ROOTS-L Archives

Archiver > ROOTS > 2008-01 > 1199244772


From: "Scott R. C. Anderson" <>
Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] Family Trees on line - An invasion of Privacy?
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 22:32:52 -0500 (EST)


Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 16:31:23 -0700
From: "Kith-n-Kin" <>
> And, the "general rule" for on-line genealogy databases is "no living
> people" (except yourself, if you like) and, most of us use the "1930 rule"
> for those whose deaths may not be known. If they were born before 1930, they
> are on the 1930 census, and therefore "out there."
>
> BTW, all, please don't tell me there is no "general rule" -- it's like
> common sense, perhaps not as common as we would like!

Since I have relatives that are 90+ years old, I don't publish anyone's information, even who their parents are, unless I know they have passed on, or I have their actual or approximate date of birth being 100+ years ago. They may show up in the 1930 census (or they may not for a number of reasons), but that doesn't mean their information is readily accessible, and it doesn't correlate automatically to place of birth, current location, married name, spouse, children, etc., which all of us like to put together in one neat package.

And the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of organizations out there who are building detailed profiles on everyone they can manage (yes, hundreds of millions of people), which they then turn around and sell to others for marketing purposes and even government spying. They are pleased as punch when an errant cousin provides them with a chunk of ready-to-use data, even if that doesn't include dates.

Many people over the age of 30 may have given their information thinking it was going nowhere but to their curious nephew. They aren't expecting it to be published on-line for millions of people to see. Of course, quite a bit of information is now being published on-line through people's own actions, e.g. obituaries and other announcements, so some perspective is necessary. Times have been changing rapidly, so I hesitate to call being careful with your own information a matter of "common sense" -- but eventually it probably will be.

Personally I find it's just a lot easier to follow the only-if-deceased rule, so if I were in Vicki's shoes I would definitely take that information down and apologize. The living are known to their near relatives and don't need to be in these charts.

Scott R. C. Anderson


This thread: