Important to remember that users of this list come from different countries and backgrounds What seems normal language usage to some is taken differently by others. The list Rootsweb administrators give their time for free, and most would rather not be involved in moderating comments unless abuse is involved. Using the delete key or blocking those who offend us is an easy way around the issue. Being constantly asked during a visit to Washington DC if I understood what was being said, as though I was stupid, grated. Not what the questioner intended though, but that is how her/she came across to me. Keith Wellington, NZ -----Original Message----- From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Carolyn Perkes Sent: Friday, 13 June 2014 12:06 To: leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LEI] Privacy Again, I must object to obnoxious attitudes. I don't know if there is a list moderator who moderates. I feel I should give an example, from my entirely legitimate research, and if I am out of order, I hope someone will tell me. I have a British Home Child ancestor (a great-grandfather). He was sent to the Hertfordshire Reformatory for Boys at age 12, in 1867. I have acquired all the Census records and most of the parish records for his family, as well as his Reformatory record. His father had a criminal record for petty crimes (stealing food on four separate occasions, presumably to feed his family). My great-grandfather emigrated (forced emigration - in Britain, perhaps known as the child migrant scheme) to Canada in 1871, age 16. After settling in Canada, after about two or three years of forced farm labour, he was very successful. Will not bore anyone here with details, but as a matter of relevance for this list, my great grandfather's grandfather, a coachman, claimed to have been born in Leicester, Leicestershire in about 1789, on the 1851 and 1861 Censuses of England and Wales, where he was working as a coachman for the Archer-Houblon family, Coopersale House, Theydon Garnon, Essex. I have exhausted my resources trying to trace this ancestor in Leicester, Leicestershire. I recognize defeat, as my ancestor was merely a coachman of no consequence. He may have lied about his birthplace. I will never know. In any case, the criminal records for my great-grandfather-the-immigrant and his father from the mid-19th century are being shared all over Ancestry by people who have no interest in my lineage but who seem to think it is amusing to post criminal records for very petty crimes (1860s-1880s). Perhaps these people think they are re-channelling Charles Dickens in the home counties. Sometimes I wonder about Julian Fellowes. He does seem to have found his niche. * I have done quite a bit of research and I have paid for further research. So, for the record, Roy, I am not whinging, or whining. ;-) Carolyn **************************************************************************** Carolyn Perkes, PhD French > English translation Education, Environment, Public and Professional Affairs, Communications, Children's Literature Montréal, Quebec, Canada H2V 1N8 On 2014-06-11, at 11:43 PM, Charles Sidebottom wrote: > Yes, we all get it--it is research. There is also a very big > difference between doing research and the decision to publish what is > found in that research. I have great respect for those who exercise > selective restraint and good judgment when publishing anywhere--books > or the Internet. The decision not to publish does not mean that the > content of the research is lost forever. I assume no one discards > their research. As situations change, the time could be right to publish more of that research. > > Carolyn > in Minnesota USA > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of > roy.stockdill@btinternet.com > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 8:38 PM > To: leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [LEI] Privacy > > From: Carolyn Perkes <cperkes@videotron.ca> > >> Could people just be a bit more gentle with comments? >> >> I do agree that there is no such thing as privacy on the Internet or >> in > family >> history. If we put ourselves out there on roots web mailing lists or >> on Ancestry or elsewhere, we can hardly complain. >> >> However, I must say that on some occasions, I have been discouraged >> when trying to share information with people who do not really want >> to know > facts >> and people who are not connected to my ancestors but who share all >> kinds > of >> documents all over various forums, simply because they can, just >> because > they >> found this or that piece of documentation interesting. Not because >> they > are >> interested in any particular family history, but simply because ... >> well, > I >> suppose some folks like to show off. >> >> I can understand why someone might become upset about documentation > concerning >> living persons. >> >> On the other hand, I have also had a great deal of help from people >> on > this >> and many other lists, people with far more experience and knowledge. >> >> Will stop here, but thanks to those who have helped. >> >> Carolyn> > > It is called RESEARCH, simple as that. Nothing else matters, least of > all the silly little whinges of people who get upset about posts re > living people, The living are just as much family history as the dead > and anyone who doesn't understand that should not be in family history > at all. > > -- > Roy Stockdill > Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Famous family trees blog: > http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/ > Reach For The Stars blog: roystockdillgenealogy.com > > "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, > and that is not being talked about." > OSCAR WILDE > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi, Carolyn,    I'm sorry if my post annoyed you.  I responded about the state of "privacy" laws in England because there is a mindset in many of our list members that "there is no Privacy under English law."  That mindset is incorrect and I wanted to state the facts which I checked with Google.  That there are people who respond with anger or hostility doesn't surprise me.  I've seen the same responses when we talk about copyright.  There are those with the mindset that they can take anything on the Internet and use it without penalty, just as there are those who would be happy to take someone's family tree work and claim it as their own.     But all societies have rules that govern the social structures that make the society work.  We expect people to be honest with us, to respect us, and to agree to certain limitations.  Some would prefer anarchy, most are happy to live within "the rules".  This isn't my list to manage, but I'd accept a bit of discord as long as people are reasonable.  I just don't like it when people quote platitudes which are factually incorrect.         Lou

