Sorry Peter but I am here to confirm your paranoia in the nicest possible way of course! All of this information is and has been freely available to anyone who cared to search for it in local RO's, sometimes local libraries and the FRC for very many years. Anyone who wanted to do naughty stuff could do it anyway whether the information is available online or not. To be honest, if someone is really determined to steal something they will always find a way to do it even if the information is difficult to get hold of because there is a reward in it for them and it is worth the time and trouble. The alternative is for all recent information not to be available at all. What with the reforms in registration on their way in a few years time, we may rue the day when they took all personal information away from certificates such as age, maiden name, place of birth, father's occupation etc unless the event occurred more than 75 years ago. In order to protect yourself from identity theft, never ever give your mother's real maiden name to anyone who wishes to record it for 'security reasons'. Decide on another name that is entirely unconnected to you and stick with it. That little piece of information can never then be picked up by someone wishing to do you financial harm. Regards Linda Staffs UK Researching: Cook(e) Plant Mason Keys Pearsall and variants Broster Rastall Turner Smith Miller Morgan Simmons Baker ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Wharton" <peter@wharton-family.org> To: <ENG-BLACK-COUNTRY-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 5:39 PM Subject: [B.C.] > I've also just come across something I find slightly concerning and am > interested in others views. Am I just being too paranoid about these > things? > > > > Ancestry have a searchable index for birth certificates from 1984 to 2004. > I can find both my grandchildren in it, both born this century. Given that > this gives their year of birth mothers maiden name and the area where > registered (which is likely to be where they still live) this seems to me > to > breach generally recommended rules for both publishing information on > children as well as family trees. It's a funny index as it doesn't seem > appear in any list they databases but appears when you do a full search. > > > > Regards > > > > Peter Wharton

Oops! Some of my post appears to have disappeared into cyberspace! Just so that Peter doesn't think I was being rude, which I certainly wasn't, the first sentence read "Sorry Peter but I am here to confirm your paranoia in the nicest possible way of course!" I hope this arrives without bits disappearing. Linda Staffs UK Researching: Cook(e) Plant Mason Keys Pearsall and variants Broster Rastall Turner Smith Miller Morgan Simmons Baker ----- Original Message ----- From: "LindaFH" <lindafh@blueyonder.co.uk> To: <ENG-BLACK-COUNTRY-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:08 PM Subject: Re: [B.C.] > way of course! > > All of this information is and has been freely available to anyone who > cared to search for it in local RO's, sometimes local libraries and the > FRC for very many years. Anyone who wanted to do naughty stuff could do it > anyway whether the information is available online or not. To be honest, > if someone is really determined to steal something they will always find a > way to do it even if the information is difficult to get hold of because > there is a reward in it for them and it is worth the time and trouble. The > alternative is for all recent information not to be available at all. What > with the reforms in registration on their way in a few years time, we may > rue the day when they took all personal information away from certificates > such as age, maiden name, place of birth, father's occupation etc unless > the event occurred more than 75 years ago. > > In order to protect yourself from identity theft, never ever give your > mother's real maiden name to anyone who wishes to record it for 'security > reasons'. Decide on another name that is entirely unconnected to you and > stick with it. That little piece of information can never then be picked > up by someone wishing to do you financial harm. > Regards > Linda > Staffs UK > Researching: > Cook(e) Plant Mason Keys Pearsall and variants > Broster Rastall Turner Smith Miller > Morgan Simmons Baker > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Wharton" <peter@wharton-family.org> > To: <ENG-BLACK-COUNTRY-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 5:39 PM > Subject: [B.C.] > > >> I've also just come across something I find slightly concerning and am >> interested in others views. Am I just being too paranoid about these >> things? >> >> >> >> Ancestry have a searchable index for birth certificates from 1984 to >> 2004. >> I can find both my grandchildren in it, both born this century. Given >> that >> this gives their year of birth mothers maiden name and the area where >> registered (which is likely to be where they still live) this seems to me >> to >> breach generally recommended rules for both publishing information on >> children as well as family trees. It's a funny index as it doesn't seem >> appear in any list they databases but appears when you do a full search. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Peter Wharton > > > > ==== ENG-BLACK-COUNTRY Mailing List ==== > The B.C. List Admin is Dave Ogden :- > d.ogden@blueyonder.co.uk > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.3/316 - Release Date: 17/04/2006 > >

>>All of this information is and has been freely available to anyone who >>cared to search for it in local RO's, sometimes local libraries and the FRC for very many years. Anyone who wanted to do naughty stuff could do it anyway whether the information is available online or not.<< indeed, if someone wants to "do you " in the identity theft way they will, having been a victim many years ago I know how much it stings and for how long!!!!! and I agree that it makes a mockery of the data protection act, and that the 1911 census should be available NOW LOL >> I have had this problem with Genes Reunited, I have emailed them lots of times asking for my living family members to be taken off their database, they just ignore my emails, I never get a reply. It wasn't me who gave them the names by the way, they got on there from someone else's data base.<< I emailled the list a few weeks ago on this very subject, and indeed it was GR that I was referring to, although I didn't use its name, my email, referred to the fact of people with whom our trees had been shared, due to family connection and them putting ALL the info from it onto sites like this, without regard to the fact that some people may not appreciate it at all!! >>This is slightly more direct than 1837 (or the equivalent Ancestry >>facility) in that the search result displays the actual information where as 1837 just aims you at possible images. I agree being a pay site does help stopping for example normal search engines finding the data, but as far as I know they don't vet anybody joining up. I may be being unduly sensitive about this but it seems to me that the aggregating of web base information from multiple sites is a potential concern in these days of identification theft and also given the recommended publication of information re children. I have for example just moved my family tree and some photos from being publicly available to needing a password on my family web site<< I dont think you are being unduly sensitive, and I congratualte you on removing your tree from public view to password view, at least you can decide fully who views the tree. Mellie How Come My Coat Of Arms Has Buckles At The Back?