Commentary on Privacy and Family Trees James Tanner is a genealogist, a blogger, and has been a trial attorney for the past 39 years. When it comes to privacy issues, he knows what he is talking (and writing) about. He has published an article in his blog about privacy issues as they relate to genealogy. I would suggest every genealogist should read his article at http://goo.gl/2Lq3G9. Tanner points out: "If I even mention putting your genealogy online in a family tree, somebody in the class has an almost violent negative reaction." "I can say this with certainty: the usual perception of the extent of "privacy" is far greater and more encompassing than the reality. Privacy is one of those words everyone uses and no one really knows what it means." "...the incidence of true, hard-core identity theft is extremely rare." You can find James Tanner's excellent Commentary on Privacy and Family Trees at http://goo.gl/2Lq3G9. Comments: Peter Calver said... As one might expect from a trial attorney, he focuses attention on privacy as if this is the only thing that matters when deciding whether to publish a tree online - it isn't. But first, let's look at his arguments, starting with "dead people don't have any right to privacy". Legally that's probably correct, but if he'd received as many emails as I have from people distressed that their brother, sister, or child who died in infancy is listed on someone else's tree he might think differently. Or perhaps not - he's a lawyer. He goes on to say "If your son or daughter or grandson or granddaughter is regularly posting to Facebook... why are you worried to include their name on a pedigree chart". For a start, it's against the law - in Britain, and many other countries - to publish personal information relating to others without their consent (most responsible websites also require the parent or guardian of a minor to give their permission). Tanner states that the risk of "hard-core identity theft" is small, but so is the risk of being blown up by terrorists - yet we still have all sorts of checks whenever we board an airplane. And he conveniently forgets that there is a type of identity theft that affects tens of millions of people every year - the hijacking of email accounts so that fraudsters can use their owners' identities to obtain money from their friends and relatives. So far they're not sufficiently sophisticated to make use of the information we post online to make their emails more plausible, but just wait..... However, as I said before, it's not just about privacy. If I publish my family tree online other people are likely to copy it, especially if all they have to do is download a Gedcom and merge it into their own tree. Some of those people will be relatives of mine, in which case I'd rather like to establish contact with them so that we can collaborate (which is why, if I had my tree at Ancestry it would be a searchable private tree). Others, probably the majority, will be people who have wrongly identified someone in my tree as a relative of theirs. By the time I discover what has happened they will most likely have merged several other trees into their own, so even if they wanted to remove mine it could be difficult for them to comply. And as anyone who has attempted to persuade people to make corrections will know, half of them will simply ignore me, and some of the rest will be abusive. I'm all for collaboration - I've spent the last 10 years helping researchers to find other researchers who share their ancestors - but I believe it should be an ongoing process where cousins share their past discoveries and collaborate on future research. For many years I've included on my website the Standards For Sharing Information With Others published by the National Genealogical Society in 2000. I only wish more people respected those standards. http://lostcousins.com/pages -- Jeannie God Bless God Speed kymonroe@rootsweb.com ancestraltrackers.org