I have a 2nd and 3rd fleet by marriage convicts...PROUD OF THEM....more than a badge of honour when you read what some went through..be careful of those sheep David...LOL.. Jenelle. -----Original Message----- From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of David Armstrong Sent: Friday, 13 June 2014 11:09 AM To: leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LEI] Privacy In Australia, it's regarded as a badge of honour to have a convict ancestor. (Being a migrant, I don't have a convict ancestor, although I do have a 5th Great Uncle who swung at the age of 19 for housebreaking in Somerset). During the bi-centenary year (1988), in one of the specials on television, there was an interview with a prominent professional genealogist (who has since fallen off the perch), who took great delight in relating the story of how he'd been engaged by a society lady from the upmarket area of Darling Harbour in Sydney, to research her ancestry and find the rumoured convict. He found the convict okay, and the crime for which he'd been transported: "having carnal knowledge with a sheep". (It's rumoured that the sheep was transported to New Zealand!). The actor Jack Thomson featured on the Australian version of "Who Do You Think You Are? On finding out that he had a convict ancestor, exclaimed, "You bloody beauty! Australian Royalty!" His ancestor had been transported for highway robbery from memory. David Armstrong Maylands, Western Australia ----- Original Message ----- From: Carolyn Perkes To: leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 8:06 AM Subject: Re: [LEI] Privacy Again, I must object to obnoxious attitudes. I don't know if there is a list moderator who moderates. I feel I should give an example, from my entirely legitimate research, and if I am out of order, I hope someone will tell me. I have a British Home Child ancestor (a great-grandfather). He was sent to the Hertfordshire Reformatory for Boys at age 12, in 1867. I have acquired all the Census records and most of the parish records for his family, as well as his Reformatory record. His father had a criminal record for petty crimes (stealing food on four separate occasions, presumably to feed his family). My great-grandfather emigrated (forced emigration - in Britain, perhaps known as the child migrant scheme) to Canada in 1871, age 16. After settling in Canada, after about two or three years of forced farm labour, he was very successful. Will not bore anyone here with details, but as a matter of relevance for this list, my great grandfather's grandfather, a coachman, claimed to have been born in Leicester, Leicestershire in about 1789, on the 1851 and 1861 Censuses of England and Wales, where he was working as a coachman for the Archer-Houblon family, Coopersale House, Theydon Garnon, Essex. I have exhausted my resources trying to trace this ancestor in Leicester, Leicestershire. I recognize defeat, as my ancestor was merely a coachman of no consequence. He may have lied about his birthplace. I will never know. In any case, the criminal records for my great-grandfather-the-immigrant and his father from the mid-19th century are being shared all over Ancestry by people who have no interest in my lineage but who seem to think it is amusing to post criminal records for very petty crimes (1860s-1880s). Perhaps these people think they are re-channelling Charles Dickens in the home counties. Sometimes I wonder about Julian Fellowes. He does seem to have found his niche. * I have done quite a bit of research and I have paid for further research. So, for the record, Roy, I am not whinging, or whining. ;-) Carolyn **************************************************************************** Carolyn Perkes, PhD French > English translation Education, Environment, Public and Professional Affairs, Communications, Children's Literature Montréal, Quebec, Canada H2V 1N8 --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

