I should be interested to learn the views of fellow-members on an ethical question. I wished to search for a relation in a piece at the P.R.O. and was required to sign a confidentiality undertaking. I did not find a reference to him, but, to my surprise, found information about another relation. I guessed, correctly, that I could learn more at another repository, and did so. I should not have consulted the documents (which are not at all confidential) at the second repository without having stumbled across the P.R.O. reference. The original information is clearly confidential until the piece becomes generally available. What, though, of the information found elsewhere? At present I have it all marked with confidential tags on my database, to reduce the likelihood of my disclosing it accidentally. The relation concerned and his children are all dead. Jeremy Wilkes

I have been researching my family name for over twenty years and I try to remain mindful that I am simply pursuing a hobby and as such should not publish information that would cause embarrassment or offence. The genealogist should, in my view, always err on the side of caution. I either keep a mental note of such information or where I am unlikely to be able to remember the same I maintain separate non-computerised records. My policy is to ensure that only I have access to this information. I accept that such data may be lost to future generations. Brian Beanland -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Wilkes [mailto:JeremyWilkes@compuserve.com] Sent: 22 November 2005 20:42 To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [SoG] Confidentiality undertakings I should be interested to learn the views of fellow-members on an ethical question. I wished to search for a relation in a piece at the P.R.O. and was required to sign a confidentiality undertaking. I did not find a reference to him, but, to my surprise, found information about another relation. I guessed, correctly, that I could learn more at another repository, and did so. I should not have consulted the documents (which are not at all confidential) at the second repository without having stumbled across the P.R.O. reference. The original information is clearly confidential until the piece becomes generally available. What, though, of the information found elsewhere? At present I have it all marked with confidential tags on my database, to reduce the likelihood of my disclosing it accidentally. The relation concerned and his children are all dead. Jeremy Wilkes

An interesting dilema. It is one that is/was faced from time to time when the media found info in the US National Archives that was still closed in the UK. Considering that the information at the second repository is not considered as confidential then you are under no obligation to keep that information under raps - you might after all have stumbled across it, however unlikely, by chance. Anything which you saw at TNA (unless, you might reasonably argue, exactly the same piece of info is in the records at the other repository) you would still be obliged to keep it confidential. You could, of course, ask to look at the record at TNA again with the purpose of seeing info about the second person - but would still be obliged by any confidentiality conditions. Perhaps, since the Freedom of Information Act is now in operation, you should request that TNA reviews the status of the information stating as a reason the open status of the info held at the other repository. As to the moral aspect, Brian Beanland makes a very good point when he says: Quote I have been researching my family name for over twenty years and I try to remain mindful that I am simply pursuing a hobby and as such should not publish information that would cause embarrassment or offence. The genealogist should, in my view, always err on the side of caution. I either keep a mental note of such information or where I am unlikely to be able to remember the same I maintain separate non-computerised records. My policy is to ensure that only I have access to this information. I accept that such data may be lost to future generations. Endquote Chris Watts ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeremy Wilkes" <JeremyWilkes@compuserve.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 8:42 PM Subject: [SoG] Confidentiality undertakings | I should be interested to learn the views of fellow-members on an ethical | question. | | I wished to search for a relation in a piece at the P.R.O. and was required | to sign a confidentiality undertaking. I did not find a reference to him, | but, to my surprise, found information about another relation. I guessed, | correctly, that I could learn more at another repository, and did so. I | should not have consulted the documents (which are not at all confidential) | at the second repository without having stumbled across the P.R.O. | reference. | | The original information is clearly confidential until the piece becomes | generally available. What, though, of the information found elsewhere? | At present I have it all marked with confidential tags on my database, to | reduce the likelihood of my disclosing it accidentally. | | The relation concerned and his children are all dead. | | Jeremy Wilkes | | -- | This email has been verified as Virus free | Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net

A few years ago I came across what was almost certainly a bigamous marriage. From correspondence that I had received it was very obvious their only offspring was unaware of their parent's first marriage and I was faced with the dilemma of what to do when asked for a copy of the family tree. In the end I provided an "adjusted" tree which omitted any mention of the first marriage. Would others have acted differently in a similar situation? Regards, Phil Thirkell > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeremy Wilkes" <JeremyWilkes@compuserve.com> > To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 8:42 PM > Subject: [SoG] Confidentiality undertakings > > > | I should be interested to learn the views of fellow-members on an > ethical > | question. > | > | I wished to search for a relation in a piece at the P.R.O. and was > required > | to sign a confidentiality undertaking. I did not find a reference to > him, > | but, to my surprise, found information about another relation. I > guessed, > | correctly, that I could learn more at another repository, and did so. I > | should not have consulted the documents (which are not at all > confidential) > | at the second repository without having stumbled across the P.R.O. > | reference. > | > | The original information is clearly confidential until the piece becomes > | generally available. What, though, of the information found elsewhere? > | At present I have it all marked with confidential tags on my database, > to > | reduce the likelihood of my disclosing it accidentally. > | > | The relation concerned and his children are all dead. > | > | Jeremy Wilkes > | > | -- > | This email has been verified as Virus free > | Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net > >