Genealogy Chat

I came into this site fairly casually, and discovered that I, and all relatives of my generation or older whose names I can recall, living and dead, are listed on one person's tree. So I joined up and paid the fee, initially out of curiosity to find out who this unknown person was who appeared to be related to me. Some of the names concerned are very unusual, so I have absolutely no doubt that it is me and my family that are included, and not just a coincidence. That was two weeks ago. So far, I've sent out two polite emails simply in attempt to make contact, but I'm now starting to feel very uncomfortable about this whole situation. I'm not a genealogy hobbyist, and I don't want to spoil someone's tree, but I feel that a real enthusiast would have responded, if for no other reason than to make contact with a relative. I've read some of the other threads about the guidelines on living relatives, and also the site rules on the matter, and am very close to requesting GR to remove all living names that I have identified on this tree, including my own. But first I would like to ask opinions on this. Is it appropriate for someone to have included these names? Is two weeks too short a time to give him to respond? Would it be unreasonable of me to report him, given that the information being made public is fairly limited. My concern is that I don't know who he has opened up access to, and exactly how much information he has stored. Thanks in advance.

Hi Elizabeth I don't think that it would be at all unreasonable for you to ask GR to remove your name and that of other living relatives that you've found. Of course, it's possible that the member concerned is no longer active on this site, but that's still no excuse for him to have put details of living people on here without their permission. If he is still active, then it's his loss if he hasn't even had the courtesy to reply to someone who is obviously linked to his tree. I keep my tree on Family Tree Maker software, then upload the data to this site via a Gedcom. Before creating the Gedcom, I always ''privatise'' the data, so that birthdates & birthplaces of any possibly living people are removed. That way, although the name still appears in a name search, there are no identifying details (date and place appear blank on this site). This seems to me to be a reasonable compromise between having a ''complete'' tree and respecting the privacy of living relatives. Richard

Elizabeth, give the person some more time to respond to your emails before drastic measures but in your email headings indicate your relationship, your unhappiness. In the contents ask them to put 'living' surname and point out that it could cause your family problems. Then if no answer is forthcoming ask for GR to act on your behalf. In my early days (3 yrs ago), I had no idea that the names I was putting with such difficulty on my tree were appearing elsewhere. It sounds stupid but I didn't explore the message boards or use the search facility the way I do now and so had no notion of how it worked. Giving the person, who is happily using the site as a private repositary, the benefit of the doubt gives them a bit more time to sort out whatever is happening and then indicate that you are going to act and do it. They also could have an email problem that has choked their system and they have shut down. Try another week and you MAY have a new relatve who has information which will help your own family history search. I hope so anyway! Good luck! Jill

The rules of this sitr as i understand them are, you must get the persons permission before entering their details. Ask GR to remove your names etc Good luck Rodney

If you find only the names are on this site, chances are that the person that put them on the site used a family tree package that lets you privatise the records, this then removes the birth date and birth place from veiw. I would be far more worried if the date and/or place of birth were listed as it shows the inputer has no consideration at all or has not taken notice that anyone can see alot of you tree information without seeing your tree.

Elizabeth, I wouldn't wait if I were you - 2 weeks is long enough. Adding names of the living is in contravention of the rules of the site, let alone the 'game'! It is probably just someone's mistake than anything more sinister. Incidentally, have you ever tried 'googling' for your own name on the internet? It can be most revealing and indicates what info is readily available about you! Kind regards Jane

Thanks to you all for the very fast responses. In my own case, the displayed information is minimal and probably of little use to a third party, as I no longer use my birth name and don't live in the UK. But there is more information showing against my sister than she would be comfortable with, and against my cousins with the unusual names. So I've alerted GR and asked for them to take action. Jane - Yes, I have googled, and it's always fascinating, especially to find your namesakes. I am visible on the web, but only in places where I was responsible for or gave permission for the information to be published. Lunar - birth year was shown for some of the living people, although not my own.

