I have found my personal information (yes, I'm still living) on someone else's personal family tree. I do not want my personal information listed. What can I do?

In short- nothing.

Way too many americans confuse personal information ( dates/places of birth, marriage, etc) with private information ( Social Security number, credit card number, bank account number, etc.)

You can ask that the person remove it but it will be their call to make.

The proper etiquette for researchers is NOT to include living peoples information in what they post to the Internet. Did you see this on One World Tree? Try contacting the database submitter if that doesn't work contact Ancestry. It may take time but in many cases it can be removed.

Much of the time this OneWorldTree thing will not display a submitters name, e mail address or way to get in touch. If this came from Rootsweb, there might be a postem option. If it came from an Ancestry Tree, there usually is not. However, depending on where you live, your personal information is already out there on the web whether you want it there or not. If your telephone number is in a telephone book, your name and number and address are there for the taking. If you were born in Texas as I was, your birth date is displayed on public records. Trying to keep your name out of public view is a losing battle these days. If your social Security number and/or bank account number are not displayed, there is very little likelihood, that your identity will be stolen. As others have indicated, there appears to be no instance where a persons identity has been stolen by having their name displayed on someone's tree. On the other hand, I thought that living persons were not displayed with data unless the person viewing the data is an invitee. Maybe I am wrong about that but that was what I had read. Those who do display yours or any other living persons name on their public tree should have the courtesy to delete it once they are requested to do so.

Well, if the living filters for any of the databases that comprise OWT have sufficient information to identify the living they will be cleaned--but that is often problem with many of the WorldFamilytree (FTM) databases that just have "WFT estimated" dates. Also--most of the databases that lack submitter contact info are the WFT trees. MOST RootsWeb databases have submitter contact info but don't forget that some of the submitters are now deceased or unable to respond.

But, as you note, there really isn't much of an issue of just a name and limited public info being "out there" in a tree--I'd only worry if something really private like my social security or bank account numbers were in the file--and if that was the case you could get it removed by staff.

Joan

I say try to have it removed even if it is just name and a few other fields. What others saying is also true, mentioning that other sites are out there with personal identifiable information on them, at least those are information sharing businesses. When it is just another citizen like you and me posting our information on the Internet, especially without permission, I say it is something to be concerned about!

Err- the point is that no one (be they a common citizen or a company) *needs* the permission of another person to publish that person's personal information (verses their private information) on the internet.

I get your point. My point is it doesn't make it right. It also doesn't follow proper genealogy etizuette.

Don't you get it do you?

There *is* no right or wrong in this matter-period.

There is neither a world standard for "proper genealogical etiquette" nor a body with the authority to devise and/or enforce one.

I certainly do not want Ancestry nor any other genealogy web site trying to enforce what I add to my tree as long it as subject matter and/or photos are not derogatory or something that could be viewed as porographic. Just imagine what kind of things that would cause.

I am disappointed that it seems several of you think it is OK to add living people information to online databases. I have observed that several genealogical societies around the world make specific reference to maintaining living individual privacy where at all possible.

Let me add to that when a mistake happens and it is displayed by the website is the problem. I too add my whole database and I always make private living individuals. Not making private living individuals in my mind is unethical. Unless you get the OK to get the O.K.

That you do so is fine...

What is *not* fine is to try and make *your* ethical standards apply to others and imply they are wrong if they don't do as you do.

It is not just mine, but many of the genealogical societies of the world. It is a recommended action to take not just by me. Do not make this about me, because it is not!

The point is that those genealogical societies can make all the recommendations they want- they have no standing to set policies, procedures, guidelines, or whatever for anyone except their own membership.

If the states like Texas, North Carolina, and others aren't concerned about putting out info on living persons then why should anyone else be?

You can find birth, marriage, divorce, etc. records for Texas all over the place. I was born in Texas in 1938 and my cousins children are listed with parents names, etc. Nothing wrong with that at all. Social security numbers are not displayed except when someone is deceased. Birth certificates are being displayed on Footnote.com for Texas as well. I found 2 for my first cousin. Trying to hide information these days is an exercise in futility. If you do not want your name and birthdate shown, contact the people whose member trees are showing it but don't expect them to change it. For myself, I would, but as I said, it is an exercise in futility now a days. People who display incorrect information usually will not change anything either. Just put the correct information out there and hope for the best.

