, I've confined to my town and year of birth. I've only included the town because I no longer live there. I've got no reason to get more specific because those contacts that I am related to haven't recognised my living relative's names anyway. Quite frequently, they've found a match with some distant ancestor born in 1714 or something.

OC I wouldn't mind at all if you were having a pop - I frequently post here in terms that are deliberately provocative - as Devil's Advocate, if you like - because it can make for an interesting exchange. I agree with everything that you say, but in relation to the DPA, there does seem to be a wholesale opt-out of its application to the use of personal data for private research, or recreational purposes. If there is other UK law that protects our privacy, then no one has been able to cite it. Privacy is largely an illusion: so many organisations hold huge amounts of information about us, that I really don't feel challenged by someone's knowledge that I exist, or how I relate to the rest of humanity. That applies equally to our knowledge of events in the past. We may have expended many hours in difficult research, and no small sum of money, but uncovering the facts does not make them our possession, and anyone could do the same. The irony of my agreeing with you over the wider point is that I don't share very freely any more: not particularly because of the risk to my personal privacy - I don't believe that I have much - but through the rudeness of too many members of a 'mass membership' site such as this who take my knowledge and the work that went into it too easily for granted. Courtesy is everything. It can be thin on the ground.

I have been out all afternoon, so only just caught up with this thread. Clive I promise I wasn't having a pop at YOU in particular, I just happened to be replying to your posting - I would have made the same remarks to anyone who had posted in a similar vein. In fact, you seem to be agreeing with me about the need for discretion - never mind the law - with regard to published family trees. The Data Protection Act is woolly and difficult to understand, I fully agree. As Peter points out, you can pick up people's names and addresses from a simple phone book, and while that information might identify me to you, it will not tell you when I was born, who I have (or have not) been married to, how many children I have, how much I earn, where I work, etc etc. If you were really determined to do so, you could find out many of these things for yourself about me, but many of them would cost you money and time. I am not going to put these things on a plate for you, and I am CERTAINLY not going to put the details of other living people for you to find easily, whether it is for your nefarious purposes, or just sheer noseyness. A work colleague is at the moment, taking legal proceedings against our local Council, who published his name and address on their website, in pursuit of a planning application. This resulted in a member of his family, who has severe mental health problems, tracking him down and threatening him and his family, including his children and grandchildren. It is clear from his Solicitor, that the Data Protection Act, and the Freedom of Information Act, are minefields of contradiction, which need a good shaking out - even County Councils are unsure of their obligations in this respect, so what chance do we mere mortals stand? I am clear in my own mind that I would not MORALLY be happy to publish details of living people, with or without their permission, on a website over which I have no control. I do not open my tree to anyone, as I previously said, but I did, when I first joined GR, so it is a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted for me, I am afraid. And I have since disguised all living people on my tree, so that the clever ones cannot reconstruct my living people, should they have a mind to. Paranoid? Probably - but things have happened on this Site since I first joined in such a rush of innocent enthusiasm which have made me think far more carefully about the information I give away. OC

Identity fraud is becoming more of a problem, but we should put things in perspective. Knowing someones name and address on its own is of little or no use by itself . You only have to look in the phone book to find thousands of names and addresses. To go with a name and address you need additional proof before you can get very far. It is all to do with ID & V, identification and verification. What we are talking about now is some sort of documentation to confirm the address you have lifted from the phone book. This involves the production of documents such as a passport., a recent bank statement, one or more utility bills, a driving licence, etc. By all means be cautious, but lets not get paranoid.

Hello Just got back. Well this has turned into a big issue. My original question was ' was it possible to limit details or stop at a certain year?' I was under the impression that the tree was private unless permission was given to someone to see it. I have never given permission. Before I even thought I would do that I wanted to check, as I am new to using this site. No one has ever seen my tree except family, on a print out. It seems it is not possible from what I can hear to edit the tree on GR or limit the dates so I have deleted it for now. I wouldn't presume to invade anyone's privacy. Those of the family who have seen it have been more than happy to add dates, children I have left off, cousins etc, add names birthdays etc.so in the family sense it is very relevant to put everyone on. But this is not the same as opening a tree on a public forum. And this was my concern. I have had lots of tips from here so thanks everyone. I think the site has its uses. Regards Jennifer

Actually, I have noticed that information only I knew about deceased relatives is now appearing on the International Genealogical Index on familysearch.org. For instance, my grandma is on there. She was born in 1906 so no one looking at census records would know about her existence. Imagine my surprise, therefore, at typing her name in one day and finding one Alice Rowland, born 1906 in Lincolnshire! At the moment, I have spent the past week compiling a website of my own, with my family tree information on (only including deceased relatives, I am reluctant even to add photos of living people, even childhood pictures of those relatives now in their sixties). I am passing on the website address to any Genes contacts who would like it, but will not be adding information about living relations unless they request it.

hi ann i know about the edited version and full electoral options,it is going to be interesting to what they put my details as this year ,because at the door they did not ask which full or edited. did you know the full registers are held at the libary,veiwable by all. best wishes derek

i`m lost,but always was. the biggest business in the uk is fraud,and those that make money,including govenment departments that take money for supplying personal information on the web. as a test and my preference not to vote no more,i sort of lost my electoral form.last sunday my partner answered the door, it was only them stating no records were sent and asked for who was living here. now i know benefit and housing fraud is huge in southampton,yet you don`t have them checking at their door. there is nothing you can`t really find out on the web.but i don`t remember giving 1837 or 192 and other companys permission to have my details on the web and make money from it. life is about making money,covering your back and passing the buck. best wishes derek

I think Clive is correct, the Data Protection Act is not really applicable a site such as this. GR also sidestep the issue, should anyone try to invoke the Act by making the person who posts the details the controller of the data, and therefore responsible. However as individuals who control data for their own personal enjoyment and use are generally exempt under the DPA the whole thing becomes academic. The GR rule about obtaining permission first, is also there to cover everyone in the event of a complaint as a person who has given permission can't complain. Courtesy, good manners and common sense in what you disclose or don't disclose is probably what matters.

