Accessing private records that are locked

LegacyUser

Steve Jones said: As a FH consultant I have helped several people make extensive family tree entries about living people, including entering the person, life sketches, facts about them, sources, memories, etc. Most of these people making entries are elderly with health problems and desire to record these people, most of whom are not members, into family Tree. "It is so much easier to record the facts as they occur than to research them decades later when the people are dead." Problem is, how to access the private records of living persons after the entering person dies? Are they locked forever?
A suggestion: The familysearch account owner designate one or more persons with FS accounts as heirs to the account before they die. As soon as the owner dies, the heirs could be notified by email and by their bishop from familysearch. They would then be able to update and maintain the private entries without any breach of confidentiality.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: This topic is often discussed in this forum. Privacy laws prevent information about living people from being shared without that person's consent.

My understanding is that LDS profiles can be changed from living to deceased when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints notifies FS of the death. I'm not sure what happens with non-LDS profiles.

The idea of an account heir is a good one, but I don't see why a LDS bishop needs to be involved. That would be inappropriate for the majority of FS users who are not Latter Day Saints.

LegacyUser

Steve Jones said: The core of the issue is what happens to records of living people when the person who recorded them dies. An example: Mary Jones, a member, records her children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, spouses of these descendants, and a few parents of spouses. Two thirds of these people are not members. After Mary dies, her ward clerk records her death and her FamilySearch account is locked. Now all the information about living persons she entered is essentially gone, possibly forever or possibly until 110 years pass. As some of what Mary recorded contemporaneously may be difficult or impossible to find thru research decades later, wouldn't it be better if Mary could designate one or more heirs for her account like she would for her paper genealogies? FamilySearch could then send email notification to those heirs giving them instructions and access to Mary's account. I am not aware of any privacy laws that would apply as Mary is deceased and her account, as property, is being passed legally to her designated heirs.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: The problem is that the living people that Mary entered would now be visible to her heirs. That would be in violation of the privacy laws of most countries.

LegacyUser

Juli said: FamilySearch (or any online database) is the wrong place to record these "as-they-happen" facts. Information about living relatives belongs strictly offline, in one of the gazillions of available genealogy software options (some of which can even be synchronized with FamilySearch for the deceased parts of one's tree), or even simply on paper. If the data is entered on a computer or tablet, it should be regularly backed up, and all of the relevant passwords and other access details should be accessible to key family members -- but none of it belongs anywhere online.

LegacyUser

Steve Jones said: I totally disagree.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Indeed. As I recollect, perhaps in a messy and inexact manner, the UK's data custodian makes it clear that information kept by me, personally, is not within the scope of the privacy rules. My Christmas Card list, to take my usual example, is not subject to GDPR because it's in a Contacts "file" accessible only to me (albeit, in "The Cloud").

I guess that private work-space entries in FS are similar. But FamilySearch suddenly opening those private records to someone else, even to a designated data-heir, is a different matter.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: You totally disagree with what? The points about GDPR? If so then whether you agree or not is completely irrelevant. It is the law for a substantial portion of the globe and so Familysearch must follow that law when dealing with people in the EU and the UK. Given that it is easier to follow that law when dealing with everyone.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Disagree or not, exposing living persons and their data is a legal matter and FamilySearch will not violate privacy laws. It is an international site and as such, it must abide by the most stringent privacy laws when it comes to the information in the massive tree.

There has been some discussion about allowing a living person's profile to be shared, but a lot depends upon the laws involved. Since the laws can change at any time, even if FamilySearch finds a legal way to allow a limited number of people to work with a living person's record, any change could remove that access.

A better solution is a private tree, such as those on Ancestry, where one can request access and receive permission from the tree owner to access their tree.

LegacyUser

Steve Jones said: If FamilySearch is so concerned about privacy laws, why, then, do they allow account holders to enter information about living people other than themselves? Why allow you to enter your marriage date? Your spouse? Your children? etc. if eventually all that information will be locked away forever? This is not right. Why must we wait until decades pass, people die, and memories fade before we can record "family history"? I can see now why some people tell me they aren't interested in FamilySearch, but keep their records on paper that they can give to sons or daughters like the prophets of the Book of Mormon. What we need is a way to record the LIVING, changing family tree with both branches and roots. Maybe some reasonable method of automatically moving living people to deceased even if the entering person's account is locked. By the way, propriety genealogy systems don't seem to have a problem with account owners sharing their trees, including living people, with others.

LegacyUser

Steve Jones said: Let me point out the original suggestion. Anyone can bequeath their property to anyone else they choose. It is their property whether under their mattress, in their bank, or kept elsewhere. There are extensive laws protecting property rights, INCLUDING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. What is the difference between my bequeathing the contents of my bank account and bequeathing the contents of my FamilySearch account? Neither become public property or publicly available or even public knowledge. Thus the argument about privacy laws does not apply. I should be able to bequeath my family history records whether on paper or computer file, or in the cloud.

LegacyUser

gasmodels said: Steve, I appreciate your concern for this issue. It has been an issue from the beginning of new FamilySearch. At one time there were active discussions about developing shared family spaces in Family Tree, where users could share information on living people with other Family Members. So far we have not seen any implementation of this feature. I know the developers have or are working in this area but they usually do not provide any indication of progress on future developments.

