In <3C23FDCB.705A2629@flash.net> Charlene Charette <charlene@flash.net> writes: >The argument is that someone could use the information to steal your >identity. Using semi-public informatoin like that as a "proof of identity" is outright silly. The problem is that the assumption that you can prove your identity by knowing the SSN number of someone, his/her mothers maiden name and other details like that IS JUST WRONG. Information like this should just be considered public - the issue of proving identity needs to be solved in a more secure way. -frisk -- Fridrik Skulason Frisk Software International phone: +354-5-617273 Author of F-PROT E-mail: frisk@complex.is fax: +354-5-617274

shmartonak@ticnet.com wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Singhals wrote: > > > > > The only official rule which might throw you off is that first names and a > > > middle initial follow all those same names without a middle initial. Any > > > grouping within a given name, e.g., by POB, is purely unofficial. And > > > you probably realize that the soundex cards sometimes got out of order. > > > > > > Rats, I'd forgotten about that! There goes three more days. > > > > Cheryl > > Idle curiousity on my part. Why is it taking you so long? Are you having > to check each soundex entry with the census itself? How are you > determining if you're looking at the right person/family? Aren't you > going to be able to eliminate most of the people in the soundex based on > age or family members? What is it on the census itself that tells you > that you have the right person? > > Just curious (G) Yeah, I'm amazed it's taking so long, myself. However, I have the barest minimum info on my target (name, name of spouse, name and BD of one child). There are an absolutely astounding number of persons with that name, and an even more astounding number of soundex-mates (targer surname is perhaps 1/4 the soundex). And I'm copying out ALL the matching target names, because of a vague rumor that target had an uncle with the same name. I'm over 45 entries and not quite to half-way. Then, if I don't positively identify him, I'll have to go back through, looking for him as a son in his father's household. One neat thing, may be NYC specific, may be in any big city, dunno; but here on the Citizenship slot on the Soundex card, I'm seeing things like "1893 - NA - 1903" or "1889 -Pa-" which look like immigration dates and naturalization dates. That'll save me a trip to the actual census (g). Be interesting to see if any match with what I've got from EllisIsland. Cheryl

Charlene Charette <charlene@flash.net> writes: >Paul Havemann wrote: > >> As far as death records go, exactly how many cases are there of >> identity theft based on them? > >It's a common plot device in movies. No idea how often it happens in >the real world. Not exactly. The "plot device" is the person requiring a new identity wanders a cemetery looking for infant burials where the infant was born about the same time the person requiring the new identity was, then the person goes and orders a birth certificate for that deceased infant, praying all the way that the records aren't crossreferenced. -- tweek@io.com

Paul Havemann wrote: > As far as death records go, exactly how many cases are there of > identity theft based on them? It's a common plot device in movies. No idea how often it happens in the real world. --Charlene -- No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible. -- Stanislaus Lezczynski ===== Free Book Searches (out-of-print, hard-to-find, foreign, used, new) - mailto:findbook@flash.net

Genee wrote: > I really don't see the harm in knowing (by way of a public index) when > and where a person was born or died. I'm sure someone will tell me > though. I also notice that infospace no longer has a reverse look up > by address. The argument is that someone could use the information to steal your identity. --Charlene -- No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible. -- Stanislaus Lezczynski ===== Free Book Searches (out-of-print, hard-to-find, foreign, used, new) - mailto:findbook@flash.net

I really don't see the harm in knowing (by way of a public index) when and where a person was born or died. I'm sure someone will tell me though. I also notice that infospace no longer has a reverse look up by address. The Cranky Genee >I hear what you're saying, and I'm torn on the issue, too -- but >we're talking about our ancestors' info, and I know of very few >120-year-old ancestors. > >As for privacy, I hear that too, but the same justification could >also be used to suppress any information that might possibly be >used for evil purposes. Why not ban telephone directories? After >all, if 'they' know where you live, they can rob your home, after >phoning to determine whether you're there -- or they could just >steal your mail, including anything with an account number on it. > >The prevailing question is whether the need for public >availability of certain information overrides the need for >privacy. For birth records, I'm not yet certain which wins out. >As far as death records go, exactly how many cases are there of >identity theft based on them? > >-- >Paul Havemann