In Australia, it's regarded as a badge of honour to have a convict ancestor. (Being a migrant, I don't have a convict ancestor, although I do have a 5th Great Uncle who swung at the age of 19 for housebreaking in Somerset). During the bi-centenary year (1988), in one of the specials on television, there was an interview with a prominent professional genealogist (who has since fallen off the perch), who took great delight in relating the story of how he'd been engaged by a society lady from the upmarket area of Darling Harbour in Sydney, to research her ancestry and find the rumoured convict. He found the convict okay, and the crime for which he'd been transported: "having carnal knowledge with a sheep". (It's rumoured that the sheep was transported to New Zealand!). The actor Jack Thomson featured on the Australian version of "Who Do You Think You Are? On finding out that he had a convict ancestor, exclaimed, "You bloody beauty! Australian Royalty!" His ancestor had been transported for highway robbery from memory. David Armstrong Maylands, Western Australia ----- Original Message ----- From: Carolyn Perkes To: leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 8:06 AM Subject: Re: [LEI] Privacy Again, I must object to obnoxious attitudes. I don't know if there is a list moderator who moderates. I feel I should give an example, from my entirely legitimate research, and if I am out of order, I hope someone will tell me. I have a British Home Child ancestor (a great-grandfather). He was sent to the Hertfordshire Reformatory for Boys at age 12, in 1867. I have acquired all the Census records and most of the parish records for his family, as well as his Reformatory record. His father had a criminal record for petty crimes (stealing food on four separate occasions, presumably to feed his family). My great-grandfather emigrated (forced emigration - in Britain, perhaps known as the child migrant scheme) to Canada in 1871, age 16. After settling in Canada, after about two or three years of forced farm labour, he was very successful. Will not bore anyone here with details, but as a matter of relevance for this list, my great grandfather's grandfather, a coachman, claimed to have been born in Leicester, Leicestershire in about 1789, on the 1851 and 1861 Censuses of England and Wales, where he was working as a coachman for the Archer-Houblon family, Coopersale House, Theydon Garnon, Essex. I have exhausted my resources trying to trace this ancestor in Leicester, Leicestershire. I recognize defeat, as my ancestor was merely a coachman of no consequence. He may have lied about his birthplace. I will never know. In any case, the criminal records for my great-grandfather-the-immigrant and his father from the mid-19th century are being shared all over Ancestry by people who have no interest in my lineage but who seem to think it is amusing to post criminal records for very petty crimes (1860s-1880s). Perhaps these people think they are re-channelling Charles Dickens in the home counties. Sometimes I wonder about Julian Fellowes. He does seem to have found his niche. * I have done quite a bit of research and I have paid for further research. So, for the record, Roy, I am not whinging, or whining. ;-) Carolyn **************************************************************************** Carolyn Perkes, PhD French > English translation Education, Environment, Public and Professional Affairs, Communications, Children's Literature Montréal, Quebec, Canada H2V 1N8 --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

On 12/06/2014 00:08, Carolyn Perkes wrote: > Could people just be a bit more gentle with comments? > > I do agree that there is no such thing as privacy on the Internet or in family history. If we put ourselves out there on roots web mailing lists or on Ancestry or elsewhere, we can hardly complain. > > However, I must say that on some occasions, I have been discouraged when trying to share information with people who do not really want to know facts and people who are not connected to my ancestors but who share all kinds of documents all over various forums, simply because they can, just because they found this or that piece of documentation interesting. Not because they are interested in any particular family history, but simply because … well, I suppose some folks like to show off. Or it could be that by publishing the information on a mailing list or website they think they are helping other family historians rather than showing off. > > I can understand why someone might become upset about documentation concerning living persons. For example : I have been helping British Home Children (BHC ; living people) for over 30 years by post & email. It was not until the advent of the internet and their stories started to be mentioned on the internet that the governments decided to do something about the situation. If this personal information had been censored, like many suggest, the official position of BHC would have remained the same. The publishing of those stories made their position public knowledge and there is now far more help available for them than ever before. As I wrote previously- There can be no rigid right or wrong when publishing details of living persons, every publication must be a judgement call based on reason. Cheers Guy