I guess each researcher individual will do what they feel is right. My hope is that one day in near future APGEN will adopt a code of ethics if not already done so dealing with this type of information handling.

Even the APGEN can't write an enforcable world standard.

Personal information is not private information.
Don't confuse the two or let others confuse them.

As the original poster of this inquiry, I'm going to weigh in. I, too, wish there was a standard for dealing with living person's information -- it's the ethical thing to do.

I also understand the difference between personal and private information, but it doesn't make it right to have someone unknown to me put my *personal* information (sometimes even incorrect information) in a public forum without my permission -- or at least a way to contact the submitter.

I appreciate (& enjoy) the debate on this issue.

Roxanne-

It may not make it right right but it certainly doesn't make it wrong either.

Ethics are based on cultural standards and until there is only one culture in the world there will never be one ethical standard.

Do you feel that personal information on Felons and child molesters - including their addressee - should not be put on public forums?

Exactly the same principle is involved.

That is a big stretch comparing law abiding citizens to felons and child molesters even if it is only on a privacy related matter. This information is public for public safety. I don't what kind of safety can be obtained from taking a nonchalent approach to living peoples personal information.

I know from related EXPERIENCE that Ancestry.com WILL remove entries from One World Tree if an individual is living and have information that is on the uploaded GedComs and there is no way to contact the database submitter.

It should not have to come to this. As responsible genealogists we should get permission from distant relatives before we post their information if it is to be displayed on our web page trees and if it is brought up that information was erroneously transmitted online it should be taken down. It is just the right thing to do.

It really *isn't that much of a stretch-

After all, a great many have served their time and are off probation and, according to almost everyone, must be considered innocent until proven guilty of any future crime and thus they *are* ( or at least logically should be considered) law-abiding citizens- so why the double standard?

I'll say it one more time...
There *is* no right or wrong in posting personal information in a public forum- except in the mind of the poster.

I will also say one more time that; despite that, it comes down to what we each individually feel is the right thing to do when handling personal information. I believe and a large number of genealogical societies also encourage this as well that ethically is it correct to get consent before publishing personal information of living individuals online. Furthermore, if a mistake is made and an individual contacts the database submitter there should be no argument that the information should be corrected so that it is not displayed.

There is too much identify theft in today's world to take a nonchalent approach to the display of living individual's online.

[QUOTE]
well that ethically is it correct to get consent before publishing personal information of living individuals online.
[UNQUOTE]

*sigh*

My whole point is that you simply can *not* make a blanket statement like that. It isn't true now, hasn't been true in the past, and probably never will be true in the future.

Identity theft is real, granted; but it is much more likely to be a freind, relative, or a salesclerk that steals it that someone trolling online genealogy pages.

AGHatchett3rd wrote: "After all, a great many have served their time and are off probation and, according to almost everyone, must be considered innocent until proven guilty of any future crime and thus they *are* ( or at least logically should be considered) law-abiding citizens- so why the double standard?"

This is a very good description of what occurs at Ancestry.com. Ancestry.com has no ethic. They are, at this time, the last enforcer (in this context) of an ethic that guards sensitive individual data/information, and if the enforcer chooses overlook their responsibility, then everything is free/open for the taking. And no one can be held responsible, for whatever reason (foolishness to opportunity), for following/taking advantage of the trend at Ancestry.com. Those who complain about this trend are considered prejudicial, even though it may be their "original" research and data that is being compromised. And there is really no way out of it once your information has been submitted, particularly if it has been copied. Ancestry knows this. We are learning this, one by one.

That still doesn't make it right and following the trend does not make it ethical.

AGHatchett3rd wrote in reponse to grally250:

"*sigh*

"My whole point is that you simply can *not* make a blanket statement like that."

grally250 CAN make any blanket statement that grally250 wants to make.

AGHatchett3rd, you advocate for the offender and judge the offended.

Hope you are not a lawyer or a judge.

