RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: Gillg on Wednesday 27 June 18 11:38 BST (UK)
-
Recently I discovered the names of my nephew and niece, both living, had been entered on someone's tree on GR. I wrote to the person who had entered them and asked his/her relationship to them. (I check new entries every few weeks and always follow up new potential relatives.) I also pointed out that it was not advisable to enter the names of living persons if their permission had not been sought. I received a stinging and abusive retort, criticising the tone of my message, which I had, I thought, been written in an inoffensive way with the best of intentions to protect my relatives. I just had to reply, saying that my message must have been misunderstood, since I was simply following up relatives and pointing out the usual "living relatives" advice. I offered to help with his/her research into the family. Cue another rude reply, to which I shall not be answering.
What did I do wrong?
-
I dont understand why you didnt now contact your neice/ nephew and give them a pro forma to contact GR with, to get details removed.
-
Gillg, sometimes people misinterpret the written word. I think it is a very safe medium. Some people prefer to lighten written correspondence by putting smiley faces in, but I am a 100% of the opinion that this trivialises things, and also different expressions on a cartoon face can be misinterpreted. (Is that a coy wink? Or a sarcastic wink, or a knowing wink or have you just got dust in your eye?)
Perhaps you could follow up by providing two or three links to websites which explain about the delicacy of not including living people on family trees.
It's not quite the same, but two years ago, in advance of a visit to Hartlepool where my ancestors had lived, I wrote to the addresses where eight of my ancestors had lived, explaining that I was writing out of courtesy in case they saw me outside taking photographs, although I was hoping for an invitation inside. I only got one reply from the eight letters, and that was from somebody who would have welcomed me, but unfortunately was not going to be in Hartlepool that weekend.
Finally, I'm not at all worried if somebody adds me to their public family tree. As long as there is no death date it lets me know I'm still alive.
Martin
-
Until the recent change in the law (last month) it was undisputedly clear (confirmed by the Information Commissioner, the person who rules on this subject in England and Wales), that it was legal and permissible to add the name of living people to a personal family tree website (i.e. one not connected to (used by) a business).
Now thanks to the General Data Protection Regulation which came into force on the 25 May 2018 the situation is not only grey but positively muddy.
It may no even be legal to add a living person's name to a private family tree (one kept for ones own personal information and not shared with anyone), without the express permission of the person concerned, it may not even be legal to keep their name on one's own address book without their permission.
Such things have not yet been tested in court and without a ruling the true situation cannot be understood.
Cheers
Guy
-
Thanks, everyone, for your comments. Guy, that's an interesting development. Although I did not think that using the information about living persons was actually illegal, it did seem that doing so in a family history situation normally follows a certain protocol, i.e. that you do not use information on a site such as Rootschat or GR about living persons. I certainly don't have any living family members apart from myself and my husband on my GR tree. One of the persons named by that GR member is very careful about the public use of his name, as his work is of a sensitive nature. I am contacting him and his sibling to see whether they have actually given permission for the use of their names and how they feel about someone doing this. I was only protecting my family and did not expect to be subject to a tirade of abuse for doing so.
-
GR's regulations state:
You must have permission to include any living individual's details and photos in your family tree.
You could try asking them to take action, though given the total abandonment of the site by its owners, you probably wouldn't get a reply ::)
Bev
-
Bev
Just ploughed through GR's Terms & conditions and found your reference. Very interesting. I'm waiting to hear from my relatives to find out whether they were approached for their permission before deciding what further action to take.
-
Both relatives have now stated that they object to their information being used without their permission and want it removed. Now to grit my teeth and face more abuse, though I'll try via GR first. Wish me luck!
-
To spare you any further angst couldn't the relatives who are actually named make their objections?
Might be better coming from them but just a suggestion :)
-
Millipede
They aren't themselves GR members and have asked me to deal with this for them. I feel that I started this, so have to see it through. I have now sent a message to the GR Support Team, who are supposed to respond within 2 days.
-
Gillig, ask yourself if this is this important enough to you to get worked up about?
Martin
-
Both relatives have now stated that they object to their information being used without their permission and want it removed. Now to grit my teeth and face more abuse, though I'll try via GR first. Wish me luck!
It may still be though that GR won't deal with a third party i.e. you. Please let us know what happens.
-
Martin
I'm keeping very calm 8)
-
Remember that poem about having strength to cope with some things and to tolerate others and to know the difference. I don't like people who don't 'play the game' either, though.
Martin
-
Update
The GR support team have responded very promptly and say:
We have asked the owner of the relevant family tree to confirm that the person(s) to whom you refer have either consented to their inclusion in their tree or, if not, to remove their details.
We have also referred them to the Terms and Conditions of the site.
(and quoted the relevant paragraph)
Let's hope that's the end of the matter. ::) Since both of my younger relatives are in rather sensitive jobs, I do try to protect their privacy.
Thanks to all.
Gillg
-
It will be interesting now to see how the tree owner reacts. I presume that if they don't remove them that GR will be within their rights to remove the tree completely?
-
Hm, that's a thought..... I'm not the vengeful sort, so I hope not, but I do suspect he/she is a bit of a name collector.
-
Gillg ... to return to your original question ... you did nothing at all wrong, and everything right.
I understand your pain, however, and consternation, that somebody could have taken your words, intended in a friendly and supportive manner, and so misinterpreted them as to respond in such a manner. Researchers tell us that only about 13% of our meaning is communicated through the words we use, and 87% comes from non-verbal prompts. A written communication such as an e-mail has none of these non-verbal prompts, and without them people are sometimes at something of a loss to perceive the writer's real intent.
This is what I call "the autism of the internet". I am autistic in real life, and sometimes get reactions like this to things I say, because I neither read nor accurately transmit the kinds of non-verbal cues and prompts that other people rely on so much. On the internet, however, we are all reduced to a state of autism; and I believe it is this absence of non-verbal prompts which leads to the sudden and unexpected rows-over-nothing for which internet discussion groups are so notorious.
Best wishes,
J
-
jbml
Thanks for your very interesting comments. Although I found my remarks to the other person acceptable, it's possible that he/she interpreted them in a different way, however, having received a second rambling and abusive email, I decided that the only way to deal with this was to refer it to GR, who appear to have resolved the matter.
-
Have the names been removed, Gill?
-
Yes, they have, Groom, so I'm grateful to GR for taking effective action.
Gill :)
-
That's really good to hear. Perhaps it will also show the tree owner that they have to take more care in the future and that if they had responded to your original, polite request they wouldn't have come to the notice of GR.
-
... On the internet, however, we are all reduced to a state of autism; and I believe it is this absence of non-verbal prompts which leads to the sudden and unexpected rows-over-nothing for which internet discussion groups are so notorious ...
Isn't that why emoticons/emojis were invented? ;)
-
Mike - yes, it is ... and they help a lot.
I have found that many people are sneeringly dismissive of the usefulness of emoticons. I have never understood this attitude myself. ???
But then again, they offer me a facility which enhances my online communication capabilities over and above those which I enjoy IRL; whereas for non-autistic people they merely offer a partial replacement for a facility that they may not actually appreciate they have been deprived of. Maybe this goes some way to explaining the different viewpoints.
-
I imagine that you didn't do anything wrong, in life there are some folk who interpret assistance and advice as being 'told off' or 'told what to do', and even the most diplomatic of approaches would elicit the same sort of response that you received. Anyway, sorted, and not worth you losing a second of sleep over it.
-
Thanks gaffy. :)