Prevent Identity Theft
Actually, the aggregating of the information has led to this site being a source for identity theft of living people. Parent/household Census records provide birthdate and place information, residence history, and sibling data. Other data available include mother's maiden name, along with school records, service records, spouses using the deceased spouse's retirement - which uses HIS/HER identity information which is NOT restricted here. Note: most of these answers have been used to 'verify your identity' on financial and medical data sites, at some time, and even today. Very naïve to minimize this site's danger. Relative's identity stolen multiple time using no more information than found here. Yes, the records can be found, if someone wants to work to go get and find the data if they have access to it. However, here all the sources are available and aggregated for the thief. Just pull the person of interest up and select "DETAILS", then answer any security question being asked... The information can be aggregated for living persons, as well, it is just that only the creator can see it - unless they falsely designate that person is deceased!!! (no proof required). Only have to prove that they are still living, once someone notices the error...
Fix, this problem!.
1) No creation/designation of a person being deceased without proof, if under 200 years old.
2) Do not post/link/source census records containing the birthdate and place of living persons. Understand that it is the aggregating of the available information that creates the problem.
3) Do not allow the sourcing/linking of Service Records containing serial numbers/SSNs, if under 200 years old.
4) Do not post/link/source school records containing the birthdate and place of living persons. Understand that it is the aggregating of the available information that creates the problem.
Comments
-
I have to agree there does seem to be inconsistency with the treatment of this issue, but not only on this website. In the U.K., the 1939 National Register has information on individuals completely redacted if it is suspected they are still alive. The GRO indexes of births also "hides" the maiden names of mothers of children born in the last hundred years. However, some government agency has seen it fit to allow the FreeBMD website to publish the maiden names, right up to the 1990s.
As you know, the argument generally made (on the other thread and elsewhere) is that FamilySearch is only publishing material publicly available elsewhere. However, in its "Family Tree" any profile marked as "Living" can only be viewed by the individual who created that record - presumably due to the fact that private information could be attached to these IDs, along with detail that is in the public domain.
Whilst you do make some relevant points, I do feel you are probably overstating the "dangers" of the availability of certain data currently published on the FamilySearch website. Also, your "under 200 years old" suggestion is surely far too restrictive, given the present maximum life expectancy of humans.
1 -
@Coe33 All countries have laws around privacy. United States releases census records 72 years after the Census Day. They are available at the US government web site https://www.archives.gov/research/census/online-resources . Can you imagine what comments would be in this forum if FamilySearch decided not to provide census data, but required people to go directly to the government site to get it?
Information in the US which has been compiled by US or subordinate governments (State, County, etc) is subject to the laws of those governments. If information, such as social security number, birth and death certificates, is released, that is outside of FamilySearch's control. FamilySearch may have an arrangement with the government entity to restrict access to records, such as the Alabama death certificates. Those can only be viewed at a Family History Center. Not even affiliate locations have access to those.
It is only common sense that FamilySearch provide access to all records which are available. The owners of the collections are the ones to determine when and if the information is released. Governments are allowed limit censuses. It's their data.
It is absolutely NOT the job of FamilySearch to be the privacy police. FamilySearch has no right to take a righteous stance on whether publicly available information should be available in FamilySearch users.
Publication of US social security number 2 years after the death helps DECREASE fraud, by the way. I attach social security number to all my deceased relatives when I see it available. It is not redacted on any public death certificates I have seen, unlike other strange data such as whether a person served in the military (redacted in VA death certs) or cause of death (redacted in North Dakota's death certs) . Many states have released very recent forms which contain complete birth date information, such as marriage certificates. FamilySearch has nothing to do with this. It is all controlled by public law.
6 -
Indeed the records of the United Kingdom are sometimes more restricted to public access than in the U.S. (e.g., census not published until 100 years later and the redaction of names of the "suspected still living" in the 1939 National Register), but indexes of births and deaths are available - along with copies of the actual certificate detailing the event - right up to 2021.
In the case of identity fraud, it has been records of the deceased that have played more a role in this activity - with individuals assuming the identity of a child who died in infancy, for example.
I partly disagree with you, in that FamilySearch does not have to publish publicly available material, if the organisation really feels so strongly about the privacy of the living. However, it would seem illogical not to do so, if there are so many alternative ways of gaining such information on living individuals.
The main danger I see within FamilySearch is with census indexing projects causing the creation of Family Tree profiles (based on comparatively recent census sets), whereby the assumption is being made that individuals are deceased, when many being categorised as such are still very much alive.
0 -
@Paul W I agree - laughing - that the main danger of the census is indexing projects, but maybe for different reasons. Danger to the tree is the first thought that came to mind, but that is a different point.
When indexing projects cause the creation of person records where the assumption is the person is deceased, I don't know what to say about that because so much recent information is being released. I would say that is one more reason FamilySearch should stop these projects, but I think quite a few others are vocally carrying that banner into battle.
