Make only DIRECT LIVING LINE visible in new family groups feature-NOT ALL living relatives
Hello. I just heard about living relatives being able to be seen and shared within groups as a new feature that is going to be added to Family Search by the end of 2023. I am very concerned about this. I raised this issue in the chat and many people responded with a red exclamation point. I also emailed and received answers that did not address my concerns (telling me simply not to accept the invitation to the group does not solve the problem!), I called the 866 number and they weren't even aware of this. So far no one seems to have an answer to my question cut and pasted here:
Is there a way to opt out from ANY living information being shown? I'm trying to find out how do I stop this particular scenario from happening: Suppose a relative creates a group where he/she has MY living information, that of my living parents, or other relatives. Even if I personally don't join this group won't my information (and the other living relatives directly in my line) be visible to anyone who he/she has in her group since this information was on HIS/HER tree? This is a privacy issue.
Some people may feel comfortable sharing this info with other family members but I do not. LIVING PEOPLE SHOULD CONTINUE TO REMAIN PRIVATE IN FAMILY SEARCH-PERIOD!!!
A suggestion I am making to the developing team is to only allow a person's direct line to be visible when they create a family group. For example, when my cousin creates a family group and invites people, they should only be able to see HER direct family line such as her children, her parents, and so forth. The people she invites should NOT be able to see me, my living siblings, my living parents, my sisters' children, my living cousins on my mother's side, etc.... PLEASE can we work on this???
Thank you for helping me (and others) with this.
There's an easy and iron-clad way to protect the privacy of all of those living relatives of yours: don't put their information online.1
The current Family Group feature allows you to accept or reject the invitation to become a member of the collaborative group - or if you want to be removed the group administrator can do so. The features currently include messaging and sharing temple family names. Essentially it's like knowing the email address of a group member (unless you allow View Relationship setting) - so a group mail/messaging feature. If you do not want to collaborate in this manner - I believe you were given the correct answer - don't join the group or request removal.0
With all due respect "genthusiast" and "Julia"-you are not reading my post correctly. Even if I do not put living people on my tree and even if I do not join my cousin's group (as you are stating), SHE has all these living people on her tree including me, my parents, etc and anyone that joins her group will then see ALL OF US once Family Search puts this new change in place. Asking EVERYONE in your family to remove ALL their living cards regarding my portion of the family is also an impossible task as I don't even know who in the extended family has added this information over the years. Once again I am going to state LIVING PEOPLE SHOULD CONTINUE TO REMAIN PRIVATE IN FAMILY SEARCH-PERIOD!!! Thank you.0
Cindy Hecker ✭✭✭
There are definitely issues with privacy with the living which is why it has taken so long for FamilySearch to even step into this realm (it has been hinted at for a few years now). They are trying to be cautious and work thru the possibilities but there are some good things to happen if people want to work together.
Think of it this way. It is like your cousins family getting together around the table (your not invited) and they share pictures and information about relatives. Does it hurt you, not really. Is it accurate or gossip, who knows? Will it ever go public to everyone, not until you are deceased and all the profiles of you get merged. It will be optional for those to share what they want from their private area (doesn't have to be everything) with those they choose to be part of their family group. It happens in person when families get together, now it will be in a computer form. I don't seem great harm unless you have a bad participant and you could choose not to include them or kick them out of group if they cause issues.
I am waiting to see how this finally works. It has probably more benefits than downfalls. They are still working on it. Hopefully they do some testing and learn how to make it work for the best.0
Ancestry is doing this already, and I understand there is a lot of pressure on FamilySearch to do the same.
I find what is happening on Ancestry to be very intrusive. There, a distant cousin has built a large tree including my immediate living family but not this cousin's own immediate living family.1
There is nothing to prevent a living person from using the knowledge/research they have - from adding living person's into their Private Living Space of FamilySearch Family Tree (how are you going to prevent it?). Whether those profiles are shared is a different matter - and yes could involve the consent of the living person those profiles represent.
I disagree with your emphatic rule - but only with modification of a couple of words:
Living people in Private Living Spaces (your private area to record living persons) - should remain private UNLESS documented permission to share (which is obviously given in Family Groups feature) has been accepted. PERIOD.
Why do you want to prevent the living from sharing when they desire to do so? I disagree that you and living family will be seen in the FamilySearch Family Tree without having given express permission for that to occur (View Relationship setting) - unless the cousin shares her screen/Living space without your permission (perhaps you do have a point there - but settings should override/obscure lines not granting permission). The Relatives at Rootstech feature is similar (if you don't agree to the settings - your information/relationship is not shown).
As mentioned by Cindy (above) - this is like living people gathering around the kitchen table (that they want to gather implies consent to share). In my view - this is like a family member/ancestor gathering names and publishing them in a family book of years ago. The only difference - which yes is significant - we have sophisticated hackers willing to destroy/manipulate all kinds of computer information ...
So it is best - in my current opinion - if sharing of Living Profiles is limited to those having granted such sharing permission in Family Groups (of which I believe you are only allowed 10 such groups currently). The current problem with sharing Memories to such a group - you only have Private or Public Memories to choose from - you cannot only share with a limited group (yes separate platforms have such capability but since FamilySearch is implementing Family Groups the next sharing step is logical).0
Thank you all for your comments. However, sitting around a table sharing private things is MUCH different than sharing them over the Internet regardless of whether you have chosen 10 or 100 people to share my information with! One person above mentions the hackers which is only a part of the problem. What about the "bad sheep" in our families? We don't like to talk about it, but it's out there-you know! I can see that most of those who are responding to me seem to have no problem with their living information being shared. And that's fine. That's why I suggested that the person creating the Family Group should only have their direct line visible for others in the Family Group. And all members in that family group should also only have their direct line visible. They should still be able to store other living info but it shouldn't be shared. I'm sorry you don't like my "emphatic rule" but "genthusiast" above offered an alternate to the wording which I wouldn't mind (Living people in Private Living Spaces (your private area to record living persons) - should remain private UNLESS documented permission to share (which is obviously given in Family Groups feature) has been accepted. PERIOD.). Perhaps the developers would consider that. I wouldn't have a problem with that then. I suppose we will all have to wait until Family Search rolls out this new feature and pray that our personal information being exposed doesn't lead to more serious consequences. I did call the 866 number yesterday and was told someone named Kayleen would call me back regarding this concern. It has been 24 hours and I have not received a call back so either I'm not getting one or Kayleen is still working on finding a solution/resolution to the concerns I have raised. I pray the latter is the case. I really appreciate all the collaboration here. I hope that Family Search will continue to respect the privacy of those that wish to remain private.
I understand & share your concerns, MC97.
I've entered a lot of information on living relatives in FamilySearch. A number of relatives that know this have expressed concerns over the years that the information might inadvertently be made public. I've been sensitive to this, but persuaded both myself and them that FamilySearch built really strong systems to prevent that from happening. Many users might be frustrated by those restraints, but they've been a selling point for me.
When the functionality to share living information becomes active, I won't use it. I certainly won't share data on living people with anyone unless those living people explicitly give permission to do so. I would not want others to do so with my family's information either.
However, I have relatives who have also entered a lot of living people into FamilySearch. And I don't expect they will be all that concerned about privacy issues. They will just be eager and excited to share their pools of living people with whomever in the family shows an interest.
I do understand though that sharing with close family is not the same as making the information public, so I'm going to withhold final judgment until the particulars of the roll-out are known. Hopefully they'll be sharing more information soon.0