Mary Trevan wrote: > > Dave > > 100 years for births sounds fair on the grounds of privacy, but for deaths > sounds a bit extreme. Some sites (eg Vital records for British Columbia, > Canada) have 3 different cut-off dates for each of births, marriages and > deaths. Can I ask the Project Leadership to consider discussing a similar > arrangement with the ONS in due course, while the rest of us keep going with > the other 10's of millions of 19th century transcriptions that need to be > done? You can indeed. As I'm sure can be appreciated we haven't yet had a chance to decide upon a strategy. However, before the 100 year rule was initially relaxed, this was an approach that we were looking at. Even with a 100 year cut off for births, there is a possibility that we have some living people on the site. Indeed, with the good coverage of 1898, it is near certain. With Marriages, an 80 year cut off should achieve about the same degree of rarity in finding living people. With Deaths, the issue self evidently doesn't arise, but we do need to be sensitive to the feelings of relatives here. On this one, I would suggest a cut off of 1983. Indeed, I would suggest that we might regard 1983 as a final cut off point. The structure of the registers changes radically in 1984, and the indexes after that time are all on CD anyway. Those are my first thoughts! -- Dave Mayall

I wonder if , as well as privacy, there is also a concern about potential criminal misuse of the information from "recent" death records. I agree that a similar risk is present (and exploited) from use of obituary columns etc. but as Dave says - perhaps the internet makes it just too easy to exploit records - and offers the potential for "bulk" misuse. Val ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Mayall" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 1:51 PM Subject: Re: Post-1900 Records > Mary Trevan wrote: > > > > Dave > > > > 100 years for births sounds fair on the grounds of privacy, but for deaths > > sounds a bit extreme. Some sites (eg Vital records for British Columbia, > > Canada) have 3 different cut-off dates for each of births, marriages and > > deaths. Can I ask the Project Leadership to consider discussing a similar > > arrangement with the ONS in due course, while the rest of us keep going with > > the other 10's of millions of 19th century transcriptions that need to be > > done? > > You can indeed. > > As I'm sure can be appreciated we haven't yet had a chance to decide upon a > strategy. However, before the 100 year rule was initially relaxed, this was > an approach that we were looking at. > > Even with a 100 year cut off for births, there is a possibility that we have > some living people on the site. Indeed, with the good coverage of 1898, it > is near certain. > > With Marriages, an 80 year cut off should achieve about the same degree of > rarity in finding living people. > > With Deaths, the issue self evidently doesn't arise, but we do need to be > sensitive to the feelings of relatives here. On this one, I would suggest > a cut off of 1983. > > Indeed, I would suggest that we might regard 1983 as a final cut off point. > > The structure of the registers changes radically in 1984, and the indexes > after that time are all on CD anyway. > > Those are my first thoughts! > > -- > Dave Mayall > > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1 > Source for Family History Online. Go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=702&sourceid=1237 > >

Birth details might be an arguable case ... and there are restrictions on obtaining birth cert's of people less than 50 years old. Passport fraud springs to mind immediately. But marriages are essentially a public announcement by the participants of their legal status and consent to each other. This is a public event with witnesses. Why is there a problem? Lastly ... Where can you interrogate the CD versions of the post-1984 registers? Mark - - At 1:51 pm +0000 6/11/01, Dave Mayall wrote: >Mary Trevan wrote: >> >> Dave >> >> 100 years for births sounds fair on the grounds of privacy, but for deaths >> sounds a bit extreme. Some sites (eg Vital records for British Columbia, >> Canada) have 3 different cut-off dates for each of births, marriages and >> deaths. Can I ask the Project Leadership to consider discussing a similar >> arrangement with the ONS in due course, while the rest of us keep going with >> the other 10's of millions of 19th century transcriptions that need to be >> done? > >You can indeed. > >As I'm sure can be appreciated we haven't yet had a chance to decide upon a >strategy. However, before the 100 year rule was initially relaxed, this was >an approach that we were looking at. > >Even with a 100 year cut off for births, there is a possibility that we have >some living people on the site. Indeed, with the good coverage of 1898, it >is near certain. > >With Marriages, an 80 year cut off should achieve about the same degree of >rarity in finding living people. > >With Deaths, the issue self evidently doesn't arise, but we do need to be >sensitive to the feelings of relatives here. On this one, I would suggest >a cut off of 1983. > >Indeed, I would suggest that we might regard 1983 as a final cut off point. > >The structure of the registers changes radically in 1984, and the indexes >after that time are all on CD anyway. > >Those are my first thoughts! > >-- >Dave Mayall > > >============================== >Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1 >Source for Family History Online. Go to: >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=702&sourceid=1237