On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:21:29 GMT in soc.genealogy.misc, Paul Havemann <paul@havemann.com> wrote: > The prevailing question is whether the need for public > availability of certain information overrides the need for > privacy. For birth records, I'm not yet certain which wins out. > As far as death records go, exactly how many cases are there of > identity theft based on them? > That's exactly how the purported murderer of Martin Luther King got a passport to get out of the country. He used the birth certificate for someone who was born about the same time he was, but who died when he was 3 or 4 years old, from a search of birth & death records in a state that had open access. Sixty Minutes or 20/20 or a similar program reported numerous cases with hidden camera examples several years ago. Using one birth cert of someone who died before getting a SSN, the show was able to create several false IDs and obtain drivers licenses and passports. My state now sells fancy limited edition birth certificates designed by local artists, with the extra fee going to subisidize childrens' programs, but I couldn't order one for my brother to give him for his 50th birthday. My mother could, because he was her child, and my brother could (as could his children), but they wouldn't sell one to me, his brother. Under state law, they can't even confirm his birth information for me. IMHO that's the way it should be.

http://www.geocities.com/peterlux/cancerwalk/ Any help in donations will help..I am still working on getting my Totem Poles to be sold to help raise the money..I contacted up my local radio stations in Ontario and a few in Quebec Canada and television media and newspapers here..so far no one has approached me..I guess it will take time..But I haven't given up for 6 years and will continue trying. Merry Christmas to all who are celebrating! And Happy new Year to all.. For those who have Cancer..Don't give up the fight! Sincerely, Peter

Dennis P. Harris <NO_SPAM_TO_dpharris@gci.net> says: : Don Kirkman <newsman@covad.net> wrote: :> Since the state *sells* the same information on CD venal motives could :> be suspected, but the income probably is insignificant in the scheme of :> things. I chalk it up to PCness, and expect a court case or two may :> clarify things (depending, of course, on how PC the judge and jury turn :> out to be). : well, they shouldn't sell it at all! if i want someone to have : my birth information (and i was, unfortunately, born there) i'll : give it to them. otherwise, the state shouldn't give it out : except to police agencies. period. : the state where i live doesn't allow public access to vital : records until 120 years after the person's birth or 20 years : after death, whichever comes later. and rightly so. : it's not PCness. it's the right to privacy, and prevention of ID : theft. the law should require that we own the information about : ourselves, and that we control who gets it and when. it : shouldn't be sold by mailing list brokers, DMV, banks, or the : vital statistics folks without or permission. period. I hear what you're saying, and I'm torn on the issue, too -- but we're talking about our ancestors' info, and I know of very few 120-year-old ancestors. As for privacy, I hear that too, but the same justification could also be used to suppress any information that might possibly be used for evil purposes. Why not ban telephone directories? After all, if 'they' know where you live, they can rob your home, after phoning to determine whether you're there -- or they could just steal your mail, including anything with an account number on it. The prevailing question is whether the need for public availability of certain information overrides the need for privacy. For birth records, I'm not yet certain which wins out. As far as death records go, exactly how many cases are there of identity theft based on them? -- Paul Havemann "It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. *No one* ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things." -- Terry Pratchett, _Jingo_