There are some features in the Memories section of Family Tree where items can be share with the use of Albums. By placing things in an album and then sharing the URL all family members have access to the same memories. Thus for example pictures of living people could be shared so everyone has access and it is not necessary for each to upload the same items. While this does not solve all the issues, it is a small step that ingenious users can apply as they find useful.

I personally do not add living people to Family Tree because of the issues involved since I am on the more mature side of my living family and it likely that what I add would never see the "light of day". As has been suggested by others use of stand alone systems or other websites where access is available might be better choices today.

It really is a shame that many people are spending a significant amount of time adding information to living records and there is no way to make that information available to anyone after their passing. I consider this one if the major current deficiencies in the system that is not clear to many users. Something needs to be done, either to make some changes to allow access to these records or to advise people not to waste their time on entering information on living records that will only be hidden after their passing.

LegacyUser

Juli said: The better analogy is bequeathing your bank account number and password versus bequeathing the bank account numbers and passwords of your children. It's perfectly legal and fine for you to *have* the latter information, but would you really want, say, your brother-in-law's parents to have access to it?

The ability to enter profiles for living people on FS exists so that one can make the appropriate connections to one's deceased relatives. For example, I entered a profile for my aunt when her husband passed away. But said profile consists of her name and the fact that she's living. That's it. I don't need more than that to figure out who the profile is for, so I have not transferred to FS FT any of the other things I know about her.

Given that data breaches can and do happen, I don't even enter identifying non-public information about living people on "private" websites (like Ancestry and MyHeritage), and I never enter anything for children (minors), not even the fact that they exist. I track all of that information strictly offline.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: The additional point is that if you do something yourself, only you are liable. The Private Space information is under the control of FS - their database, their software, their controls. I am really uncertain about this, but I think that GDPR laws place obligations on FS in this scenario. I remember not believing this when I first saw it written out, but some research convinced me that this was the case. (Whether it makes sense is neither here nor there...)

LegacyUser

joe martel said: The goal of Family Tree is to document human-kind. This is both for living user to document people who have passed and for living people who are alive now to document themselves and their living family. This way when the living passed we will have captured their info close to the source. 

There are designs in process to bequeath this living info to other users in the case where the originator of living information  dies. For members it's easier because it be handled as membership is updated. For public users it's more at the mercy of loved ones and acquaintances. You could imagine a model like Facebook or something else to handle that transition.

So from my perspective, document the living in anticipation of bequeath-like models be created to handle this.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: 1. In theory, sounds good.
2. I'm sure you'll be looking at the privacy angle from every direction... best of luck with that!
3. I really wonder if more than a tiny handful of non-LDS users will put anything into their private space other than a very bare minimum to navigate out to the appropriate ancestral branch. FS could probably investigate the volumes without breaching confidentiality - he said hopefully.

LegacyUser

Steve Jones said: Yea!!! I am so hopeful for a bequeath-like model. I will now continue to encourage members and others, particularly the youth, to document the living along with the dead. FS can become such a wonderful repository of contemporary family history where parents can tell their life stories for grandchildren and great-grandchildren and others that may inspire and give hope.
I look forward to when this enhancement begins.

LegacyUser

MaryAnnHarcha said: I have not focused on living relatives in my research. There are many public documents that can be accessed at county and state vital records or courthouses or in recent media publications. I have obtained documents for living relatives at those locations and was not required to have their permission. I am not sure what privacy laws were meant in previous posts of this thread. Most public documents are open and available to anyone. Many churches post marriages, baptism, confirmations. I find my birthdate on various internet sources which did not ask me nor request my permission. Now school yearbooks are being made available and many are for living individuals.
Keeping track of dates and places as 'family genealogist' of living relatives will aid the next keeper of records from spending huge amount of time searching. Some written family records have been lost or destroyed. Not having someone before me requires a lot of verification -for instance similar names used by several siblings in large families, children could be added in wrong family group.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: It is true (especially in the US) that some vital record indexes are available for living people. People also voluntarily give up their privacy with obituaries and death notices etc. With School year books you would have agreed to have your photo and details published.

Whether this is a good thing or not is a political question for the voters and politicians of each state and county.

But in Europe, there is strict legislation known as the GDPR about privacy and data security. Other countries are very strict about the privacy of information relating to living people. FS operates worldwide, so has to either adopt the strictest privacy laws or make their website only accessible in certain countries. The approach FS has chosen is to make their website compatible with the privacy laws of every country (the sole exception is Japan, and the site is also "not intended for use" in Russia, probably due to censorship)

LegacyUser

Steve Jones said: You are missing the point. We are not suggesting that records of LIVING people become PUBLIC. We are only asking that a person be able to BEQUEATH the contents of their FS account to someone they designate. It still remains PRIVATE. Got it?

LegacyUser

Steve Jones said: "Keeping track of dates and places as 'family genealogist' of living relatives will aid the next keeper of records from spending huge amount of time searching."
Amen!

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: Unfortunately, "bequeathing" private information to another person is generally against privacy laws. You are sharing (upon your death), the details of living people with another person without their consent. I believe your earlier argument about Intellectual property doesn't work because you personally did not invent or create the data about living people. You cannot patent or copyright facts.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Read the terms of use for FamilySearch. Once you submit information to FamilySearch,you have turned over any intellectual property to the site.