TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2005-12 > 1135776756


From: "Richard Pence" <>
Subject: Printing and Privacy [Long!]
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 08:32:36 -0500


I have not participated in this list before, but I recently learned that
there has been a long thread on the above topic, a favorite of mine.

Before I express some opinions on parts of the discussion, here is how I
approach "publishing and privacy":

I do a one-name study on the PENCE surname. It is my goal to collect and
share information about any and all of that name (and some variant
spellings). I don't put information about living persons on line for a
couple of reasons, neither of which is related to "privacy rights." The
first one is that I am trying to help people find their ANCESTORS, not their
living cousins, of whom they already probably know or can easily find out.
So including living persons is of little value. The second reason is that
some people are quite paranoid about having information about themselves put
on the Internet. With a nod to a respect for their wishes - but mostly to
avoid a hopeless argument about who has what rights in this matter - I just
avoid the issue by not posting something I don't think is really helpful in
any event.

However, I fully intend to provide information about living people in a
Pence book I am working on - if they are within the scope of the book they
will be included even if they are still living. Fifty or 100 years from now
their descendants will be glad I did!

Following are a few thoughts on what has been said by others in this thread.

1. I have some problems with the National Genealogical Society's "Standards
for Sharing Information." It speaks of an individual's "legal rights to
privacy" and by so doing suggests that individuals have the legal right to
demand that such information as their vital statistics not be published. To
my knowledge, there is no such right by legislation - nor is there such a
thing as a _constitutional_ right to privacy. (Some legal writers suggest,
however, that the concept of "the legal right to privacy" is one of the
things that came about as a consequence of the Supreme Court decision in
Rowe v Wade.)

There is a book that got me started in genealogy nearly 50 years ago. It was
written by a distant Pence cousin who had made his fortune in real estate.
As he had no children, he decided his legacy to the family would be a
chronicle of the descendants of his grandfather (my third
great-grandfather). He traveled throughout the United States visiting
families and gathering information on each of the 16 children of his
grandfather and his grandfather's three wives. In 1912 he published his book
which essentially listed each descendant of the grandfather, his or her
vital stats, religion, politics and address.

This book is cherished by family members who have a copy and is the key to
unlocking many genealogical puzzles. But had the author followed the
standards espoused by the NGS there would have been little information in
the book, for nearly all of the descendants were still living. At best it
would have been a mish-mash of those who gave permission and those whose
life would be summed up with the word "living."

Also, it seems a bit incongruous for the Society to tell us not to publish
vital records of living persons when it steadfastly is battling (what may be
a losing cause) to close birth and other vital records for 100 years.

2. The following point was made in one of the messages:

> You have a valid point, but by publishing information about living
> people you make it much easier for someone of ill intent to obtain
> all the information they need in one handy-dandy location. That is
> why most of us restrict the publication of information of living folks.

This argument is often made, but there seems to be no basis in fact to
support it. Several years ago an article in the _Wall Street Journal_
claimed that privacy experts had testified before a Congressional
subcommittee to the effect that on-line genealogical information is exactly
what criminals are looking for in order for them to steal someone else's
identity. One of these so-called experts was quoted in the article and I was
able to track him down - he had a web site which, among other things, gave
his own birth date and family information. By email I first learned that
contrary to the clear implication that his remarks were made before a
subcommittee, the Journal reporter had interviewed her over the phone. In a
subsequent emails I asked him to tell me just how criminals would use
genealogical information in their crimes. His response was that "this is the
type of information they need." To do what, I persisted, and asked for any
examples of actual cases. He gave no further explanation except that his
"for instance" was that the Social Security death index was a gold mine for
crooks. That did it for me. This expert, who was a lawyer and gave lectures
on electronic privacy all over the world, couldn't provide a single instance
where on-line genealogical information had been involved in any illegal
activity and - worse - he didn't even know that the primary users of the
Social Security Death Index is not eager genealogists but eager financial
institutions, which use it to - guess what? - detect the crooks who are
trying to use the SS numbers of deceased persons!

[It is worth noting why this issue was raised in the subcommittee: An
Indiana congressman had received a letter from a constituent complaining
that someone had included information on her family in a submission to one
of the on-line genealogical databases. As a consequence, the Congressman
started asking those testifying on privacy issues about the posting of such
information.]

3. This comment also appeared in the thread:

> Heard too many stories (and yes I know from first hand
> experience that several of them are true) about information
> posted on web sites being used to harass, stock and otherwise
> harm women and children. Not to mention, the potential for
> identify theft of virtually anyone.

