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? Mary Trevan -----Original Message----- From: Dave Mayall <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, 06 November, 2001 9:46 AM Subject: Post-1900 Records >As some transcribers may have noticed, all records relating to events >after 1900 have been removed from the web site following the most >recent update. > >This action has been taken as a result of a request from the Office of >National Statistics. > >Whilst the Project Leadership is satisfied that we were granted >permission to include newer records in the database, and the ONS has >*not* formally instructed us that the records must be removed, they >have clearly indicated that they wish us to work within a 100 year >limit. > >The background to this view from the ONS is the recent consultation >which they carried out on greater access to records. Whilst we as >genealogists are obviously keen to gain ever greater access to >genealogical data, their consultation has produced a lot of feedback >to the effect that there is already too MUCH access to more recent >data, and that personal privacy is being invaded. > >Obviously the problem becomes more acute when the data is available in >FreeBMD, and there is a very real possibility that putting very recent >data on the internet could result in restrictive legislation. > >The project leadership has always had a good relationship with the >ONS, and would not wish to put that relationship at risk by attempting >to force the issue at the present time. As part of our ongoing >discussions with the ONS, we will be discussing returning at least >part of the newer data to the site at the earliest possible >opportunity. In the interim, we have adopted what we regard as a >sensible stance by removing all data that is less than 100 years old. > >Newer data will continue to be stored, but not searchable, and data >for 1901 will, in any case return to the website in the new year. > >Discussion of the issues raised by this move is welcome, but MUST >take place ONLY on FreeBMD-Discuss-L > >-- >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 >