Again, I must object to obnoxious attitudes. I don't know if there is a list moderator who moderates. I feel I should give an example, from my entirely legitimate research, and if I am out of order, I hope someone will tell me. I have a British Home Child ancestor (a great-grandfather). He was sent to the Hertfordshire Reformatory for Boys at age 12, in 1867. I have acquired all the Census records and most of the parish records for his family, as well as his Reformatory record. His father had a criminal record for petty crimes (stealing food on four separate occasions, presumably to feed his family). My great-grandfather emigrated (forced emigration - in Britain, perhaps known as the child migrant scheme) to Canada in 1871, age 16. After settling in Canada, after about two or three years of forced farm labour, he was very successful. Will not bore anyone here with details, but as a matter of relevance for this list, my great grandfather's grandfather, a coachman, claimed to have been born in Leicester, Leicestershire in about 1789, on the 1851 and 1861 Censuses of England and Wales, where he was working as a coachman for the Archer-Houblon family, Coopersale House, Theydon Garnon, Essex. I have exhausted my resources trying to trace this ancestor in Leicester, Leicestershire. I recognize defeat, as my ancestor was merely a coachman of no consequence. He may have lied about his birthplace. I will never know. In any case, the criminal records for my great-grandfather-the-immigrant and his father from the mid-19th century are being shared all over Ancestry by people who have no interest in my lineage but who seem to think it is amusing to post criminal records for very petty crimes (1860s-1880s). Perhaps these people think they are re-channelling Charles Dickens in the home counties. Sometimes I wonder about Julian Fellowes. He does seem to have found his niche. * I have done quite a bit of research and I have paid for further research. So, for the record, Roy, I am not whinging, or whining. ;-) Carolyn **************************************************************************** Carolyn Perkes, PhD French > English translation Education, Environment, Public and Professional Affairs, Communications, Children's Literature Montréal, Quebec, Canada H2V 1N8 On 2014-06-11, at 11:43 PM, Charles Sidebottom wrote: > Yes, we all get it--it is research. There is also a very big difference > between doing research and the decision to publish what is found in that > research. I have great respect for those who exercise selective restraint > and good judgment when publishing anywhere--books or the Internet. The > decision not to publish does not mean that the content of the research is > lost forever. I assume no one discards their research. As situations > change, the time could be right to publish more of that research. > > Carolyn > in Minnesota USA > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of > roy.stockdill@btinternet.com > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 8:38 PM > To: leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [LEI] Privacy > > From: Carolyn Perkes <cperkes@videotron.ca> > >> Could people just be a bit more gentle with comments? >> >> I do agree that there is no such thing as privacy on the Internet or in > family >> history. If we put ourselves out there on roots web mailing lists or on >> Ancestry or elsewhere, we can hardly complain. >> >> However, I must say that on some occasions, I have been discouraged when >> trying to share information with people who do not really want to know > facts >> and people who are not connected to my ancestors but who share all kinds > of >> documents all over various forums, simply because they can, just because > they >> found this or that piece of documentation interesting. Not because they > are >> interested in any particular family history, but simply because ... well, > I >> suppose some folks like to show off. >> >> I can understand why someone might become upset about documentation > concerning >> living persons. >> >> On the other hand, I have also had a great deal of help from people on > this >> and many other lists, people with far more experience and knowledge. >> >> Will stop here, but thanks to those who have helped. >> >> Carolyn> > > It is called RESEARCH, simple as that. Nothing else matters, least of all > the > silly little whinges of people who get upset about posts re living people, > The > living are just as much family history as the dead and anyone who doesn't > understand that should not be in family history at all. > > -- > Roy Stockdill > Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer > Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/ > Reach For The Stars blog: roystockdillgenealogy.com > > "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, > and that is not being talked about." > OSCAR WILDE >

How can "vital statistics" be a matter of privacy when birth, marriage and death notices are published in newspapers? And how can a government (such as my own) restrict access to some deaths, given that fact, plus the fact that the information is in public display on a headstone! The world is in the grip of PC gone mad. Having said that, to forestall any backlash, on the other matter of publishing details of living people on a family history website, I don't. Blanche Charles Kapiti, New Zealand

From: Carolyn Perkes <cperkes@videotron.ca> > Could people just be a bit more gentle with comments? > > I do agree that there is no such thing as privacy on the Internet or in family > history. If we put ourselves out there on roots web mailing lists or on > Ancestry or elsewhere, we can hardly complain. > > However, I must say that on some occasions, I have been discouraged when > trying to share information with people who do not really want to know facts > and people who are not connected to my ancestors but who share all kinds of > documents all over various forums, simply because they can, just because they > found this or that piece of documentation interesting. Not because they are > interested in any particular family history, but simply because ... well, I > suppose some folks like to show off. > > I can understand why someone might become upset about documentation concerning > living persons. > > On the other hand, I have also had a great deal of help from people on this > and many other lists, people with far more experience and knowledge. > > Will stop here, but thanks to those who have helped. > > Carolyn> It is called RESEARCH, simple as that. Nothing else matters, least of all the silly little whinges of people who get upset about posts re living people, The living are just as much family history as the dead and anyone who doesn't understand that should not be in family history at all. -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/ Reach For The Stars blog: roystockdillgenealogy.com "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

What a "wonderful" list this is where certain list members round on another member abusively simply because they do not agree with what the other member says. Thankfully I know how to blacklist those members and how to unsubscribe from a thoroughly horrible list. Good luck with your research!! -- Connie http://oursalmons.wordpress.com/