There is much more data released that is far more current than the 1950 census. Virginia has released marriage certificates through 2014, for example. It appears those records are not available in FamilySearch, but I doubt that is because of privacy. I suspect it is more a failure to have an agreement with Virginia. Virginia has millions of court records recently digitized (during COVID) that are as old as the 1600s. Most are available in Ancestry and not FamilySearch, so privacy for a will dated 1798 is clearly not the issue. There is some other reason that all this valuable information is not available in FamilySearch.
But in the future, should FamilySearch acquire access to these records, I would suspect they need to think twice about automatically creating person records for people married in 2014. The reason would never be related to fraud - 2014 marriages in Virginia is now public information - but the reason would be creating person records for those VERY likely still alive.
0 -
Gail/Paul:
The issue is data that contains LIVING persons information. FamilySearch already acknowledges a responsibility to prevent the PROFILE of a living person from having sources tied to it and sharing that profile publicly. There is also a lesser issue with information about recently deceased persons that have children and spouses on retirement or entitlement programs tied to the deceased, since the security information to access the program is based on the deceased's information, not the survivors. (These are facts, like them or not. I have examples but will not share them. I am not here to provide identity theft lessons.)
US Census data provides the information I already discussed. About 25% of verification security questions can be gleaned or where to find it, from them. Education enrollment questions, pick up another 10%. The US used to forbid the publication and use of SSN as ID information, prior to the '60s.
FS becomes a one-stop-shop for sources of ID theft information. The steps I outlined are within FS ability to implement to greatly reduce it from being complicit and aiding in identity theft.
The sources are still accessible for research. However, there is no justifiable reason to allow their linking the hints/sources to living profiles unless they are your family members. If so, only you can see them. FS already states that living profiles should only be used for tying trees together e.g., Mother's tree to Father's tree.
I have identified several LIVING persons that were labeled as DECEASED, and in fact, their identity had been under attack. FS required justification that they were LIVING. That is backwards, if they are serious about preventing FS from being used for identity theft.
0 -
@Coe33 I'm glad you don't have the ability to do any of that.
1) So you are saying anyone born after 1823 should be invisible. Really? That sounds rather extreme.
2) All census records are public. Sorry. They are there for people to use. Having said that, most of the census records are so old they are not quite as useful for identity theft as you think.
3) I make it a POINT to add SSN information to my deceased relatives when it is released. I know where to get it if I have to fight fraud. There is a REASON these numbers are released 3 years after a person dies.
4) I agree with. In fact, I may be more draconian than you. I don't believe living people should even be on a tree at all. Family history should be all about the deceased, not recording the living. The only living people I have in FamilySearch and in my Ancestry trees are the living who have asked me to do their family history. I grab a public photo of them for the profile so they can see where they are in the screen shots I send them and screen shares when we have online meetings. I do not use FamilySearch or Ancestry to keep track of current events such as weddings, births, etc.
I don't understand your comment about converting someone to living. I came across only 1 person I knew for a fact was still alive (and turning 100, to be fair.) I marked him living myself and his record immediately vanished. I had to type in a reason for the change, which I did, but that was the only justification required. Has something changed that you can't just change someone back to living yourself?
0 -
@Coe33, I confess that I didn't read past your "1)", because that's already impossible or pointless: define "proof", and explain how it could ever be evaluated.
For example, my aunt's husband died a few years ago. His profile on FS has no sources attached, because all of his documents are much too recent to be public. (He lived in Hungary.)
Nevertheless, I have no reason to doubt his death information: I happen to know that the contributor who entered the date (and time) is his grandson, who lives in the same house as his grandparents.
What if grandson used the site in his native language (instead of using it to practice his English)? Would a Death field with a reason of "dél" do anything for your idea of proof?
1 -
Gail:
You said nothing to contradict anything I stated.
Another person entered living persons as deceased. Their identity (retirement/medical) had been attacked.
Julia:
Proof, is relative. Besides, what is sufficient has, yet, to be determined, since none is currently needed.
0 -
Coe33 I think you got it backwards. I did not mark someone as deceased. He was already marked deceased yet was still living. I marked him living and his record then disappeared, as it should have been in the first place. You seemed to indicate it is difficult to change a living person to "living" when they have been marked deceased.
0 -
Gail:
I did not get it wrong, I understood you corrected it to LIVING. I said proof, but you described the process correctly. You have to write a justification that FS must review. Once they accept your 'justification' (e.g. proof) that the person is LIVING, they change the designation and send you an Email.
The person updating and entering a 'table full of historical records' had nothing to do with the family they were entering information about, and got it dangerously wrong. The error was, fortunately, caught in a timely manner.
0 -
mod note - Sentences containing code of conduct violations, and any replies to those, were edited. Please see the Code of Conduct for more details. https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/community-code-of-conduct
1
