General Chat

What I thought........

No-one has the right to list LIVING people on a public website (which includes GR) without permission, it's an invasion of privacy.

I was using the GR search facility, and eventually entered my own name and OH's name.......... I'm not properly listed on anyone's tree, but my husband is!

I have sent a contact message to the owner, asking how he got this information.

If he responds, I will ask him (nicely) to remove the information. If he doesn't respond, I will ask GR to remove it.

A few years ago, someone in OH's family produced a booklet about the family; a lot of the information was incorrect (ie, they made me 10 years younger, and born in the wrong country). I really wish people who made these books would let people know that it is not right to list living people on websites.



:-| :-| :-|

Don't you want to be 10 yrs younger?

I wouldn't mind. lol

:-)

I've had a response from the member, and I've asked him to remove OH's name.

I can't wait to tell OH how this person got his details. :-0

I've had to do that a few times. With a 'not too common' surname, I occasionally put just the surname in the search engine to check.
There's one person in particular who I have to keep on asking. They'll remove it - then put it back on again :-|

Edit: Someone has me and my siblings on their tree - but also notice my sister has her own full name on here (silly billy). She's never been a member, and must have put it on when the site first started.

I've had the same Maggie.

I was shocked to find my own name listed, and my siblings! Very shocked, as they're not on my GR tree.

I contacted the member, who gave me access to his tree...... he had four generations of my family! I can't remember the exact connection, but it was vague... something like his gg uncle married a woman whose brother married one of my gg aunts. Fair enough to have my gg aunt and her parents etc, but he didn't need me!

I asked him to remove some (living people) names and he got really nasty..... so I asked GR to "have a word". I asked him many times, but he never told me how he got the names.... which makes me very careful now, as to who I give information to.

Why anyone would want hundred of people on their tree that they are not related to is crazy.

I am in 3 trees on here....2 belonging to my daughter and 1 belonging to my ex.

I would rather not be on them as I don't have myself or my parents in my tree....bit difficult asking them to remove me :-D

My Ancestry tree does not contain anyone born after 1920 even if it does say private....apart from myself and my parents.

I found OH on a tree on here and asked him if he knew who she was....he didn't know her... and after finding she had a tree on ancestry worked out she was connected back at his gt grandmother...but not that close that she should include him his two ex wives plus his sons

I have asked him if he wants me to ask her to remove his family.....but he is not bothered.....so they can stay :-(

Personally I cannot see the problem. All the information is out there, anyone can access it.

If someone was really determined to find me, it may take a while due to the fact that online I use 3 different surnames!!! Maiden, Married and Paternal Grandmothers. But with a little perserverance they would suceed.

The owner of the tree has been very nice, OH's name is not listed now.

I often search for both our names, mainly because we were the victims of identity theft a few years ago. It wasn't a nice experience.

A total stranger somehow got my husband's full name and date of birth....... did a few strange things, including registering a car! Then an idiot at the DMV changed ALL our records to the stranger's address.. which didn't exist! The DMV refused to give us any information, so we had to get the Privacy Commissioner involved. This took months to sort out.... and that was only ONE of the organisations we had to contact.

LS


I've told this story several times


a second cousin of mine started a One Name Study and posted it on the One Name Study Group site.


Some time in the early 2000s, he arranged a meeting of people with that surname, and put together a CD of all his information.

One of his aunts in Australia got hold of that CD .................. like me, they knew nothing about the meeting before it took place.


They passed that CD on to me into 2006.




My father was shown as the child of my grandfather .......... fine



BUT



the next generation showed my brother as married to my mother, and me as their child

Father had disappeared



The names and birth dates were all correct .......... and ignored the fact that at the time I was born, my mother was 35 and her "husband" was 10 :-D



I tried and tried to get him to respond to me ................ but he never did, and eventually removed the whole study from the ONSG


I do know why, which is another story of skulduggery in genealogy!




I've since been in contact with an American lady, who now considers herself the guardian of the name, although it is her husband who is the descendant, and she has assured me that the information is now correct in the "files"


Unfortunately, there are an unknown number of cds around with that wrong information ....................


and an unknown number of trees with the wrong information.