Yes, we all get it--it is research. There is also a very big difference between doing research and the decision to publish what is found in that research. I have great respect for those who exercise selective restraint and good judgment when publishing anywhere--books or the Internet. The decision not to publish does not mean that the content of the research is lost forever. I assume no one discards their research. As situations change, the time could be right to publish more of that research. Carolyn in Minnesota USA -----Original Message----- From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of roy.stockdill@btinternet.com Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 8:38 PM To: leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LEI] Privacy From: Carolyn Perkes <cperkes@videotron.ca> > Could people just be a bit more gentle with comments? > > I do agree that there is no such thing as privacy on the Internet or in family > history. If we put ourselves out there on roots web mailing lists or on > Ancestry or elsewhere, we can hardly complain. > > However, I must say that on some occasions, I have been discouraged when > trying to share information with people who do not really want to know facts > and people who are not connected to my ancestors but who share all kinds of > documents all over various forums, simply because they can, just because they > found this or that piece of documentation interesting. Not because they are > interested in any particular family history, but simply because ... well, I > suppose some folks like to show off. > > I can understand why someone might become upset about documentation concerning > living persons. > > On the other hand, I have also had a great deal of help from people on this > and many other lists, people with far more experience and knowledge. > > Will stop here, but thanks to those who have helped. > > Carolyn> It is called RESEARCH, simple as that. Nothing else matters, least of all the silly little whinges of people who get upset about posts re living people, The living are just as much family history as the dead and anyone who doesn't understand that should not be in family history at all. -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/ Reach For The Stars blog: roystockdillgenealogy.com "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

From: Guy Etchells <guy.etchells@virgin.net> > On 11/06/2014 11:04, Connie wrote: > > I am absolutely appalled at the above and at the UK's lack of respect > > and courtesy for their citizens. I would be beyond angry if anyone > > published anything about me that I haven't chosen to make public > > myself or more especially about my children without my knowledge or > > permission. > > > > Since Rootsweb does have the rule, using the lists does (or should) > > mean the rule is respected and information about a living person is > > not requested or publically given. > > > > Quite apart from anything else, showing respect to living family > > members could make the difference between finding out more about the > > family or being shut out. > > > Ah now you are changing from talking about privacy to talking about > courtesy, two different things. > > The law covers privacy, and details such as date of marriage in the UK > are not and cannot be private as a marriage has to announced in public > and performed in public for it to be valid. Date of birth is also public > as any person may visit a register office and search the open registers > to see who was born (married or died). The registers are only closed > when the register book is full and passed to a superintendent registrar, > even then anyone in the world may purchase any entry in the registers > for whatever reason they want. > One could for example walk into a superintendent registrars office and > ask for a particular birth certificate because one wanted to impersonate > that person the S.R would have to supply the certificate by law. > In a similar way a person could walk into the town hall or wherever the > particular council held the electoral register and browse through the > complete register taking notes as one wished. > The full electoral register is open to public by law to protect the > citizens of the country against electoral fraud. > This shows that rather than disrespecting the country's citizens the > government is in fact extending respect to them. > > Schools regularly publish examination results in local newspapers, > parents announce the birth and marriage of their offspring in the local > newspapers. > > But I wonder if you are not showing disrespect to your children by > censoring what information may be published about them. I obviously do > not know how old your children are but assuming they are of an age to > reason themselves surely they should have the right to make the > decisions not you? > I know you obviously make the decisions to protect your children (as any > right minded parent would do) but when we talk of courtesy there is a > very fine line to tread between protection and interfering in their > private lives, very difficult. > > In a similar vien many adopted children were "protected" by having their > birth parents' details kept from them. However history has shown that > such a course of action causes more pain and suffering than could ever > have been imagined and far more than knowing the truth from the start > could ever have do; similarly with the keeping stillbirth a secret. > Thousands of mothers go through years of agony because no one speaks > about their stillborn child. > > Secrets cause pain, the truth brings release. > > There can be no rigid right or wrong when publishing details of living > persons, every publication must be a judgement call based on reasons. > Cheers< > Guy < What utter twaddle Connie writes! It will scarcely surprise anyone who knows me that I am in 100 per cent agreement with Guy, an outstanding genealogist, and also with Brian Binns. In my book, anyone who chooses to exercise censorship over facts and documents that are entirely in the public domain loses the right to call themselves a genealogist at all. Genealogists and family historians should be the very last people to call for censorship. Our duty as chroniclers of our family history is to tell it like it is, warts and all. Family history is just as much about the living as the dead and there is far too much paranoia about living people. Information about each and every one of us is already out there and the government and the state has access to all of it. Why shouldn't we do likewise? I do not believe that my birth date is my own private, exclusive property! It is available to anyone who wants to look it up and rightly so. When civil registration was introduced into England and Wales in 1837 it was, rightly, made an open system, and has been ever since, to guard against possible fraud. I worry about supposed family historians who believe in censorship. -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/ Reach For The Stars blog: roystockdillgenealogy.com "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

