ETHICS-IN-GENEALOGY-L Archives

Archiver > ETHICS-IN-GENEALOGY > 2002-04 > 1018335192


From: Valorie Zimmerman <>
Subject: Re: [Ethics] Posting
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 23:53:12 -0700
References: <3CB1A02E.22406.1471AD@localhost>


"L. R. Mills" wrote:
>
> On 7 Apr 2002, at 20:35, Valorie Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > Lou, you aren't the first person to say this, but I must confess, I
> > just do not understand this point of view. Obits are *already* public
> > record, and online -- why on earth wouldn't we be using them on our
> > boards?
>
> I didn't say we shouldn't, just that it makes me nervous. The
> information in Obits is often given without thought to privacy issues,
> and sometimes everyone in the family is listed to keep them all
> happy - without their permission.

That's a family matter. Often only first names are listed, or only the
number of children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. If a person
felt strongly about NOT having their name listed, it wouldn't be.

> That's the only concern I have.
> Normally there isn't enough information published to worry about
> identity theft, but there have been cases of banks releasing
> information because someone has your maiden name or mother's
> maiden name - information that often appears in Obits. Telling me
> that it is public and online doesn't make it ethical.

Because banks are foolish enough to use PUBLIC information for
identification purposes, we should stop posting obits that have already
been published elsewhere?

> > I understand the point of view about living people and the
> > adoption issues -- but obits? They are a prime genealogical source
> > material, which can lead directly to the funeral home, cemetery and
> > other death records. If living persons don't want to be listed in the
> > obituary, they will not be.
>
> That's not my experience. The paper publishes what they are given
> by the single family contact. They make no effort to contact the
> other people to verify information. Ask your local newspaper, then
> give us some feedback.

Since I wrote and published my mother's obituary just over a year ago, I
can give you my direct recent experience. I showed the obit to everyone,
to make sure all details were correct. If anyone had objected to their
name or their child's name being published, they would have told me
before I sent it to the paper. In this neck of the woods, normally the
funeral homes send the information to the newspapers, but we used a
crematorium that didn't provide that service. I wanted to do that for my
mother, anyway.

> > That is determined at the time of the
> > death of their loved one.
> >
> A time when people aren't thinking too clearly, perhaps.

Perhaps. But that isn't our judgement to make. People do what they do.

> > I hope concern for false 'privacy rights' will not erode access to
> > public records any further.
> >
> I love this type of statement. It automatically assumes that public
> access should be open and free and that privacy rights (notice the
> quotes) are, using your words, eroding that access. Let's turn it
> around: I hope that 'public access' doesn't erode my right to privacy.

I agree with your turned around statement also, Lou. The wide-spread
misuse of truly PERSONAL information is appalling to me.

> Somewhere there's a middle ground. But if you really believe in
> 'public access', give us your Social Security Number and home
> address. After all, that's full access.

My social security number is private, NOT public, until my death.
However, my home address is public information: 22607 SE 322nd, Kent,
Washington 98042. Drop by if you are every in the nieghborhood, and I'll
take you out to lunch.

> > Valorie, still mourning the loss of the CA & TX databases
> >
> That could have been handled better, that's for sure.

Complete agreement!

Valorie

This thread: