Deceased individuals in private space

LegacyUser

David Wynn said: Ran into a strange phenomenon recently.

For those not aware, it is now possible to review a partial listing of the people in your private space. The mobile app has an option titled "My Contributions". In here, there is an option titled "Private Persons". This option will not show everyone in the user's private space, but does provide a selection of 200 profiles.

As I've been clearing out this space (finding death dates, or deleting unrelated profiles), I've found individuals in this area that are deceased. As I looked closer, I saw that not only are they deceased, but the profiles were created as deceased. There was no conversion from living to deceased. These are individuals that I found and documented from the publicly indexed records, but which I am not related to. Because I was not related, my request for a review of the records was denied and I was provided no information as to what in particular would cause FSFT to bury these individuals in my private space.

First, for those who utilize the web app, feel free to review your own account. You may find profiles in your own private space that are marked as deceased.

Second, just for understanding, what kinds of situations in general, would cause the governing body of FSFT to determine that certain people should not be publicly documented? That, even though all information for a given profile is available in documents hosted on FSFT, general knowledge about the individuals should be hidden and only seen by those who happen to stumble upon those unwanted documents?

LegacyUser

David Newton said: If they're genuinely dead then I can think of no legitimate reason to restrict the profiles' viewing audience. So we either have a software glitch or Familysearch have some explaining to do.

Now there's an obvious way to shine a light on this issue: tell us at least one example of such an individual and the records you documented them from. That way we can perform an experiment to see just how many posts get censored as a result of your revelation. If censorship does occur then it raises the seriousness level of the issue even higher. If censorship doesn't occur and even better if an explanation is publically posted then we can very probably relax.

Let's just say after their recent censorship of my posts I'm not feeling particularly well disposed towards their team here.

LegacyUser

David Wynn said: I'll give two. Husband and wife. Both originated from Syria, but raised their family in Pennsylvania.

Nassam Abraham (1897 - 1972)
* https://www.mcall.com/news/mc-xpm-200...

Rose Atiyeh (1897 - 1974)
(Rose's obit indicates born in PA, but all census documents indicate Syria or Turkey)
* https://www.mcall.com/news/mc-xpm-200...

1920 census: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1...
1930 census: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1...
1940 census: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1...

One other document - a marriage certificate for their son Abraham
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1...

LegacyUser

Stewart Millar said: If they are not related to you in any way then they should of course be removed from your private space.

I had such an occurrence with a deceased relative of mine - after some requests to FS he was released from the private space and became publicly viewable.

FS provided no explanation for this . . . my suspicion is that the mention in his history of army service in the Sudan wars of the 1890s may have triggered some form of automated security that possibly affects those records with a middle east connection, name or heritage - an attempt to keep private what might be seen for some Muslims as a change of religion that in extreme Muslim theology warrants a death sentence which might impact or embarrass living relatives.

Only a possible conspiracy theory.

LegacyUser

David Wynn said: I hadn't thought of the conversion angle. That makes some sense. Hm. Not sure how I would like to see such a situation resolved. I still don't approve of the current mandate that they must be kept in my private storage space (can't release to public area, and delete option also removed, although I'm the only editor).

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Well that does seem like a stand-off, doesn't it? David - you have my sympathy for what it's worth.

They can't be released to the public area - I don't have a problem with that because of the sensitivities that might rebound onto living relatives.

But - if there is sensitivity - then David shouldn't be able to view them either!

LegacyUser

Amy Archibald said: Syria and Turkey are sensitive countries and all persons created within the Family Tree are listed in the private space of the person who created them. Doesn't matter if they are deceased. This is to protect their family members from any kind of persecution.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: For the avoidance of doubt - I wasn't being sarcastic when I said "if there is sensitivity - then David shouldn't be able to view them either" - just slightly ironic.

As an aside David does have my thanks for highlighting that access in the mobile app - I just tried it and discovered someone born in 1797 who I'd created as Living, so I was at least able to correct them to Deceased and release that profile into the general tree.

LegacyUser

David Wynn said: When I first found this situation, I first opened a case asking about these individuals. Thus, I gave the FSFT missionaries a chance to handle this matter in a diplomatic, yet private way. I was told that, because I was not related to these individuals, I could not be given any kind of explanation or information as to why these particular profiles were held in my private space, with no way to release them to the public, and no way to delete the profiles. This entirely unhelpful approach raised more questions and threw suspicion on the intentions of FSFT.

It would seem to me that FSFT could put together a diplomatic explanation, in general terms, of the kinds of situations that could cause even deceased profiles to be pushed into private spaces.In the future then, when the next person asks why a deceased profile is in the private space, they could be linked to the prepared generic form explaining likely causes for such a situation.

As noted above, there can be legitimate social, political, and religious reasons to protect individuals and their descendants. Thank you to those individuals who have kindly pointed out potential reasons. Why couldn't the FSFT missionaries point out such innocent, but practical reasons for protecting an individual's information?

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Well, well, well. Colour me not surprised.