So glad the "Carolyns" seem to be basically in agreement. What I worry about and the reason I do not put lots of information out about living people in my family is the fact that I do not want to be the means of facilitating a stalker of the living minor children. I feel an obligation as an adult to be a protector of these individuals. I think family historians and genealogists have a moral duty to use IMPECCABLE JUDGEMENT when deciding what is OK to publish and what actions might be ill advised. Of course, bad people can find out nearly anything on the internet without our help. We certainly don't need to make it easier for them. Carolyn in Minnesota USA -----Original Message----- From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Carolyn Perkes Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:09 PM To: leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LEI] Privacy Could people just be a bit more gentle with comments? I do agree that there is no such thing as privacy on the Internet or in family history. If we put ourselves out there on roots web mailing lists or on Ancestry or elsewhere, we can hardly complain. However, I must say that on some occasions, I have been discouraged when trying to share information with people who do not really want to know facts and people who are not connected to my ancestors but who share all kinds of documents all over various forums, simply because they can, just because they found this or that piece of documentation interesting. Not because they are interested in any particular family history, but simply because . well, I suppose some folks like to show off. I can understand why someone might become upset about documentation concerning living persons. On the other hand, I have also had a great deal of help from people on this and many other lists, people with far more experience and knowledge. Will stop here, but thanks to those who have helped. Carolyn ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 11/06/2014 11:04, Connie wrote: > I am absolutely appalled at the above and at the UK's lack of respect > and courtesy for their citizens. I would be beyond angry if anyone > published anything about me that I haven't chosen to make public > myself or more especially about my children without my knowledge or > permission. > > Since Rootsweb does have the rule, using the lists does (or should) > mean the rule is respected and information about a living person is > not requested or publically given. > > Quite apart from anything else, showing respect to living family > members could make the difference between finding out more about the > family or being shut out. > Ah now you are changing from talking about privacy to talking about courtesy, two different things. The law covers privacy, and details such as date of marriage in the UK are not and cannot be private as a marriage has to announced in public and performed in public for it to be valid. Date of birth is also public as any person may visit a register office and search the open registers to see who was born (married or died). The registers are only closed when the register book is full and passed to a superintendent registrar, even then anyone in the world may purchase any entry in the registers for whatever reason they want. One could for example walk into a superintendent registrars office and ask for a particular birth certificate because one wanted to impersonate that person the S.R would have to supply the certificate by law. In a similar way a person could walk into the town hall or wherever the particular council held the electoral register and browse through the complete register taking notes as one wished. The full electoral register is open to public by law to protect the citizens of the country against electoral fraud. This shows that rather than disrespecting the country's citizens the government is in fact extending respect to them. Schools regularly publish examination results in local newspapers, parents announce the birth and marriage of their offspring in the local newspapers. But I wonder if you are not showing disrespect to your children by censoring what information may be published about them. I obviously do not know how old your children are but assuming they are of an age to reason themselves surely they should have the right to make the decisions not you? I know you obviously make the decisions to protect your children (as any right minded parent would do) but when we talk of courtesy there is a very fine line to tread between protection and interfering in their private lives, very difficult. In a similar vien many adopted children were "protected" by having their birth parents' details kept from them. However history has shown that such a course of action causes more pain and suffering than could ever have been imagined and far more than knowing the truth from the start could ever have do; similarly with the keeping stillbirth a secret. Thousands of mothers go through years of agony because no one speaks about their stillborn child. Secrets cause pain, the truth brings release. There can be no rigid right or wrong when publishing details of living persons, every publication must be a judgement call based on reasons. Cheers Guy

Could people just be a bit more gentle with comments? I do agree that there is no such thing as privacy on the Internet or in family history. If we put ourselves out there on roots web mailing lists or on Ancestry or elsewhere, we can hardly complain. However, I must say that on some occasions, I have been discouraged when trying to share information with people who do not really want to know facts and people who are not connected to my ancestors but who share all kinds of documents all over various forums, simply because they can, just because they found this or that piece of documentation interesting. Not because they are interested in any particular family history, but simply because … well, I suppose some folks like to show off. I can understand why someone might become upset about documentation concerning living persons. On the other hand, I have also had a great deal of help from people on this and many other lists, people with far more experience and knowledge. Will stop here, but thanks to those who have helped. Carolyn