On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Paul Havemann wrote: > Dennis P. Harris <NO_SPAM_TO_dpharris@gci.net> says: > : Don Kirkman <newsman@covad.net> wrote: > > :> Since the state *sells* the same information on CD venal motives could > :> be suspected, but the income probably is insignificant in the scheme of > :> things. I chalk it up to PCness, and expect a court case or two may > :> clarify things (depending, of course, on how PC the judge and jury turn > :> out to be). > > : well, they shouldn't sell it at all! if i want someone to have > : my birth information (and i was, unfortunately, born there) i'll > : give it to them. otherwise, the state shouldn't give it out > : except to police agencies. period. > > : the state where i live doesn't allow public access to vital > : records until 120 years after the person's birth or 20 years > : after death, whichever comes later. and rightly so. > > : it's not PCness. it's the right to privacy, and prevention of ID > : theft. the law should require that we own the information about > : ourselves, and that we control who gets it and when. it > : shouldn't be sold by mailing list brokers, DMV, banks, or the > : vital statistics folks without or permission. period. > > I hear what you're saying, and I'm torn on the issue, too -- but > we're talking about our ancestors' info, and I know of very few > 120-year-old ancestors. > > As for privacy, I hear that too, but the same justification could > also be used to suppress any information that might possibly be > used for evil purposes. Why not ban telephone directories? After > all, if 'they' know where you live, they can rob your home, after > phoning to determine whether you're there -- or they could just > steal your mail, including anything with an account number on it. > > The prevailing question is whether the need for public > availability of certain information overrides the need for > privacy. For birth records, I'm not yet certain which wins out. > As far as death records go, exactly how many cases are there of > identity theft based on them? > > -- I get so tired of all this nonsense. If you want to talk about some non-existent "right to privacy", why don't you do it when you're born? What business is it of the government whether, when, or where you were born? It's none of their business who you marry or when you die. The biggest crimes in history have been carried out by governments against their own people, not by identity thieves or the other boogymen in your closet. OTOH, if you want us to help you through hard times, pay your medical bills, feed your kids if you die, or provide your children with an education; then you need to be a little more forthcoming with your neighbors, because we're the ones who'll be paying the bills. Steve --

On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Singhals wrote: > > > The only official rule which might throw you off is that first names and a > > middle initial follow all those same names without a middle initial. Any > > grouping within a given name, e.g., by POB, is purely unofficial. And > > you probably realize that the soundex cards sometimes got out of order. > > > Rats, I'd forgotten about that! There goes three more days. > > Cheryl Idle curiousity on my part. Why is it taking you so long? Are you having to check each soundex entry with the census itself? How are you determining if you're looking at the right person/family? Aren't you going to be able to eliminate most of the people in the soundex based on age or family members? What is it on the census itself that tells you that you have the right person? Just curious Steve --

Charles Sullivan wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 18:32:04 -0500, Singhals wrote: > > > I need an in-depth consultation with someone painfully familiar with > > using the 1920 Soundex to find someone in the NYC area. (g) > > > > Specifically, I noted that the foreign-born of a specific name appeared > > to preceded the born-in-NY entries. Since I'm a dozen or so entries > > into the Born-in-NYers, how likely am I to find more foreign-borns as > > HoH? > > > > Yes, I know, ignoring 'em is a really BAAAAD idea generally, but then > > again, generally, one isn't looking at over 80 HoH of the exact same > > given name and surname. Or at least, I usually find no more than 20 or > > 30 of the surname, and rarely more than 3 of the same given name. > > Thanks. > > > > Cheryl > > The only official rule which might throw you off is that first names and a > middle initial follow all those same names without a middle initial. Any > grouping within a given name, e.g., by POB, is purely unofficial. And > you probably realize that the soundex cards sometimes got out of order. Rats, I'd forgotten about that! There goes three more days. Cheryl

On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 18:32:04 -0500, Singhals wrote: > I need an in-depth consultation with someone painfully familiar with > using the 1920 Soundex to find someone in the NYC area. (g) > > Specifically, I noted that the foreign-born of a specific name appeared > to preceded the born-in-NY entries. Since I'm a dozen or so entries > into the Born-in-NYers, how likely am I to find more foreign-borns as > HoH? > > Yes, I know, ignoring 'em is a really BAAAAD idea generally, but then > again, generally, one isn't looking at over 80 HoH of the exact same > given name and surname. Or at least, I usually find no more than 20 or > 30 of the surname, and rarely more than 3 of the same given name. > Thanks. > > Cheryl The only official rule which might throw you off is that first names and a middle initial follow all those same names without a middle initial. Any grouping within a given name, e.g., by POB, is purely unofficial. And you probably realize that the soundex cards sometimes got out of order.

