GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-04 > 1145654662


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA Project Conscription
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:24:22 -0600
References: <BKEPIIDHHKEPCMDIEBKBGEEBDAAA.andrew.en.inge@skynet.be>


I am not a project administrator. If I were, I'd only display individual
haplotypes with supplementary information about the donor's ancestry with
the explicit permission of the donors. If I were SMGF administrator and
started to see individual haplotypes from that database showing up in
Ysearch with explicit code numbers and the supplementary pedigree
information attached (and no donor OK), I'd be concerned and maybe pull the
plug on my public site. And also if I saw the haplotypes showing up
(without the OK of the donors) in surname projects, I'd be similarly
concerned. That's all I was saying.

Ken


----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew and Inge" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 3:07 PM
Subject: [DNA] DNA Project Conscription


> Dear Ken
>
> Perhaps I misunderstand your point then. I thought you were taking a
> principled position that *even if* it might be silly to be worried about
> the
> difference between SMGF and ysearch privacy levels, and *even if* a person
> has volunteered to put genealogical information on the internet, you would
> always take avoid making their highly accessible data in any way more
> accesible without permission --- Which in this case (SMGF) is literally
> being made impossible to get, for reasons which are not easily able to be
> comprehended.
>
> I have always thought of myself as helping the people involved whenever I
> have collected information from various sources including SMGF, Ysearch
> and
> other projects and put it together for them in an effort to help
> genealogy.
> (Many projects contain fascinating information that just needs to be
> unlocked - and people *want* that to be done.) I've always felt that by
> keeping the public version of that data to a vague minimum and then giving
> an e-mail address, I avoid any major ethical dilemmas. It seems to me that
> you have now stated that my webpages are unethical and that it would be
> *silly* to even compare the morality of this to your type of data-mining?
> That's a fairly hard line.
>
> I have thought quite a lot about the ethics of Genetic Genealogy and as an
> adminstrator of several projects I try to avoid making anything to easy to
> access without careful discussion with at least *representatives* of the
> families involved. Nevertheless, as you know, I do post SMGF extractions
> in
> limited ways.
>
> Though I have only ever received compliments for this, I quite honestly do
> think that if there was someone worried about my approach, they will also
> feel uncomfortable with your type of data mining. And if we should respect
> their opinions, like you pretend to, then... call it silly if you want
> but...
>
> I think that genealogy itself is the source of moral dilemmas (even before
> the internet and DNA testing). It always has been. When you take up
> genealogy you will always annoy someone and it has always been that way
> because genealogy requires a particular attitude towards knowledge and
> privacy. The boy who tracked down his biological family last year was
> doing
> precisely what genealogists have always tried to do with whatever forms of
> evidence they had available.
>
> We should not kid ourselves that everyone agrees with us genealogists.
> Many
> find *us* silly, and we disagree with them.
>
> Regards
> Andrew
>
>
> ===
> From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
> Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA Project Conscription
> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 14:30:59 -0600
> References: <>
>
>
> Your question is not only in good humour, it is silly and doesn't warrant
> a
> good humoured answer.
>
>
> ==============================
> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:
> http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx
>
>



This thread: