Visible Living Record Suggestion
Please consider, adding the option to allow a living person who creates their own record to choose whether the record is visible.
I would suggest using 2FA (Two Factor Authentication) to verify this person's identity and authority to make his/her record visible.
This would be a 'one time switched on' and could never be 'switched off'. This should be clearly stated, and the user must agree to this condition.
Comments
-
Wayne
Welcome to the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
[ And, I happen to be a Member of the Church ... ]
Just in passing ...
An interesting, suggested enhancement ...
Most likely, not a NEW suggested enhancement ...
And, I understand where you are coming from ...
But ...
That Said ...
Things are NEVER; as, SIMPLE; as, most of us think ...
The matter of "Privacy", is much more COMPLEX, than most people realise ...
There are a myriad of "Privacy" Laws, within the many various, Countries; and, Unions, throughout the World - it is a nightmare to negotiate.
The "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', is used in many, Countries; and, Unions, throughout the World; and, as such, must adhere to the myriad of "Privacy" Laws, throughout the World.
Hence, "Privacy" is one of the reasons that we cannot "Share" the "Living" individuals/persons in our own "Private Spaces" - it is NOT the ONLY reason; but, certainly has a bearing on the matter.
And ...
In your suggseted enhancement ...
I DO NOT like, the "Restrictive" nature, of that ... 'one time switched on' and could never be 'switched off' ...
IF, there WAS to be, such an "Option"; THEN, such NEEDS to have, the ability, to be, a 'two way switch' ...
ie. Ability, to ALTERNATE, between, "Enable" ( ie. ON ); and, "Disable" ( ie. OFF ).
Plus ...
The OTHER Problem/Issue, is that one, may ONLY want, the ability, for CERTAIN Users/Patrons, to 'see' (and, maybe, have 'access'), to the "Living" individuals/person, in one's "Private Spaces".
In other words, one MAY NOT want, the WHOLE World, be able to 'see' (and, certainly NOT have 'access'), to the "Living" individuals/person, in one's "Private Spaces" - ONLY certain (Acceptable/Nominated) Users/Patrons.
Of course, such may NOT, even be permissible, in some, Countries; and, Unions, throughout the World.
And, I believe, that 'FamilySearch' is exploring, various options/avenues, regarding "Living" individuals/persons, in our "Private Spaces", in "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch'.
[ And, 'FamilySearch', has certainly, been 'tinkering' around the edges, with such ... ]
'FamilySearch', has recently released, a number of (what one might call) "Options", to enable even BETTER "Collaboration", between Users/Patrons (than, already exists); and, especially, between, Family; and, Extended Family.
We have had, for a number of years:
(1) "Discussions" (ie. now part of the "Collaborate" 'Tab'); and,
(2) "User Messaging", in 'FamilySearch"; and,
(3) "Relationship Viewing", to enable Users/Patrons, to view any relationship, between them (if such exists)
And ...
Not to forget ...
"Notes" (ie. now part of the "Collaborate" 'Tab'); "Life Sketch"; "Reason Statements"; etc ...
[ Although, the problem/issue; being, that MANY Users/Patrons just either, miss; or, ignore such ... ]
Whereas ...
We NOW have:
(1) "Family Groups", for "Sharing" the "Temple" Work; and, communicating, through "User Messaging"; and,
(2) Although, still in its infancy and "Testing" stage, "Connections", for even greater communicating
'FamilySearch', has been 'grappling', with the SHARING, of "Living" individuals/persons, between "Living" Users/Patrons; and, 'working' on this, for, MANY; Many; many, Years.
There DOES appear to be some progress ...
Especially, with the recent implementation, of the NEW "Family Groups".
Currently, the 'premise' of "Family Groups" is:
PRIMARILY: for the "Sharing" of "Temple" Work, for Users/Patrons who are Member of the Church; and,
SECONDARY: a form of "Group" 'Messaging' Tool, for ALL User/Patrons
But, there has been 'Talk', in this Forum, that has suggested, that "Family Groups", may STILL be in a 'staged' implementation; and, may (hopefully) be a 'Stepping Stone', to include a 'component', to enable the "Sharing", of the "Living" individuals/persons, in our "Private Spaces", between members of the particular 'Group'; as, a "Family Group" is, in fact, a "Closed" PRIVATE 'Group', with somewhat of a 'Modicum', of "Privacy".
That, of course, being a long, desired; and, awaited; and, much wanted, development ...
Just my thoughts ...
We can but live in hope ...
Brett
0 -
The main issue I think with this is how to verify the person's identity. Under your proposal, I could create a new FS account under the name of a close relative who isn't interested in genealogy and then expose their birthdate and other personal details to the world. If my relative was in the EU, then under the GDPR law of the European Union they could sue FamilySearch for 20 million euros.
The only way to avoid this would be a requirement to submit photo ID, which would be expensive to administer and probably not worth it.
1 -
@A van Helsdingen hmmm.... something wrong with that law ... hold the platform accountable that another user abused? It seems like the FamilySearch terms of use would come into play. I guess it would be ok if FamilySearch could then just transfer the 20 million euros suit to you (the abuser)...? And I am not sure if the suit could demonstrate the 20 million euros damages. Let's hope people keep living identities protected ...
@WayneSmith77 The options of making user profile name and contact information available (as they currently are) allows someone to contact another user that they encounter. That user can then make their profile information available in private - that seems fine.
0 -
GDPR and other such privacy considerations aside, I've gotta ask: why do you want this? What possible purpose would it serve for you to expose all of your vital details to the world?
0 -
@genthusiast At the risk of going off-topic I will say two things. Firstly, the maximum penalty under the GDPR is 20 million euros or 4% of the offender's annual revenue. Secondly, as I understand it, in the hypothetical scenario I mentioned FamilySearch would still be liable because they failed to put adequate privacy protections in place to stop their users breaching people's privacy.
So you can see why FamilySearch, as a non-profit available in most countries and thus liable to hundreds of different privacy laws, has to take a very cautious approach to privacy issues.
0