Thanks for all of your recommendations ... I'm checking them out ... and any more that anyone wants to contribute. DMS "DMS" <dbotaNOSPAM@NOSPAMatt.net> wrote in message news:NM7R7.217790$3d2.10031791@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > I am an experienced computer professional with no genealogy experience. > Some family members have asked me to computerize their photo album and > family > tree research and place the results on CDs that can be mailed around to all > family members (They are older and have done all their work by hand without > a computer). I would be working on a PC and already am familiar with > Photoshop and scanning photos technology. > > ---What software is best for making/displaying CD picture albums? > (Pictures with descritive captions and perhaps links to a family tree) > > ---What software is best for making/displaying digital family trees on a CD? > > ---Is there one software that does both in a nicely integrated user-friendly > manner? > > ---While we can buy the software for creation purposes, we don't want to buy > multiple copies of the software for everyone who receives the CD just so > they can view our album/tree creation. An inexpensive on-CD player-only / > access-only function would be important. Is there such a thing? > > --- I and most of the family owns PCs but I'm sure somebody in the family, > who would be receiving the CDs, would have a Mac. Is there software/a way to > create > the CDs for cross platform access (PC and Macs) ? > > --- We would want to create this in a method and with a software that is > most likely to remain in use the longest. We don't want to go to all of > this effort and then find our CDs can't be accessed in 5 plus years because > the software company/companies went out of business and the software no > longer is usable/update-able. > > Would greatly appreciate anyone's input on these various issues ... Thank > you > > Daniel Bota > dbotaNOSPAM@NOSPAMatt.net. (Remove the NOSPAMs if replying direct.) > > > > > >

I need an in-depth consultation with someone painfully familiar with using the 1920 Soundex to find someone in the NYC area. (g) Specifically, I noted that the foreign-born of a specific name appeared to preceded the born-in-NY entries. Since I'm a dozen or so entries into the Born-in-NYers, how likely am I to find more foreign-borns as HoH? Yes, I know, ignoring 'em is a really BAAAAD idea generally, but then again, generally, one isn't looking at over 80 HoH of the exact same given name and surname. Or at least, I usually find no more than 20 or 30 of the surname, and rarely more than 3 of the same given name. Thanks. Cheryl

I take it HTML because HTML is the most universal and can be used on a website also ...? Migration because the both the media and the software get's outmoded? > Use HTML. And be prepared to migrate the data every couple years > anyway.

several people commented: >>I hope that no one has the birth and death records online. It's >>an open invitation to identity theft. I have no qualms about >>allowing public access to birth and death records say, 125 years >>after birth, but not while there's any chance the person is >>alive. > >In California, at least, these are public records which by past >standards can't be withheld from the public. Some nervous nelly, >though, has raised the question about privacy and the state, rather >overreacting IMO, has shut down their availability on the Internet. > >Since the state *sells* the same information on CD venal motives could >be suspected, but the income probably is insignificant in the scheme of >things. I chalk it up to PCness, and expect a court case or two may >clarify things (depending, of course, on how PC the judge and jury turn >out to be). >-- Not being online does not equal "not available." For those of us who started genealogical research years before the internet existed, you use snail mail, you send a letter request, you send an SASE, you send a check, you state your request clearly and precisely and the relationship to the person whose data you are seeking. Yes, it's not instant gratification. But you get the data. The Fed Gov't puts out a nifty little pamphlet "Where to Write for Birth, Death and Marriage Records." Updated regularly..costs a few bucks...lists every state, what's available from what periods, addresses to write to, cost, etc. This contact info is probably available online from many state or genealogy sites. Let's not assume that public records aren't public unless you can get them on your PC. And if you are looking for older records, always check what the FHC has filmed in the states of your interest. >donkirk@covad.net

"Penlin304" <penlin304@aol.com> wrote in message news:20011204182550.15491.00000557@mb-fs.aol.com... > For the past several days I cannot access soc.gen.marketplace. > Has anyone else had troubles with it?. The screen comes up with all the > buttons to push, but there are no subjects listed. Clicking on all the buttons > does nothing except say an error has occurred. It's working fine for me. Try removing it then adding it back. If that doesn't work, perhaps your server has dropped the group. In which case you can still gain access by going to groups.google.com Good luck. C.

"mctrouble" <mctrouble@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<ijUT7.796$uT5.290786@news.uswest.net>... > I am looking for any information about the "Theis" family in Pennsylvania I > know they arrived there sometime before 1860 from germany. Charles Edward > Theis died in about 1963 as far as I know and was married to carrie miller. Hi There, I have done research on this family, and have records for them. http://www.je-research.bizhosting.com

I am looking for any information about the "Theis" family in Pennsylvania I know they arrived there sometime before 1860 from germany. Charles Edward Theis died in about 1963 as far as I know and was married to carrie miller.