I truly and honestly have not tried to check every single flipping tree on here, ancestry or anywhere else!



Also, unfortunately, the American "guardian" is also one of those who takes information from other trees ............................ and also does not always hide living persons.

Dazed - my brothers weren't born in Britain - actually she has their place of birth wrong - so has got the info from a third (wrong) party!!!

There are an awful lot of wrong trees out there for my family :-D

Sylvia ~ I've found some real doozies on other trees.

Many of my family members emigrated (waaaaay back), and I'm in touch with distant cousins all over the world..... they're not all Mormons!

One of these cousins is the descendant of my 2xgreat-grand-uncle. She sent me a huge file on her family (by snail mail!). She told me there had been a great family gathering of his descendants, which she attended with her parents & siblings.... they met the woman who considered herself the "family historian", she had made a booklet for everyone.

By then, my cousin knew the correct name of the place her ancestor was born (I don't understand why people can't look at a map!), and tried to give the woman the correct info, but she wasn't interested........ then cousin told her the details she had for a certain man weren't right...... he didn't die on that date..... woman got stroppy..... said she was right....... cousin told her she was wrong...... because... "That's my father, and he's standing over there" !!!!

:-)

:-D :-D :-D

:-D :-D :-D :-D

And as I have said before, my oldest sister was married to a man born in 1723, despite the fact that her father (and mine) was not b until 1899. Totally innumerate, the hundreds of owners of those trees. :-|

my great aunt and her husband married in Lancashire, and emigrated to Newark, NJ, in November 1902.



I found her on a tree on ancestry ............................ with children born before 1820 :-0


The guy did immediately remove them from his tree when I contacted him :-)



But it was a very strange coincidence ......................... the parents he was looking for had the same names as my great aunt and uncle, had married in the same town in Lancashire, and emigrated to Newark, NJ


He just had not looked closely at the dates when he got the "leaf tip".

Many problems with errors are actually down to Ancestry themselves and it has got far worse sine their latest upgrade which now attempts to show additional matching records in real time as you gradually add information to your tree. Problem is that even one small bit of inaccurate data can generate a whole list of possible records and the problem can quickly escalate out of control.

Far too many people are simply taking things at face value without checking further. As Sylvia and others have stated many times, even the obvious gets overlooked. When challenged, one person even told me it must be correct because Ancestry said so and had the source record to prove it...!

It is obvious that many trees are simply copied from others, repeating the same errors, and wrong source details and so the problem goes on. The problem is probably far more widespread than many may realise and I can expect to find at least one howler each time I have an on-line research session.

At one time I used to send a message to the tree owner, pointing out the error, and offering what I believed was the correct information. However 9 out of 10 of these messages are ignored. These days, If I feel strongly, I add a comment to the persons tree so at least others thinking of copying it can be forewarned.

Getting back to the OP's point, in many jurisdictions, other than the fact it is bad form, there is no specific law preventing an individual from quoting details of living persons on genealogy sites where that information can be readily found in the public domain.

Fortunately sites such as GR do have a living persons policy and are prepared to intervene if the other member fails to remove names when requested.

I don't know about other countries, but in Australia it comes under the Privacy Act.

LS


I think it does in most countries

However, it seems that many sites do not actively control the publishing of such information.


Ancestry does automatically change the designation of a named person born within the last 100 years for whom there is no death date ...................... the entry is changed automatically to Private


GR will do it if you notify them that there is a Living person named in a tree.



But just think of all the personal information that is posted on here, on FB, Twitter, etc etc



and there are several genealogical sites on FB, which will not be well controlled.

I rarely look at Facebook, never thought of looking there for genealogical sites (I know GR is there).

If I find my living relatives on GR I contact the member and ask them to remove the names. Most people have been very nice, and removed the names.

The Australian Privacy Legislation looks very similar to the Data Protection Act we have here as it is concerned with the fair use, management and disclosure of personal data held by agencies, private sector businesses and certain not-for profit organisations.

It does not, apparently, cover individuals acting in their own capacity so legally, if not morally, you can seemingly put who you want in your tree.