"Syria and Turkey are sensitive countries and all persons created within the Family Tree are listed in the private space of the person who created them. Doesn't matter if they are deceased."

"When I first found this situation, I first opened a case asking about these individuals. Thus, I gave the FSFT missionaries a chance to handle this matter in a diplomatic, yet private way. I was told that, because I was not related to these individuals, I could not be given any kind of explanation or information as to why these particular profiles were held in my private space, with no way to release them to the public, and no way to delete the profiles. This entirely unhelpful approach raised more questions and threw suspicion on the intentions of FSFT."

"Why couldn't the FSFT missionaries point out such innocent, but practical reasons for protecting an individual's information?"

All persons created within FSFT from Syria and Turkey are in private spaces because they are "sensitive" countries. To allegedly "protect" their relatives. So if that logic were to be applied then no one from any Muslim majority country should be allowed. What about someone from the Ottoman Empire and born in 1892, like in the example census returns? How many relatives will that policy "protect"? If not 1892 then what about 1800? Does this policy go right back in time to when Syria and Turkey were Christian areas? Not so applicable to Syria since that was so long ago, but it is conceivable someone could legitimately trace their line back to Byzantine Anatolia. Is everyone in that area kept in a private area to "protect" their relatives, even if they lived 600 years ago?

Why keep this secret? How will it hinder people for this policy to be known? I do not consider a blanket prohibition like has been outlined here to be legitimate. What about the children of diplomats born whilst they are posted to Turkey? How does it "protect" the relatives of the child of a US diplomat born in Turkey in say 1924 who is now dead to have that child permanently in a private space?

Secrecy, censorship and evasion again. So come on Familysearch let's have a proper explanation of this, not just rumours. Let's have a link to the policy document setting this out. Get things out in the open.

LegacyUser

Amy Archibald said: There isn't a public list of the sensitive localities. I found out about Syria and Turkey when I was helping another user. I have a close friend whose immediate family is from Syria and their family privacy (even after death) is so very important to the safety and security of their living family - no matter their current location in the world.

The FSFT missionaries may not even be aware of why a person is marked confidential. They are following the directions they are given in communicating with patrons.

It may be because of political or religious issues. Localities can change rapidly over time. I'm not sure of the years for these two particular countries. I don't know if it affects all records from the beginning of time or more current records.

What I do know is FamilySearch is not the only organization who has to abide by confidentiality when it comes to sensitive areas.

In some countries you cannot even access Ancestry.com - even if you are from the USA and have an account. You are blocked from accessing anything to do with Ancestry.com.

Some countries will not even allow you to purchase a DNA test kit without approval of the government. All DNA testing companies are blocked.

Some of my genealogy friends in other countries have more strict access to their OWN family records than we freely have here in the USA.

For David Wynn ... I'm sorry that these people you created currently show in your private space as confidential and you currently can't do anything to move them out of your space since you created them. Hopefully someday the conditions that cause these particular locations to be considered sensitive will be lifted and I'm sure the living relatives of these people will thank you for your work.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Thanks Amy. I did wonder why only Syria and Turkey were in the list when the background reason of potential sensitivities seemed to go much wider. But it appears that these were just the two that you'd had experience of and could confirm.

I would agree that the FS staff who were talking to David wouldn't know the details of the lock - it must be implemented in code and / or meta data in order to keep them in his private space. I do think that it should be possible for them to give *potential* reasons such as sensitivities of those types - that tactic would leave the exact reasons unknown (which can be good security practice) but as it is, they were pushing the reasons into the category of Unknown Unknowns. Which, ironically, people want to solve and so draw attention to here!

One solution could be for Support to be able to move them out of David's private space and into a private space set up specifically for sensitive and confidential profiles like this. That way the original creator of the profiles - who thought that they were just doing a good deed - doesn't get lumbered with these potentially forever.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: For close relatives of living people there is an argument for this to be in place. There is a genuine danger for non-Muslims in these countries. However a blanket ban is not justifiable and is not a good policy. To restrict someone born in Syria in 1800 is patently ridiculous. Such people have no close relatives and thus there is no one to protect. The diplomat's child example is also patently ridiculous.

What is much worse is secrecy about the policy itself and of the policy itself. What does such unjustifiable secrecy bring about? Events like this thread. Bugs being reported in the system. Suspicion of Familysearch itself. Who does that protect? No one. What does that do? Besmirch the reputation of the entire organisation.

How does keeping the policy itself secret actually benefit and protect anyone? I cannot think of any way that it would harm anyone to have the policy public. For a similar example consider Catholic cardinals in pectore. Their identities are kept secret for precisely the same reason this policy exists: protection of life and limb. However it is publlicaly known that there is such a thing as a cardinal in pectore and why that position exists.

LegacyUser

Ron Tanner said: You should always be able to delete anyone in your private space. Have you tried? Can you provide a PID?

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Not what was wanted at all. Deleting them doesn't solve the problem that the next person who creates them will also find someone dead who is resolutely stuck in their private space with no explanation as to why.

Cue thoughts of bugs or conspiracy theories or incompetence surfacing again and the reputational damage occurs with another person.

