Genealogy Chat

One of the people who has my sister as b in Ireland and m to Methusalahs grandson is showing an extreme reluctance to correct the errors. It is on Ancestry, so I have added postems to the various pages saying how ridiculous it is, and anybody copying the tree will be barking up the wrong tree, and that 'these people should not be in this mans tree'. I am hoping to shame him into doing something about it.

Margaret

I'm not surprised you're angry! I was cross enough about the £15 put on my credit card that was refunded when I pointed out it was nothing to do with me. I hope you get satisfaction from the site.

Chris

I take the point that ID fraud is getting more difficult - but sites like that website are a gift to the determined criminal.

One of my relatives named on this particular site was, a few years ago the victim of 'Identity Fraud' they went through months of hell. £30.000 plus, spent in their name and without them knowing until it was too late.

M. Steer

Ivy

As it happens one of my OH's specialist subjects is training in identity fraud!!

Apparently to totally eradicate the use of BMDs as identity you would need to put a 100 year closure on all records...But as he also pointed out there are still a fair number of 100 year olds still alive! So maybe that would have to be extended to 110.

He has also said that a birth certificate is no longer taken as a the ultimate proof of identity. Depending on age and/or circumstances there are other, or combination of, forms of identity that would be seen as ideal proof of identity!

Chris

Hi Margaret, Chris,

It seems this is a problem that is just beginning to be addressed - it doesn't feel right to me that details only obtainable from certificates can be published at will if it relates to living people.

I heard a radio programme recently suggesting that identity used to reside in the person - practically all contact was face to face, and there would be someone in your community who could vouch for you. Now that organisations (particularly financial) transact with their customers at a distance, they "identify" them through paperwork, and this creates a saleable commodity. I'm not certain whether identity fraud is made easier or more difficult with an uncommon name - easier to trace, but more difficult to fake if you are well-known within a small group of real people.

I've also found this website:

www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/edps/lang/en/pid/1

which appears to be trying to formulate policies so that we continue to provide personal data as law-abiding citizens to our governments, whilst protecting our privacy:

"The EDPS is an independent supervisory authority devoted to protecting personal data and privacy and promoting good practice in the EU institutions and bodies. It does so by:
- monitoring the EU administration's processing of personal data;
- advising on policies and legislation that affect privacy; and
- co-operating with similar authorities to ensure consistent data protection."

Sounds like work in progress, doesn't it?

Meanwhile, I hope you manage to shake a response from them Margaret. Do you know ultimately who is responsible for the website? Is it a UK company? Is it possible to google for contact details other than just email?

Margaret

If the info on you and your family is just a list of GRO references then I suspect they have gained the info from BMDs online....Just as you and I could!

If they have actual dates and further info for BMDs then they COULD have bought every certificate to obtain the info.

If they have bought the info then I don't think you can do anything about it as it is already in the public domain. :(

Chris

Thanks Chris and Ivy.

I will of course send another e-mail. It's odd that the web site was updated on 1.12.07 - they had time for that but not to answer e-mails!

I've had a look at the Data Protection Act but it doesn't seem to cover genealogical sites.

Not only has this information been given without consent but some of it is incorrect.

M. Steer

I've no experience of tackling this. By Googling, I found the following on www.ico.gov.uk (NB It is UK law, so if the server is overseas, it might not apply?)

"You have a limited right under the Data Protection Act to tell an individual or organisation to stop processing information about you if it is causing you unwarranted and substantial damage or distress.

You should make this clear and must be done in writing:

- Who you are
- What the processing is that you object to. This could relate to the use that is being made of the information or it could be the information itself. You may object to who the information is being released to and how it is being processed
- Why this processing is causing you unwarranted and substantial damage or distress. Or, if the processing has not yet begun why it will be likely to do this

It would be advisable to send this by recorded delivery.

Exemptions
This right does not apply to any processing done
- with your consent
- that is necessary to carry out a contract
- that is necessary to prepare, with your agreement, to enter a contract
- that is necessary to carry out any legal obligation
- that applies to the organisation except those relating to contracts
- that is necessary to protect your vital interests

What can you expect in response?
- The organisation should reply in 21 days and explain what, if anything, they are going to do in response. They should also give their reasons if they think your demand is not justified in any way.

If you are not satisfied with the response you can then apply to a court and the court will decide whether, or how far, your demands should be met.

You should keep a copies of all the correspondence relating to the matter. Also record the dates of any communications. This will be important evidence for the court to consider."

I contacted the web site 'owner' on Saturday afternoon, I didn't expect an immediate reply as it was the weekend, it's now 5.00 p.m. Monday and still no reply. What if anything, can I do next?

M. Steer

I can understand your anger. A couple of months ago I found my sister (now dead) on a lot of Ancestry trees, with an alleged spouse who was b in 1723 and with alleged children b from 1740 to 1771.
I know it was my sister, as some of the people also had our parents (with dad's correct y.o.b. of 1899) and some also had our grandparents, so I presume they all copied, but some realised the incongruity of my sister having a father b 1899 and a spouse b 1723, so they left out our parents and grandparents, just left my sister married to Methusalah's grandson.

.....you have a legitimate case to demand the removal of this information...at minimum at least your details.

Unless you have given written permission for these personal details to be displayed publicly.

Message the relevant poster, message others listed that may also be interested in the removal.

Bob

Sue & Michael,

I admit when I first joined GR I did put myself, husband, brother and sister on the site. I soon learned that this was not a good idea so removed them. I now only have two living relatives in my Tree and they are not named, they're 'Living'.

Some of the names on this other web site are cousins that I haven't seen in 30 years or more and I certainly don't know their childrens names.

I'd love to know who did provide this information but I don't suppose I ever will.

M. Steer

I fully agree, there should be no children on your tree, they're not very useful when tracing ancestors are they?
BUT the problem is, you need not have them on your tree for them to appear.
This information is available for anyone to find - they just have to work backwards from, say, a joint great grandparent and eventually will find you and your children through BMD's.

HOWEVER if people are interested in genealogy and not just nosey creeps, they wouldn't bother to do this, and, if they did have the information would have the decency not to put up for all to see!!

maggie

I would go a step further than what Sue suggests. Don't put any living people in your tree anywhere. You can't trust any website to keep those names hidden. There is simply no reason to have your children's names on your tree, it doesn't help anyone in their research.
Margaret

I suppose you or one of your close relations must have made your tree available to someone with living people on it.

Whoever put stuff on the site should not have put living people on the web but it does emphasise the fact that those details wouldn't have been around for them to see if they hadn't been shown them somehow.

Everyone should make sure that their trees online do not include living people by name. Hide them as something like Living Living. No-one should put details of children on GR yet I am often invited to view trees with full family details on them and my only connection is often hundreds of years ago.

Sue

I've just visited a web site that I haven't been on for ages and to my horror I found not only myself, husband and family but a whole host of living relatives. I've no idea who provided the information.

Why on earth do people insist on doing this kind of thing?

I've contacted the web site in question and asked them to look into this.

M. Steer