English law has traditionally protected your physical privacy via laws against trespass and assault.  It is true that there is no "traditional" protection about informational privacy. The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated into English law the European Convention on Human Rights,  Article 8.1 of the ECHR provided an explicit right to respect for a private life for the first time within English law. The Convention also requires the judiciary to "have regard" to the Convention in developing the common law. British law has also allowed the "regulation" of privacy via "Closure Rules", which is an administrative way of setting limits on what you can see.  The right to Privacy is an item for debate in the courts, but you should not automatically say that one has No Right to Privacy.  The future will decide how the courts see the issue and the lawmakers will have a say in it.  I, personally, didn't think much of Privacy until I was threatened by a student at University.  In the US you can get a map to my house, with directions, easily off the Internet. Most companies, like Rootsweb and Ancestry have found it best to adopt "the highest common denominator" as regards to Privacy.  It is better to for them legally, to promote and effect a high standard than it is to ignore the ones they want. No one can prevent you from loading up your personal website with information about yourself, your spouse, your children, etc.  The Internet allows you to be as foolish as you want to be.  I once saw a database that listed all the home-owners on my street, the names of all the family members, the cars they owned and their annual incomes.  You could buy access to this database, at the time, for US$700 a year.  It covered the US and Canada.  Who gave them all this information? But, please, don't be blase about Privacy.  Be active.     Lou

I don't want to start a long discussion on this but just to say that I was only repeating what Guy had said - a person with far more experience than me who through his postings I have come to respect. I do not have a family tree website, have never had one, and would never put living people's names on my tree out in the public domain without their permission. I do have living people on my website, out to first and second cousins, but I keep this to myself. I do not publish it on Genes reunited, Ancestry or any other such site. I have previously posted Newspaper reports on other Rootsweb forums where I thought they would be of interest, and did come under some criticism for doing so, but my argument was that these reports were already in the public domain. We will just have to agree to disagree. Brian Binns PS My daughter in law presented us with a beautiful granddaughter yesterday - Cora Marie Binns - and I don't need anyone's permission to publish her name and birthdate. I don't need permission because the facts are already out from the parents. -----Original Message----- From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Connie Sent: 11 June 2014 11:39 To: leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LEI] Brian F. MACGREGOR On 11/06/2014 11:04, Brian Binns wrote: > All Guy has quoted is that " it is perfectly acceptable for an > individual to add information about living persons on their family > history website if they so wish." > > That would presumably be name, birth date, father's name, mother's > maiden name, address. etc etc. This not something that you have chosen > to make public, it just is public information. I'm afraid I don't find it acceptable. I won't knowingly publish anything that includes living people. There is obviously a period where it is possible someone is still alive but I will do my best to find out if that's so or not. If I can't, I err on the side of caution and presume they are still living. There are researchers I know who won't even look for data after 1900. We know a lot more about people because we are genealogists, than many other people. Many don't know it is perfectly possible and legal to get anyone else's birth, marriage or death certificates. They'd be horrified if they did know. I firmly believe we should respect the living or at least give them the courtesy of not broadcasting their name, DoB, parents names, address or anything about any children they have. Respect is earned and has to be worked at to be kept. It can never be regained once lost. I could not and would not respect anyone who had the callous disrespect and lack courtesy to published any personal information about me or my family as one cousin has already discovered. -- Connie http://oursalmons.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 11/06/2014 11:04, Brian Binns wrote: > All Guy has quoted is that " it is perfectly acceptable for an individual to > add information about living persons on their family history website if > they so wish." > > That would presumably be name, birth date, father's name, mother's maiden > name, address. etc etc. This not something that you have chosen to make > public, it just is public information. I'm afraid I don't find it acceptable. I won't knowingly publish anything that includes living people. There is obviously a period where it is possible someone is still alive but I will do my best to find out if that's so or not. If I can't, I err on the side of caution and presume they are still living. There are researchers I know who won't even look for data after 1900. We know a lot more about people because we are genealogists, than many other people. Many don't know it is perfectly possible and legal to get anyone else's birth, marriage or death certificates. They'd be horrified if they did know. I firmly believe we should respect the living or at least give them the courtesy of not broadcasting their name, DoB, parents names, address or anything about any children they have. Respect is earned and has to be worked at to be kept. It can never be regained once lost. I could not and would not respect anyone who had the callous disrespect and lack courtesy to published any personal information about me or my family as one cousin has already discovered. -- Connie http://oursalmons.wordpress.com/