I have been an on-line participant for nearly 20 years. Each time I see a
statement such as the above, I try to find exact details (and I have done so
this case). In the past I have never been able to learn of a documented
instance of illegal misuse of on-line genealogical data. Perhaps this is the
time I will be able to learn something about how this material is such a
boon to criminals.

In an earlier message, Drew Smith mentioned some of the statistics I have
posted about "identity theft." It turns out that 96 percent of all of what
is styled as "identity theft" results from lost or stolen credit cards,
checkbooks or phone credit cards. The percentage of identity theft
attributed to electronic information is less than 1 percent and that is
apparently the result of hackers messing with financial institution
computers. Incidentally, not one question in the survey which gave the
Federal Trade Commission its statistics on "identity theft" included the
words "identity theft." The survey asked if the person had suffered
financial loss as a result of a lost or stolen credit card, check book, etc.
If the respondent answered "yes," then the FTC counted this as a case of
"identity theft." A bit of a slippery slope, but many respectable
publications have quoted the FTC's claim that 20-some odd million persons
were the victims of "identity theft" in a three-year period.

4. There seems to be ample paranoia among some who use the Internet. They
adopt false or non-names and grunge their return addresses. And they scream
mightily if someone dares to include information about them in a posted
genealogy. This has always struck me as a little strange because it is
futile for genealogists to try to ignore information about living persons.
The simple fact is that the information is already out there somewhere. Your
birth date is likely already on the Internet. Your address, too. And your
phone number. Perhaps even the names of your parents, as in the on-line
California Birth Index. Crooks really don't need access on-line genealogical
material. There are much better sources for this information. And if it's
not on line, you can get it elsewhere. Did you know, for example, that
anyone can obtain at modest cost the voter lists (printed or on computer
tape) for most precincts in the U.S. These come with the full name, address,
phone number (even unlisted ones), date of birth and other information about
each voter. The law making these records public is to help guard against
voter fraud.

5. There is a school of thought that suggests it is OK to have freedom of
information if you have to go to the court house or city hall or write for
it to get it, but it is not all right if the county or the city puts this
same information on the web. There is, for example, a group here in Virginia
whose goal is to prevent local governments from putting details about a
home's tax assessment on line even though the law says this is public
information and must be made available to all citizens.

I have often mulled the question that arises from this kind of thinking: Is
it possible to make records public and then specify that they can't be made
so public that they are available on the Internet? This has always struck me
as a bit like the old joke about being "just a little bit pregnant." It
seems to me that, as with the joke, either one is pregnant or one is not and
either a record is public or it is not. Trying to keep public records off
the Internet is akin to trying to herd cats - it can't be done easily if at
all.

So - each time a genealogist advocates that people have the _legal right_ to
demand that you not include their vital statistics, legally obtained from
public records, in your on-line database, that genealogist is unwittingly
calling for the closure of such public records. I suggest, then, that the
right approach is to select a personal policy you are comfortable with and
proceed without making an issue over who has what rights.

To post or not to post. To print or not to print. Those are the questions
for many genealogists - but in the final analysis it really doesn't make
much difference how you decide. Most of our arguments on one side or the
other are hardly relevant. People really don't have any right to keep
information about themselves off line or out of printed material. Not only
that, but like it or not the information is probably out there already. And,
as much as some people try to frighten us with mentions of how unsavory
crooks are just sitting there waiting for us to make a mistake and include
the birth date of some living person so they can use that information to
commit either fraud or rape, there is - to this point - no credible evidence
that any criminal has EVER used a bit of genealogical material in the
commission of a crime. (Ah, but it _could_ happen, you say. Maybe so, but if
your concern is to protect people by legislating against what _MIGHT_
happen, then I suggest you start by outlawing cars. Not only MIGHT someone
be injured or killed in an auto accident, we know it happens every day. What
we don't know is whether on-line genealogical information has ever been
involved in the commission of a crime. It would be downright silly to
legislate against something that has never been shown to happen while
ignoring the mayhem on the highways.)

In summary, I suggest that it matters little who is "right" on this issue.
Do what you think is reasonable (noncombative) with the knowledge that your
decision probably won't affect anyone either positively or negatively.

Richard A. Pence
3211 Adams Ct.
Fairfax, Virginia 22030-1900
Voice 703-591-4243 / Fax 703-352-3560
Pence Family History <www.pipeline.com/~richardpence/>


This thread: