SOUTH-AFRICA-L ArchivesArchiver > SOUTH-AFRICA > 2006-11 > 1164859735
From: Delia Robertson <>
Subject: Re: [SOUTH-AFRICA] Same sex marriages.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 06:08:55 +0200
References: <018d01c7127e$ee3553c0$6401a8c0@fm01><456BE0C4.31276.3B409374@localhost><firstname.lastname@example.org><00dd01c71372$041ce330$0aceef9b@emjayxp> <456D2082.email@example.com><008901c7139b$3dae9a20$6401a8c0@Anderson> <firstname.lastname@example.org><002301c713bb$1b7b0e50$6401a8c0@Anderson>
Hello again Ralph,
I was speaking specifically of the living and especially of the internet.
Just because we do family research it gives us no rights over people,
their lives and their personal information.
I am all for the truth, which is why I said I record everything; but in
publishing that we have to respect the privacy (and feelings) of living
individuals. I will not publish sensitive information about a living
person without their permission, unless it was already in the public
domain like a high profile criminal trial or equivalent; I will not
including biographical information about living people on the internet;
in most instances I would not include the gory details of a divorce of a
living person or their deceased parents, and so on.
As I said before, it is about respect. And, these days, it is also
about security. Identity theft is one the fastest growing crimes,
including in South Africa.
> And I have a question. Is there a way that genealogists can approach
> specific software compamiies to make better provision in family programs
> for the difficulties now facing us?
That depends on the software company. Some creates opportunities for
feedback and suggestions from users - and develop their product
accordingly. Others do not.
Ralph Anderson wrote:
> Then Delia, many of us are vulnerable. There's bound to be someone who could
> object to information published about people dead or alive with whom they
> would not like their family to be associated. Must skeletons in the cupboard
> never be revealed? I think not. We seek the truth and it must be out. But
> perhaps some form of indemnity clause is the answer even though it is
> not always infallible.
> By the way, what about my question to you?