LegacyUser

David Wynn said: I have tried. Every change to both of these profiles was made by me. I've removed every relationship link. Still no luck. I reopened the case to have FSFT archive these profiles. Case 06563041.

LegacyUser

Paul said: I just came across one of these IDs. I was mystified at first, then re-read the comments above and guess I've figured out why he appears under My Private People: died / buried in EGYPT. But this was during WWII - 1942 to be precise - so totally unrelated to any current problems in this part of the world.

The ID is GQQK-4DM, if anyone with administrator rights cares to take a look. I found his probate record at the (UK) Find A Will website (with a source on FamilySearch, too) and it shows he died "on war service". Maybe it says this for all military personnel who died in like manner. His record at https://www.cwgc.org/find/find-war-de...
shows he was a humble sergeant - not the spy I thought he might be! (That might have provided a reasonable explanation for hiding him from public view in Family Tree.)

A shame IDs like this cannot be seen by all users. Surely the routine could be tweaked a little, so the country's name is not the sole factor in causing such restrictions?

LegacyUser

Juli said: What happens if you edit his place of death to, say, "Africa" (the continent)?

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: FS should publish more details about these rules around profiles in the FSFT being restricted. Otherwise there is confusion, uncertainty and misinformation.

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: Are all Arab Nations restricted in the FamilySearch "Family Tree," or just Syria and Turkey?

LegacyUser

Juli said: Paul reports above that Egypt creates hidden profiles, too.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Sorry for delay in response. Firstly, tried with "Egypt" as burial place (had no place in death field). Then, as suggested, "Africa". Finally, removed burial place altogether.

Refreshed page, even signed out of Family Tree and back in using another browser, but ID still has same "Confidential Person" status. Perhaps it needs to be left overnight, though I doubt it. As AvH suggests, some response from a FamilySearch employee (general or specific to this case) might clear up the situation.

Perhaps I need to raise a case with Support.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: My guess would be that once a profile has been deduced to be confidential, then it will stay that way. After all, if someone really is confidential, then merely altering some stuff on their profile doesn't make them any less confidential.

Of course, this presupposes that the confidentiality was correct in the first place. If the detection system is so crude that it just works off the country, then it's not fit for purpose. Think of all the British and Commonwealth forces who died in Egypt, Mesopotamia, the rest of the Middle East. And what about British administrators and their families who died in what is now Pakistan or Bangladesh?

Yes, there are arguments for keeping the exact details of the detection system confidential. But we also have the right to point out when the identifications are nonsensical.

After all, if FS wants to provide a tree for all mankind, it can hardly cancel people who died in the wrong place.... We do need to know a bit in order to suggest changes.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: I can't help thinking that someone born and brought up in the UK but dying in Egypt, is exactly the wrong way round for being a possible convert who needs to remain confidential...

Fortunately, my relative from WW1 who did exactly that, is commemorated in Ancestry - looks like I shouldn't try to waste my time commemorating him in FamilyTree.

If I sound like I'm getting exasperated, that's because I am. As I've said, I don't have the slightest issue with a system that tries to protect the family of converts - it's the way that others get swept up, with no explanation, that annoys me.

Grateful to be proved wrong!

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: This is only my guess, but I think it has something to do with the biological seed of the prophet Abraham, and that is a religious subject and listed as a no-no on the list A van Helsdingen found. (Debate or discussion of topics that are not relevant to family history (like politics or religion).
https://www.familysearch.org/help/hel...

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Yea. That note clearly states that religion is not relevant to family history.

Say WHAT?

I wonder if any of the public messages or knowledge articles on FS are critically reviewed before being posted on the site. Or if just one person is assigned to "write something up and post it" all by themselves (i.e., due to limited resources, etc.).

LegacyUser

Stewart Millar said: I had this happen to me a while back - it was a soldier with source records mentioning his time in Sudan (19th century) . . . I do not know what triggered it . . . but having rased a "case" with FS the Private Space status for my soldier was removed after about 7-10 days later.

I suspect an accidental bug with some scanning application to detect data for LDS/Temple religious affiliation of individuals within countries with legal or social restrictions on religious affiliation . . . and FS did fix it for my soldier.

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: I bet that FamilySearch "Support" would fix any (restricted profile) showing that they are not of Arab ancestry.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: This is part of the problem - you suspect an accidental bug. I fear that is deliberate, over simplistic code. Which is it? We don't know but if British soldiers are being set to confidential just because they died in the Middle East - or even just because they served there? - I'd say that's either a spectacularly bad bug or deliberately simplistic logic. I have at least some faith in FS programming, so fear it's deliberately simplistic logic. If so, that gives everyone ongoing issues with a workload of correction requests.

LegacyUser

joe martel said: "Debate or discussion of topics that are not relevant to family history (like politics or religion)."

In the code of conduct you are agreeing not to confront or champion your/others politics/religion in this forum. Doesn't say anything about capturing a FT Person's religious or political attributes in the Person details.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Stewart

Thank you for sharing your experience. I have now raised a case with Support.