I totally agree with Bill. Rose Bill Fox wrote: > My advice, Roy, was based on the overwhelming increase in "stolen > Identities" and other frauds in this country. Data can certainly be > gathered and archived so that it is available for family and future > researchers, but to err on the side of caution, I believe, is warranted. > > Dr. Bill (Bill@Dr-Fox.Com) > > . > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roy Stockdill" <roystock@compuserve.com> > To: <NEWGEN-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 4:28 AM > Subject: [NEWGEN] Publish Private Info > > : Dr Bill wrote... > : > : >> Best rule, don't publish living > : folks without their WRITTEN approval.<< > : > : WITH respect, dear Dr Bill, I must disagree! I don't believe you can make > : any hard and fast rules on this and I think that each case must be judged > : separately on its merits. I am afraid I take the view that there is far > too > : much prissiness and preciousness around about so-called "privacy". > Provided > : the information has been entirely legally and properly obtained from > : sources which are clearly in the public domain, I see no reason > whatsoever > : why it should not be published and without recourse to the subject. It > may > : be only polite to ask their permission, especially if they are a close > : relative (and you don't want to be cut out of their will!), but in theory > : anyway I see no particular reason why permission should be sought to > : publish material about living people. > : > : Were this to be the case, there would have been no decent truthful > : biography of anyone published in the last 100 years! Instead of honest, > : investigative work, we would have a flood of bland, boring, sanitised > tomes > : written by individuals which totally conceal the truth about themselves. > : Give me Kitty Kelley on Frank Sinatra and Nancy Reagan and Prince Philip, > : rather than Frank Sinatra on Frank Sinatra, Nancy Reagan on Nancy Reagan > : and Prince Philip on Prince Philip, any day of the week, if you see what > I > : mean. How are genealogists and biographers researching the lives of the > : famous to work if they have to go running to them to ask their permission > : every time? Whilst it may be argued that ordinary people are a different > : case, I can't see it myself. If you have a rule you must stick to it for > : all. > : > : I fail to understand why there is so much preciousness about birth dates > : and addresses. I realise the US system varies from state to state, but > here > : in the UK we are able to go and obtain the birth certificate of anyone we > : like on payment of a fee of six pounds, 50 pence (about 10 dollars). I > can > : get my next door neighbour's birth certificate and he can get mine and > why > : not? The fact that I was born on a particular date is not my exclusive > : property, it is a matter of public record. So why should I care about > : someone else knowing it and publishing it if they want to? And please > don't > : throw the old chestnut at me about fraud and that sort of thing. This is > a > : problem for the banks and security forces, who should surely be clever > : enough to think up something more secure than one's birth date to protect > : people against confidence tricksters. > : > : I do not regard my address as being secret, either. I am in the phone > book > : and on the electoral register. Where's the big deal? Honestly, some > people > : are so precious about their privacy you would think they regard what they > : had for breakfast as a state secret! Let's not forgot that as > genealogists, > : we are not just hobbyists but historians, too. In recording living people > : today, we are providing information for historians of the future. It's up > : to us to tell the truth as we discover it, not conceal facts just because > : they might upset dear old Aunt Maude. > : > : My rule is, if the data is very clearly in the public domain, accesible > to > : all and is seen to be so, then you don't need anyone's permission to > : publish. There is already far too much secrecy perpetrated by governments > : and other powerful agencies and big multinational companies. We as > ordinary > : people do not need to join in the climate of excessive privacy. > : > : Roy Stockdill > : Editor, The Journal of One-Name Studies > : The Stockdill Family History Society (Guild of One-Name Studies, FedFHS) > : STOCKDILL PREST YELLOW BOLTON WORSNOP > : GIBSON MIDGLEY BRACEWELL SHACKLETON BRADLEY MOODY in Yorkshire North > & > : West Ridings > : MEAD YOUNG in Somerset, Wiltshire & Gloucestershire > : Web page of the Stockdill Family History Society:- > : http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/roystock > : Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- http://www.one-name.org > : "Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does he will tell you. > : If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith (scholar and > : humorist 1771-1845) > : > : > : ==== NEWGEN Mailing List ==== > : BE SURE TO SHARE WITH THE OTHER LIST MEMBERS ANY SIGNIFICANT > : (OR INSIGNIFICANT) FIND YOU HAVE MADE. IT HELPS OTHERS TO PRESS ON > : WITH THEIR OWN SEARCH. > > ==== NEWGEN Mailing List ==== > WHILE NO CONTROVERSY IS PERMITTED ON NEWGEN THERE IS A SOAPBOX > ON THE WEBSITE HTTP://WWW.DR-FOX.COM WHERE YOU CAN EXPRESS YOURSELF