Margaret, I have already acknowledged that it is contrary to GR rules (and a gross discourtesy) to include living individuals in a shared tree without permission; but I am raising a point specifically, and solely, about the law. And I don't share my GR tree with anyone.

Clive The 'law' being broken in putting living people on without their permission, including children, is GR Terms and Conditions. It does say not to include living people unless you have their permission to do so. Margaret

Actually, OC, I haven't misunderstood. But you suggest that the DPA does apply to a family tree. Does it? What is your authority for saying so? You ARE having a pop - which is fine - but the information in GRO indices is covered by the express statutory exemption and it is free - and given that my tree (which I dont share with anyone either!) doesn't contain even that much information, I just can't see it. If I have your name in my tree, and I have the names of your parents and any children, I have just that - names - I don't possess you, or your soul. I might not mean you anyway. Very few name combinations are unique, and I don't believe that you have a statutory right to anonymity in any case. I repeat my earlier point: this is not a matter of courtesy (I'm on your side, there), but of the law. What law - exactly - is being broken?

Clive I think you have misunderstood the point I was making. I am talking about PUBLISHED family trees, not the one in your study! The minute you open your GR tree to anyone, anyone at all, you have lost control of the information on it, and what the next person does with it. They could put it on Ancestry. LDS, their own website, anywhere at all. And believe me, I have just looked at someone's website which gives addresses, telephone numbers and email addys for all the living people on that tree. It is, I concede, a remote possibility that details of your under 16s will find their way into the clutches of a paedophile - but I certainly don't want to be the first family this happens to and I am sure you don't, either. Yes, all the 'facts' are available as a matter of public record - for a price. You have to BUY bmd certs to find out connecting details and this at least puts off the casual nosey parker. But anyone's tree is a collection of identifying information about any one individual, and it is that aspect which is covered by the Data Protection Act, the composite information which allows you to clearly identify someone without any effort or expense to yourself. I never open my GR tree to anyone and I have to say to Clive, your attitude is one of the main reasons why I don't. That is not a pop at you by any means, I know that many people share your views. I do not - and would be EXTREMELY annoyed to see details of me and and my children on some website. OC

I agree that the inclusion of children in a family tree is unlikely to result in the making of new contacts, but surely that, of itself, is no reason to exclude them. What are family trees actually for, and what do they show? They are not, except incidentally, tools to make contacts with previously unknown relatives, but statements of the relationships between the immediate family, and then the extended family. If I went to the big tree on the wall in my study with a marker pen and crossed out living members of my family, just because they were under 16, I would cause huge offence. Their inclusion has real and deep significance, because of the personal relationships that they represent, and just because that special significance is lost on a remote contact who has a long-dead ancestor in common, doesn't make any difference. Surely the wider question is when, and on what basis, it is appropriate to share such private and detailed family information with a complete stranger, even when that stranger may have some remote family connection. I hear too often the law, and particularly the Data Protection Act, bandied about as reasons not to include the living in a tree without permission. I am doubtful of the legal basis for the caveat. Certainly I am not advocating the discourtesy of including anyone in a tree which may be shared without agreement, but as for the law, I have struggled to find any direct authority to support the suggestion that to ignore someone's preference, and include anyway, is actually unlawful (rude, yes - contrary to GR policy, yes - but unlawful?). S36 of the DPA 1998 says: 'Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual's personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts II and III.' There is also a further general exemption regarding information that is available from public sources anyway. If I include the name of a real person and the vital events associated with that person taken from, say GRO indices, then am I doing anything unlawful? If I am, what law am I breaking? The fact that someone exists is a matter of public record. A date of birth, and a mother's maiden name, both taken from a family tree, may be all I need to start a process of identity fraud, and it is amazing how many organisations will breach the data protection principles by discussing your affairs with anyone who knows such obviously insecure 'security details'. Given that nearly everyone alive today will have been born after the Registrar included mother's maiden names in the index to birth registrations in 1911, if you know a man's age, you can find that information in about 10 seconds flat, and it takes only a little longer for a married woman. Secure? But what is the family historian doing that is unlawful - and what law?

Apologies to Jennifer as i didn't intend to hijack the thread, it just isn't the same place anymore and i don't think it will ever recover. Too much corporate interest involved!

I dare say a good few won't like/believe what i have said. I have had 7 weeks away from here and it is the worst i have ever seen it.I did learn everything i know from here. If i were starting now i doubt i would have anything like the interest and knowledge or the inclination to try and help and inform. Quantity makes profit, but quality makes a good site. In the pursuit of the former GR has lost the latter.

I would imagine that GR were quite happy to see most of us go away. It has boosted the takings via credits for the records they offer, (but then again this is a business not anything as simple as friendly genealogy anymore) Why anyone would want to pay for bmd is beyond me, with all the free to view options available, and not one warning in a conspicious place about the fact that they cannot guarantee that your tree is safely stored. If you send one pm during a year or they keep tree access open they have it written in the T&C that you will not be entitled to a refund of your sub even if the site was closed forever. Pay up, shut up, stitched up.

OC and Glen Same here. My subs run out in April, I won't be renewing.

I can only agree with you Glen. I am only still here because I still have nine month's sub to run - I do not expect to get anything useful in that time. OC