Nudge

It's not very good of the chap to name recent people but possibly has come across your names not knowing Status of living and added to tree. Hope the guys not just on holiday But you are probably doing the right thing it may wake him up to reply!. Good luck anyway. I have a limited part of my family tree on Genes since I am warry of down loading my tree package just for the reason of filtering out some of the information or not listing living family unless permission agreed. It makes it rather tedious typing it all again is there anywhere to get help with this? I have 'Family Historian 2.1'

Susan - not sure about Family Historian, but most genealogical programs have a way to create a privatised Gedcom file. Search the helpfile for ''privatize''. If not, then you can download a free program called GedClean, which will do the trick on your Gedcom file: http://www.raynorshyn(.)com/gedclean/ Richard

Susan - Good question! I also have Family Historian 2.1, but are you aware you can upgrade the software? I bought 2.1 but now running 2.3 because I have downloaded the upgrades from their website (free of charge). New version has some nice little extra reports. The website is www(.)family-historian(.)co(.)uk At the moment I don't know how to privatize a GED file. I made a copy of the GED file and in within the copy file I sorted by date and then knocked out all the living relatives to upload it here. Tedious though. I was not aware that there might be a facility within the software package itself! Will have to check it out.

Genealogy Etiquette on Genes ReUnited require that permission is gained before details of living persons are listed here. Perhaps the person responsible is not aware of this. It was some months before I discovered the terms and conditions of the site the link to which which appears on the bottom of all pages in a miniscule font. If the person is a 'standard member' or has not renewed subscription s/he may receive your messages but is unable to reply to them. If you are concerned ask GE to remove the offending information. Genealogical etiquette outside GR is down to the individual. Some restrict their listings to dead folk, some adopt the publish and be damned approach, taking the view that the information they have collated is already freely available in the public arena. I can't say that I would be too concerned about my family details appearing on a tree, but it would be nice to be asked. What really concerns me about GR is how people fall over themselves to assist enquirers track down living people, with no apparent checks or safeguards. I could come here calling myself Mary from Clacton, tell a heartbreaking story of family breakup, dying mum, long lost sister Annie Wilson,born 1960, married name Frobisher who was last seen in 1986 at 26 Back Street, Wimbledon. when in fact I am Annie's ex-husband Mad Dog Frobisher just released from gaol for attempting to murder her and now wanting to finish the job. dave

This topic comes up at least every two weeks and always sparks some controversy. The are a number of issues here:- In order to ensure that they do not fall foul of the Data Protection Act, G Re-U quite correctly make it part of the T's and C's that living person's information is not posted without their consent. The reason for this is that on of the underlying principles of the DPA is that where consent has been given to make use of data, then there is no case to answer for, so by agreeing to the T's and C's when you sign up, you also give your consent to the way they may handle your personal data. You therefore become responsible under the DPA for the data that you have entered onto the site, not G Re-U Ok so far? The next problem arises if and when you allow another to see your tree:- As you already have permission from all living persons to have their data on G Re-u by giving access to another they must also have permission to use this information, and add it to their tree on the same site. There is also the issue of 'Intellectual Copyright' and by this I mean all the time and effort, thinking and logical deduction that you might have put into researching your tree. Again once you allow others access to this informaion you may well be deemed to have given implied consent for it to be used by them. Some may not agree with the way information is used, irrespective of whether or not anyone has broken any rules, and this is where there is a letout clause. If you or indeed any one with an interest wish to withdraw permission, then advise the person concerned to delete the information. If they refuse, then G Re-u will do it for you. Finally, common courtesy. If you wish to use someone elses information and here we are including the intellectual property rights to all the research that might have been done, as well as information about the living, then it is only right that you ask first, rather than just going ahead.

Just a quick reply to Peter re: intellectual property rights. By allowing someone to view your tree DOES NOT give them the right to appropriate research - there is no implied consent to copy. Just because you can borrow a book from a library does not give you permission to photocopy the entire publication. To reproduce material from someone else's tree you should always seek permission first from the copyright owner.

Lesley I can just about see why you are upset but you're on very weak ground if you argue that you have copyright of the facts appearing in your tree. There may be stronger grounds. Denis