Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oh dear! I have upset someone. (Ancestry tree problem)

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Oh dear! I have upset someone. (Ancestry tree problem)

    There is a new tree on Ancestry with one line of my family tree.

    Great, I investigated over the weekend. I found a whole line back to the 1600s. It was information my mum provided someone.

    However, further on, I found living people. My mum was on (she died in 2004 so not a problem). However, although my siblings and I are given as "living", our spouses are given their full names. One of my aunts (still living) is given plus all her children (my cousins). Again, named in full. Plus my niece's husband.

    I contacted the person re my Aunt and cousins first. I got a message back, quite affable. Then I found more and more, and sent individual messages, stating that I thought the problem was the fact that without a birth year Ancestry doesn't filter them out as living.

    I have had a horrid snotty e-mail back. I have obviously deeply offended the person in question. They have compiled a parish tree, and just recently put it on Ancestry. They thought I was talking about the parish tree, and said there were no living people on the "World Connect" tree. However, I wasn't looking at a World Connect tree, just a normal one.

    I have sent a lengthy message back trying to explain the situation. I hope I just haven't made it worse. I tried to explain how happy I was that the tree was on Ancestry, but not with details of living people (it is a Public Tree).
    Elizabeth
    Research Interests:
    England:Purkis, Stilwell, Quintrell, White (Surrey - Guildford), Jeffcoat, Bond, Alexander, Lamb, Newton (Lincolnshire, Stalybridge, London)
    Scotland:Richardson (Banffshire), Wishart (Kincardineshire), Johnston (Kincardineshire)

  • #2
    YOU have deeply offended HIM?

    He has living people on his tree without their permission and YOU have offended HIM?

    He needs to learn some basic manners and consideration for other people.

    OC

    Comment


    • #3
      Elizabeth

      If he's got the wrong end of the stick, tough. You complained, perfectly reasonably, and he should sort it out.

      No one who knows you could believe you would offend anyone. ((())) Somehow people are often snottier in an email than they would be face to face or on the phone. It's just plain rude and unncessary.
      ~ with love from Little Nell~
      Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

      Comment


      • #4
        It's you who should feel offended at this breach of privacy and etiquette. I had a nasty reply to a request to take my living dad off someone's tree. The man thought the email was from Dad (aged 80) and was quite bullying about it saying names and d.o.b. are publicly available.

        It took another carefully worded one from me saying I was protecting my elderly father to get him removed.

        Comment


        • #5
          Thank you all for your lovely replies.

          To be fair, there was misunderstanding on both sides.

          The person in question thought that I meant a tree on Ancestry.com, in which the living people are hidden. So that was why he was upset because he couldn't understand what I was on about!

          I think it was a surprise about the tree on Ancestry.co.uk - the people who are named have no year of birth and therefore aren't filtered out.

          But I explained and I have had a much nicer e-mail back, so I hope we are back on track.

          I don't want to be on bad terms as the village tree is an absolute gem, and must have taken years of work. I don't think it was intentional to show living people, just something that went wrong on uploading. The tree is certainly helping me.
          Elizabeth
          Research Interests:
          England:Purkis, Stilwell, Quintrell, White (Surrey - Guildford), Jeffcoat, Bond, Alexander, Lamb, Newton (Lincolnshire, Stalybridge, London)
          Scotland:Richardson (Banffshire), Wishart (Kincardineshire), Johnston (Kincardineshire)

          Comment


          • #6
            Well, my gut feeling is right.

            I have had a LOVELY personal message back. I don't want to go into details, but the person is elderly (nearly 80) and this is the culmination of many years' work. I think perhaps technology might be rather a problem.

            They want to keep in touch, and it was a sweet e-mail, very apologetic. I think I was partly to blame for not explaining myself fully in the first instance. I'm quite happy with the outcome. I'm now going to reply to the e-mail.

            I must say I'm relieved!
            Elizabeth
            Research Interests:
            England:Purkis, Stilwell, Quintrell, White (Surrey - Guildford), Jeffcoat, Bond, Alexander, Lamb, Newton (Lincolnshire, Stalybridge, London)
            Scotland:Richardson (Banffshire), Wishart (Kincardineshire), Johnston (Kincardineshire)

            Comment


            • #7
              Oooh, I AM glad you have had a nice outcome.

              Comment


              • #8
                So glad it has been sorted out now Elizabeth.
                Jacky

                Comment


                • #9
                  So pleased for you Elizabeth. Good luck with it all.
                  Pauline
                  xx
                  OPC Lanlivery, Lanivet & Newquay
                  www.mumsiep.tribalpages.com






                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Glad its sorted. Bad feelings are not nice. Maybe you've found another friend.
                    ~ with love from Little Nell~
                    Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      So glad to hear all is now well.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Oh dear I think I have upset someone

                        I have had a similar problem. I had been put into touch with a very distant relative (six times removed I think). I was quite happy to pass on information on relatives who had been long dead but when he asked for information on my living relatives he was very annoyed when I refused - nicely - saying I thought it unwise to give personal details about living relatives. He was very rude and said that "all the publicity about stealing peoples' identities was a load of rubbish". He said he would be able to get all the information he had asked me for in other ways - it would just take a bit longer. He also said that he had been prepared to give me information on his living relatives including addresses and telephone numbers!

