Ability to add Living People if there is Consent
I think it would be very useful to be able to add living people to the tree if there is mutual consent. For example, I'd like to be able to merge my husband's ID and the one I created on the family tree, and the same with mine and his tree. Hopefully minimizing the amount of merging that would happen after death occurs.
As far as minimizing privacy concerns, there might be a way to set this up where everyone is happy:
Say I want to add my cousin's ID to my tree in order to see and add memories about her. Her name is Jane Jennifer Doe, born 01/01/2001, and her ID is XYZ-1234. In my family tree she is listed as Jane Doe, born in 2001, and the ID is ABC-5678. I would contact her separately for the information, send a request with her full name (Jane Jennifer Doe), birthdate (01/01/2001), ID (XYZ-1234), and stating our relationship (daughter of father's sister). Incorrect name, birthdate, or ID would result in an error message that would encourage communication with the cousin and deter strangers from making requests.
When successful, this would send a notification/message to her, outlined with all of the information I would be able to see, what information I would be adding from ABC-5678 (which can be edited), and she can either accept or reject the request. To add me to the tree, she would follow the same pattern.
This would only work for that individual, and further requests must be made for the rest of the immediate family as needed. Vital information can only be changed by the living person, but collaboration and memories can be attached after the review of the living individual. Consent can be revoked by either my cousin or me, and ABC-5678 returns as the person on my tree. Additionally, individuals would have the option to opt out of any living persons requests.
I think this would address the concerns of security while also collaborating with our living relatives to create a tree full of memories.
Comments
-
It is a good idea, but the ultimate decider of whether it is implemented will be privacy legislation. FS operates worldwide so has to try and adhere to as many countries' laws as possible. If FS is unable to operate in a country, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints will be very unhappy as its members there won't be able to use the FSFT for ordinances.
Currently, in Japan, one must receive special authorization to use FS in order to comply with their laws. People in Russia are advised not to use FS, presumably to avoid censorship and persecution. The challenge with proposals to allow users to view the personal details of living people is how to do so without adding any more countries to this list.
0 -
@A van Helsdingen that is very good to know, thanks! I hadn't considered how many countries would be involved.
0 -
There is going to be a space provided where family members can join together and have living people information available to just those people invited. I'm not exactly sure how it will be implemented, but Ron Tanner was talking about it a couple months ago or so. Not sure when it will be here either.
0 -
Hannah
.
As far as I am aware, we can ALREADY Add "Living" individuals/persons to "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' WITHOUT their is 'Consent' ...
.
The problem/issue is that, due to "Privacy", we CANNOT:
(1) 'See'; and/or, 'Access', "Living" individuals/persons "Created" by OTHERS; and,
(2) "Share" the "Living" individuals/persons we "Create" with OTHERS.
.
But ...
That said ...
.
I understand what you are getting at ...
.
Just some thoughts ... first pass ...
.
It all 'seems' VERY "Simple", just get the "Consent" of those that are "Living" ...
.
But, the real question is, WHAT would constitute "Consent" - that "Covers" ALL contingencies!!!???
.
What you must consider is that ...
.
'FamilySearch' has Records from ALL around the World.
.
"Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' is used in MANY Countries and Unions throughout the World.
.
"Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' is used by MANY Users/Patrons, from the many Countries and Unions, throughout the World.
.
There are a MYRIAD of "Privacy" LAWS, that are every "Changing", within the MANY various Countries and Unions throughout the World - it is a LEGAL 'nightmare' to negotiate.
.
As such, "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', MUST ('somehow') ADHERE to ALL the MYRIAD of "Privacy" LAWS, throughout the World, to be used by ALL.
.
Hence, "Privacy" is one of the reasons that we cannot "Share" the "Living" individuals/persons in our own "Private Spaces" - it is NOT the ONLY reason; but, certainly has a bearing on the matter.
.
Trying to, "Create"; and, "Maintain", a Programme, such as "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', to be ACCPTABLE to ALL; as well as, trying to adhere to ALL the MYRIAD of "Privacy" LAWS, throughout the World - is a MONUMENTAL task.
.
Certainly, NOT a "Simple" as most of us would think.
.
You are not alone ...
.
There have been MANY, "Versions"; and, "Variations", of what you suggest ...
.
My understanding is that 'FamilySearch' is EXPLORING avenues with regard to, "Inheritance"; and/or, "Bequeathing", of the "Living" (Users/Patrons) individuals/persons (and, most likely, the "Memories" of such) in the "Private Spaces", of a recently Deceased Family member, to an immediate Family member.
.
And, my further understanding is that 'FamilySearch' is EXPLORING much MORE in regard to "Living" individuals/persons in our "Private Spaces" ...
.
Something that WILL take some time, 'make no bones about' that ...
.
Brett
.
0 -
Maybe an alternative solution would be to make it so you can request the personID for a user.
To be honest, I only really need a living persons information after they have passed away. So why not give me the ability to send a request to his/her account that simply asks for his person ID, attaches it to my tree, but then hides all of the information he has(for two generations) until it's confirmed he/she passed away?
If you want to make this a little more secure(but also require a new table in the database), give living users a secondary "Living person ID" that you can request, then connect that to the current personID to be swapped out on the living persons passing. Doing it this way, you could have an interface that shows a person exists in the tree(maybe even a name), just not the details.
Family Search automatically assumes you've died after about 110 years. So as long as we have a birth date on the living person we should be guaranteed this information will become visible at some point.
If you want to get really fancy, have FS send a notification once the living persons record has been marked as "passed away" so whoever is managing their family tree at the time can go in and makes sure that person actually belonged in the tree.
0