On 11/06/2014 06:14, Guy Etchells wrote: > Here in the UK there is no right to privacy as such, we do not have > privacy laws in the UK. Most of the mailing lists (such as the Rootsweb > lists) are based in the USA and follow the rules of that country. > We do have the PC brigade who try to push privacy but they cannot even > define what privacy is as a result they use laws concerned with accuracy > of stored information to try to frighten people off. > > Phone books are optional the electoral roll is compulsary for everyone > over 18 (with very few exceptions). What Connie is probably thinking of > is the edited version of the electoral roll. One may opt out of the > edited version. > Everyone in the world is entitled to look at the full version of the > electoral roll and make (handwritten) copies of information contained > within it. > > I should also add there was a ruling in around 2006 by the Information > Commissioner (The I.C. is the person who rules on such matters) that it > is perfectly acceptable for an individual to add information about > living persons on their family history website if they so wish. > There is no requirement to get consent to do this. I am absolutely appalled at the above and at the UK's lack of respect and courtesy for their citizens. I would be beyond angry if anyone published anything about me that I haven't chosen to make public myself or more especially about my children without my knowledge or permission. Since Rootsweb does have the rule, using the lists does (or should) mean the rule is respected and information about a living person is not requested or publically given. Quite apart from anything else, showing respect to living family members could make the difference between finding out more about the family or being shut out. -- Connie http://oursalmons.wordpress.com/

Connie, All Guy has quoted is that " it is perfectly acceptable for an individual to add information about living persons on their family history website if they so wish." That would presumably be name, birth date, father's name, mother's maiden name, address. etc etc. This not something that you have chosen to make public, it just is public information. Brian Binns -----Original Message----- From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Connie Sent: 11 June 2014 11:05 To: leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LEI] Brian F. MACGREGOR On 11/06/2014 06:14, Guy Etchells wrote: > Here in the UK there is no right to privacy as such, we do not have > privacy laws in the UK. Most of the mailing lists (such as the > Rootsweb > lists) are based in the USA and follow the rules of that country. > We do have the PC brigade who try to push privacy but they cannot even > define what privacy is as a result they use laws concerned with > accuracy of stored information to try to frighten people off. > > Phone books are optional the electoral roll is compulsary for everyone > over 18 (with very few exceptions). What Connie is probably thinking > of is the edited version of the electoral roll. One may opt out of the > edited version. > Everyone in the world is entitled to look at the full version of the > electoral roll and make (handwritten) copies of information contained > within it. > > I should also add there was a ruling in around 2006 by the Information > Commissioner (The I.C. is the person who rules on such matters) that > it is perfectly acceptable for an individual to add information about > living persons on their family history website if they so wish. > There is no requirement to get consent to do this. I am absolutely appalled at the above and at the UK's lack of respect and courtesy for their citizens. I would be beyond angry if anyone published anything about me that I haven't chosen to make public myself or more especially about my children without my knowledge or permission. Since Rootsweb does have the rule, using the lists does (or should) mean the rule is respected and information about a living person is not requested or publically given. Quite apart from anything else, showing respect to living family members could make the difference between finding out more about the family or being shut out. -- Connie http://oursalmons.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 09/06/2014 11:45, Connie wrote: > > It's a Rootsweb rule done to respect an individual's right to privacy > and probably to avoid possible litigation if the individual gets upset > about having details of themselves and their family broadcast across > the internet. I know I would be. Here in the UK there is no right to privacy as such, we do not have privacy laws in the UK. Most of the mailing lists (such as the Rootsweb lists) are based in the USA and follow the rules of that country. We do have the PC brigade who try to push privacy but they cannot even define what privacy is as a result they use laws concerned with accuracy of stored information to try to frighten people off. > > Not everyone is in the phone books or the electoral rolls, at least > not in the UK. It's optional. Phone books are optional the electoral roll is compulsary for everyone over 18 (with very few exceptions). What Connie is probably thinking of is the edited version of the electoral roll. One may opt out of the edited version. Everyone in the world is entitled to look at the full version of the electoral roll and make (handwritten) copies of information contained within it. > Nor does everyone have a Facebook, > Twitter or other social media account. If they do, then they are > responsible for what they post. People tend to be rather indiscreet > on Facebook et al, judging by the number of people who manage to get > themselves into trouble. LinkedIn is for business purposes so > slightly different. > > It's as easy to forget there are people who don't share our interest > in genealogy just like it's easy to forget all our messages to > Rootsweb lists are open to the world, not just us in the cosiness and > privacy of our own homes. > I should also add there was a ruling in around 2006 by the Information Commissioner (The I.C. is the person who rules on such matters) that it is perfectly acceptable for an individual to add information about living persons on their family history website if they so wish. There is no requirement to get consent to do this. Cheers Guy