                        Jean

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Peanuts View Post
                          I have had a similar problem. I had been put into touch with a very distant relative (six times removed I think). I was quite happy to pass on information on relatives who had been long dead but when he asked for information on my living relatives he was very annoyed when I refused - nicely - saying I thought it unwise to give personal details about living relatives. He was very rude and said that "all the publicity about stealing peoples' identities was a load of rubbish". He said he would be able to get all the information he had asked me for in other ways - it would just take a bit longer. He also said that he had been prepared to give me information on his living relatives including addresses and telephone numbers!

                          Jean

                          Well in that case he is a very stupid man and if he had my info I would be very very worried.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Is he aware of Data Protection legislation?

                            Christine
                            Researching: BENNETT (Leics/Birmingham-ish) - incl. Leonard BENNETT in Detroit & Florida ; WARR/WOR, STRATFORD & GARDNER/GARNAR (Oxon); CHRISTMAS, RUSSELL, PAFOOT/PAFFORD (Hants); BIGWOOD, HAYLER/HAILOR (Sussex); LANCASTER (Beds, Berks, Wilts) - plus - COCKS (Spitalfields, Liverpool, Plymouth); RUSE/ROWSE, TREMEER, WADLIN(G)/WADLETON (Devonport, E Cornwall); GOULD (S Devon); CHAPMAN, HALL/HOLE, HORN (N Devon); BARRON, SCANTLEBURY (Mevagissey)...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I get very annoyed if a contact passes my email address on without my permission never mind my home address and phone number. Glad I'm not one of his relatives (I hope).

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by Christine in Herts View Post
                                Is he aware of Data Protection legislation?

                                Christine
                                The data Protection Act has no interest in people adding such information to their family history sites

                                As far as the Information Commissioner (the person charged with policing
                                the Data Protection Act here in the UK) is concerned there is nothing
                                wrong with an individual publishing details of living persons on a web site.

                                He wrote and I quote -

                                "In accordance with section 36, if the research in question is undertaken
                                purely for "that individual's personal, family or household affairs
                                (including recreational purposes)" then that processing is exempt from
                                compliance with the Act. This would be case the case whether or not that
                                data was published on a website."

                                It is the modern PC brigade who have drummed up such a furore about this.
                                For centuries family historians included the living in their published trees, that was the accepted practice.
                                Anything else is censorship and leads to lies and the distortion of history.

                                I cannot believe anyone who complains of living persons on does nor read biographies of living people, read newspapers which include details living people, watch TV programmes which include details of living people.

                                One resource that we as family historians use is newspaper BMD columns, is it not the case that these when they were published contained the details of living people (with exception of the deaths obviously).

                                It is utter hypocrisy to complain that online trees contain details of living people when we use records in our research that by their very nature contained records of living people (at the time they were living).

                                The UK government were even so keen to place the details of living people they broke there own procedures about bringing forward new legislation to enable all births, marriages and deaths to be available online.

                                It is time common sense prevailed in this.
                                There is nothing private about a date of birth, it is a public record.
                                Here in the UK there is nothing private about a marriage. In fact any marriage which takes place without the details being made public is unlawful, as is any marriage held in private.
                                Proud parents/grand-parents publish the details of newly born children in newspapers they also publish details of their children or grand-children’s forthcoming weddings.

                                Don’t be taken in by the hypocrites who wish everything to be secret often because they have done thing they are ashamed of.
                                Such an attitude is only one small step from burning books and re-write history to suit the politics of the day.
                                Cheers
                                Guy
                                Guy passed away October 2022

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Thank you Guy. That pretty much sums it up.

                                  Its the way I feel - if you really want to find information about someone you can.

                                  We as family history fanatics can only assume anyone doing/compiling their family trees do not have a malicious intent. Anyone that does can find this information in lots of other places if they so wish without our help and in the same places we find it. It is on the internet...

                                  I think when we find stuff about our immediate family on somebody's tree we feel a bit invaded but by the same token we have stuff on ours about others too. I think we especially find it difficult when they have some of that information incorrect.

                                  Elizabeth,

                                  I'm glad its worked out okay. Sometimes email can seem a bit harsh rather that a face to face conversation. Misunderstandings and such.
                                  Last edited by Guest; 24-09-08, 08:21.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    The law isn't the same thing as common politeness though. If someone puts a notice in the newspaper celebrating the birth of their child, that is their choice. IMHO it should also be their choice as to whether their personal details appear on the internet (and I'm not talking about GRO indexes etc, but on other people's family trees, which are often inaccurate.)

                                    Because of my interest in this hobby, I know which of my friends don't tell the truth about marriage dates or the illegitimacy of their children etc etc etc. It is of no consequence to me that they choose to bend the truth, but I would no more mention it to them than fly in the air! Just because a piece of information is in the public domain doesn't mean it shouldn't be used sensitively, whatever the law says.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Also, Guy, identity theft wasn't so common in the past as it is now with the use of computers. And I cannot see any connection between asking people not to publicise your children's personal details on the internet and burning books!
                                      KiteRunner

                                      Every five years or so I look back on my life and I have a good... laugh"
                                      (Indigo Girls, "Watershed")

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        I guess it is true people can get the info. But I don't like finding myself on someones tree. I have a private tree that has details of lots of living people, some I know and many I don't. However I don't have a large tree on the internet and the only living person named on it is me. And that is because I have no choice (GR).
                                        Kit

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X