Living person in Record Hints
I am shocked that a Record Hint shows a close family member's full birth details, even the maiden name of mother. They are living and quite young. I could give the link but anyone seeing this will be aware of the record.
I feel this is a serious security issue.
Is there a way to send a private message so the problem can be looked at please?
Many thanks for any help on this.
@Julie Kinouchi I would like to refer you to this article in the help center that might be useful:
Can I request to remove the name of a living person from Historical Records?
The record custodian, not FamilySearch, is responsible for public disclosure of the records. Some states, including Texas, designate vital records of living persons as public.
What I do to keep details of living persons as private as possible is this:
- Work the hint.
- Go to source pages of the attached profiles and dismiss the flag about unfinished attachments.
All future research hints of this record are suppressed until and unless a profile is created for the person in the public tree space.1
Paul W ✭✭✭✭✭
FamilySearch's position on privacy for living individuals can appear quite baffling at times. On the one hand, IDs for the living can only be seen in private spaces, then you get situations like this - where public records of living persons are not just published, but their existence is even highlighted!
I assume the matter being discussed here refers to a hint against a deceased person, with a reference to another who is still alive. (Otherwise, there would be no issue: only the person who created the "Living" ID would be able to see the hint.) I also assume the poster is more concerned about the details being highlighted, rather than their mere publication. As already mentioned, there are many openly available records that contain "confidential" information - especially as far as the individual directly concerned would consider this detail to be private. For example, this might show an individual as being illegitimate, when they had previously indicated to friends that an adoptive couple, or perhaps grandparents, were their natural parents.
Here in the UK, our census records remain close for a 100 years, whereas I see in the US the 1950 records have been published - including data relating to a considerable amount of living persons, of course. However, in the UK, it is quite easy to find where an individual lives, who they married and what children they have / had.
Whether FamilySearch should take their privacy for the living policies beyond its current position has been carefully considered by its legal team, no doubt: especially with regard to the issue of its records covering countries across the globe, each with their own privacy legislation.
Perhaps what is more confusing is the keeping details of the living completely in private spaces - perhaps these IDs should be open to view, but with certain details automatically redacted if the record is marked "Living". The popular alternative suggestion (raised here and elsewhere) has been to allow these IDs to be viewed within a group of family members. This has been discussed regularly for many years, but I assume there remain legal difficulties in its application - especially in countries where privacy laws are far tighter than, say, in the United Kingdom or United States.0
Many thanks for answering.
This actually refers to a full birth date and place for an adult living child and maiden name of living mother. A couple of common security questions there.....0
Paul W ✭✭✭✭✭
Regardless of the option highlighted (in the article), I just don't see FamilySearch's "logic" when it comes to privacy for the living. Huge amounts of personal information appears on the website relating to the living, yet we're not even supposed to indicate (on a deceased person's pages) that they might have children that are living!
I've just been using Ancestry and was amazed at the amount of detail of living persons in its Public Trees section. If they can publish that without fear of getting into any bother with individuals or authorities, what is FamilySearch's problem here?
To clarify, I am not advocating open publication of more material on the living, just that FamilySearch can, firstly, figure out a way of being consistent within its own programs and, secondly, accept legal constraints cannot be an acceptable explanation for restricting information (specifically in viewing "Living" IDs) when other organisations seem to have no such problems in sharing such detail.0