Lucy- you forgot the second sentence.

While she can make any blanket statement she wants it *still* won't make what she states true.

Ethics are *not* absolute-period.

For starter's who is this she you are referring to. Your passionate defense of the absence of ethics in genealogy leads me to believe you have little regard for privacy of individual's personal data that would include

Name First Middle and Last
Birth Date Birth Place
Marriage Place Marriage Date
Death Date Death Place and possibly more

In some cases if an individuals birth date and maiden name are discovered online it is potentially a huge privacy risk.

I can not believe your nonchalant view regarding privacy of this information.

One of the ethic rules of the Association of Professional Genealogists is

3. Promote the trust and security of genealogical consumers.

In this case security would apply to security of information in that it doesn't get sold or end up in insecure environment. Even though we may not have a paying customer that in of itself is irrelevant in this case.

So the standard bearer genealogical society in America takes measures for security(privacy) Can't we as semi-professional's , novices, etc. researchers follow suit. I don't see why not!

I think many actually do, but I know of a few that don't seem so concerned about it though.

That is just the point... a person's personal information is *NOT* private-period!

I have no qualms whatsoever about posting the following information on a person:

Name: First Middle Last
Date of Birth:
Place of Birth:
Date of Marriage:
Place of Marriage:
Date of Divorce:
Place of Divorce:
Same info for subsequent marriages:
Date of Death:
Place of Death:
Date of Burial:
Place of Burial:

Nor do I have any qualms about posting the same information about that person's parents, spouse(s), or children.

*None* of the above information is *private* information... and repeatedly claiming that it is will not make it so.

Just because people desire to have their personal information considered to be private information doesn't mean that that desire will- or even should- be granted.

I only place death and burial. The rest I get permission of the affected individual.

Excuse me??

Why should anyone care what some American organization says about genealogy?? They have no standing to regulate anything other than the professional conduct of their membership.

Nobody ever claimed that this information is private information. It was said that is is personal information that should be kept private by researchers. There is a difference, I think.

Another thought this lack of consideration of personal information has come to mind. I was at a local thrift shop and observed a book for sale which had a picture of a lady on the cover and the title was "My Life in My Words" I bought book and after reading realized it was some family's genealogy book. Keep in mind there were dozens of local residents with their personal information in this book and the information was fairly recent.

Now the total inconsiderate act of this family member who discarded this heirloom. Add the fact that the thrift shop did not care what the book's contents were, they were going to make money on it.

I brought this to the thrift shop store's owner's attention. They apologized and said they would be more vigilant in the future. So in this case a mistake was made and effort was taken to reverse future mistakes.

What is distasteful is some people's total disregard for their own relative's personal information.

It becomes necessary in most cases to handle this on a case by case basis. Posting some new information on one of my trees yesterday, I started out by listing the name and "private" for the birth date and location. However, these folks were born in Texas. Since Texas birth and marriage records are already posted on Ancestry I changed my mind and posted birthdates and locations. Listing "private" when the information is clearly there and linked to the person would not have helped. In the case of folks born in another state where birth information is not readily available, I would go the private route if I know that they are still living.

But as I said before, it's all out there folks. In this age of immediate internet information, nothing is hidden. The genie is out of the bottle and observing all the niceties in the world will not change anything.

Can I ask you a question?

Do you have the information of anyone born in the last 100 years in your tree? Do you have their permission to post it?

Cheers,
Michelle

So now you want all thrift shops to read all books before they put them on sale??

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is nothing charmed about a person's personal information- be it stranger or relative. It is simply data.

Trying to elevate it into some special status is simply not on.

Yes- there is a difference between the two but....

Whoever said that it should be kept private by researchers simply does not have the standing to decree that for everyone.

Bottom line is that when it comes to the discloser/non-discloser of personal information there is neither a universal rule governing such nor universal agreement.

Born in the last 100 years? Yes But they would have to be deceased to have them not marked as private when posted to the Internet. I understand it can be difficult these days to control the information once published especially if you want to publish a family lineage book.

I am really struggling with how to really finish my genealogy in book form. I really don't want to publish children, but a book of my mom's genealogy about 10 years ago had the whole works in their book.

