getting strange restriction message

@SerraNola Could you check on these Danish censuses, please? I wonder if these are also restricted for privacy reasons? I noticed that one of the sets was the 1925 census.

Thanks.

I see that one of the sets is the Denmark census of 1916. When I check that record collection, there is no search box on it:

When I try to browse image, everything is restricted.

I can search and see all the images just fine at My Heritage so it does not seem to be a privacy issue:

I haven't worked in the Danish archives for quite a while and can't see right off hand if they have an index to the 1916 census, but I can access the images for free:

And finally, I can also access both an index and the images on Ancestry:

Would be really a shame if FamilySearch has just lost the contract to use this collection. Can we hope it is just a program bug that has crept in?

@SerraNola - unwelcome news but thank you for informing us. I would really like to see a place where we can find out about this sort of stuff. Wiki perhaps?

"We were (sadly) informed last week that Contract and Compliance has been asked to remove the grandfather date from Denmark."

I'm curious as to what that specifically means? Is that a restriction that removes access to grandparent data or similar?

In the US, we often say that some access or option is "grandfathered in" - meaning something that is not allowed today, but was permitted in the past, may be allowed to continue. This appears to mean, as Adrian said, that those options are now disallowed/discontinued.

@MaximUtenkov - I am not a FamilySearch employee but I have watched various contractual issues over UK records, for instance. So typically…

If access has been restricted for reasons of privacy, my totally unofficial suggestion is that the full, previous access will never be restored. Having said that, usually access to personal data is only allowed after something like 100y (maybe 120y, it varies) after the person's birth, so it is possible that access has gone from wide open to completely closed, because there is no other mechanism in place, and will, as a 3rd stage, later go to access being open 100y after someone's birth. (Even that is an over simplification because access is controlled at a "microfilm" level, rather than at an individual record level. "Microfilm" isn't the right word these days but it's probably a good analogy).

Access can also be blocked for commercial reasons - in the UK, commercial companies may pay the relevant archives a sum of money for exclusive access for 3, 4, 5, etc, years so they will not agree to FamilySearch giving out free access to that data until their contract for exclusive access ends. Either the controlling archives needs to remove FamilySearch's access or they will lose the money from the commercial provider. Which leads me to…

As far as I know, FamilySearch.org … purchased archival materials in Russia, so why is access to these materials now blocked?

I don't know the exact details of the Russia related agreements but suggest from my experience of archival materials elsewhere, that those contracts and agreements have always included a series of statements that mean the relevant archives (or higher level government departments) retain permanent control over how how and where their data is used. It isn't a case that the stuff is purchased and FS can walk away with the microfilms and use them how FS likes.

Why now? Good question… But access to personal data is currently being tightened across Europe and the rest of the planet.

Grateful if anyone can point out something I've missed…

@SerraNola - I can accept that FS might be inhibited from saying why records are restricted. I would encourage FS to say that restrictions have been implemented on specific collections (or whatever the right level is), as saying so removes the possibility in our mind that the loss of something has been accidental.

Agree completely with Adrian's comments!

"By accident or design?" is an important question when patrons suddenly lose access to certain collections, or even parts thereof. Of course, we will remain curious as to why records suddenly become unavailable for viewing, but currently need to assume any such incidence just could be related to accident, rather than a contractual issue.

Perhaps the (Danish census) example illustrated here is not a good one, however, as the message presented here (unlike in other examples) does seem to be clear, in showing the ability to view the images on FamilySearch has now been (purposely) restricted.

@Theo Rafael This is the same sort of problem. The collection is Hungary, Civil Registration, 1895-1980.

If you look at the Sources tab for the profile and expand the first attached source which is a 1905 marriage, you will see an unattached record listed under "Similar Records". That is, in fact, the same record that you identified, QLLC-941J. Clicking that record results in a similar error. I don't know if the "Similar Records" list is populated from existing hints or by some other search. If it is done by a different mechanism, then any attempt to ameliorate the overall hints issue might still leave the "Similar Records" issue unresolved.

If I search in that specific collection, specifying the profile name, I find two records (allowing for the fact that one has a slightly different spelling of Wollár Zsigmond instead of Wollák Zsigmond), which you have attached to the profile. However, there is no trace of the inaccessible record which relates to a child (Wollák Jenő).