I really want to put my genealogy on a website and send a password to each family so each branch has only access to their direct line and limited information from the rest.

Have you found websites other than Ancestry which lists specifically Texas birthday information? Only on Ancestry.com that I have found these databases for birth records. If that is true than the records are really not 'out there' for just anyone.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Being sarcastic, Are we? Nice. That is not what I said.

Every response you have repeated the same old argument, maybe with slightly different wording. Just because the opportunity presents itself to do 'whatever you want' should not make you want to the what may be incorrect in some situations. Sounds like you have your own agenda, and do not care about any other opinions other than your own.

Am I wrong?

And why should anyone give a fig about what you have to say. Rarely, if ever, do you provide any meaningful help to a posters question. Only take the opposing view and promote it. You would rather stir the pot than offer help.

Rootsweb web sites for all Texas counties have this information. Familysearchrecordlabs are posting Birth certificates. Oh yes, it is out there. Where do you think Ancestry got it from.

For the US, 1930 census records were released in 2002. In 2012 the 1940 census records will be released Federal regulations hold census records for 72 years. In 2002 when the 1930 census was released, 2012 was a long time away. Now it is only 3 years. In addition, many states such as Florida did state census records. Florida's census records for 1935 and 1945 are already released and on Ancestry as well as FamilySearchrecord labs. I found my brother in law who was born in 1935. There are web sites aplenty all over the internet wherein you can find out anything about anyone. I don't use them but things like Net Detective, etc. are there. If you are in the UK, things may be different but for the US, records are out there. Make no mistake about it. This is the internet age and whether we love it or hate it, it's there.

The thing is, I don't need anyones permission to post what I want on my member trees. I may or may not post birthdates and names, depending on the circumstances. I will remove anyone's name if I am contacted. Only once in all the years I have been posting my genealogy files on the internet has anyone ever contacted me about removing something and that was from a Worldconnect tree and only because I had not set the parameters to remove anyone who was born before 1930. Rootsweb has/had their parameters set so that anyone born after 1920 but before 1930 would show up with name and birthdate even if a death date was not posted. I then changed the parameters myself and set it to 1905. However, Ancestry member trees are different. Trying to get bookstores to police their books is an exercise in futility. What about genealogy librairies? They are replete with books with names, dates, etc. Are you going to go to the librairies and make them take the books off the shelves. Not!!!

There is a BIG difference between a thrift store and a genealogy library. The demographics of the people which shop are much different. A small percentage would visit a genealogy library a much more substantial percentage shops at a thrift shop leading to too much exposure for personal information that should not even be there in the first place!

Quick, hide the genealogy books. The book cops are coming!!!
People who visit genealogy librairies are much more genteel but people who visit thrift shops are not. !!!

I went to rootsweb and performed a few trial searches. It appears there are listing for each county of Texas, but it seems by the quality of results from the searches I performed it is up to individual users to submit their OWN records for others review.

I went to several counties in Texas and performed a search for the surname Smith and did not get a result in several.

If I am doing something wrong by all means let me know.

The only place to get complete birth record information for Texas which I have found is on Ancestry.com pay site.

You can chastise trying to be sensitive to the privacy of other living individuals all you want. If you say you make every effort to do so, then we are in agreement, aren't we.

Grally: Where do you think Ancestry GOT the TX vitals and others states' vitals (CA for example) from? Do you think they STOLE them and posted them illegally? Of course not, they bought them from the states because the states make PUBLIC RECORDS publicly accessible. It is the LAW in many states -- check for Open Access and Open RECORDS laws.

It is NOT this type of information that causes any issues for the living -- it is theft or publication of PRIVATE data such as SS numbers, bank account and credit card info, or private medical information.

Are you not aware that births, deaths, marriages and other vital information is often published in newspapers? If someone becomes a celebrity or runs for political office even their previously "private" information can become "news." Try breaking the law or even getting a speeding ticket and that information is publicly accessible by anyone who is interested.

You many not LIKE this--but privacy is vastly overrated by most of us. We can't hide from publicly accessible information about ourselves.

Joan