Privacy in Family Trees -- Dealing with Disagreement

A recent blog post on privacy in family trees elicited more than the usual spate of comments. Compliments are always welcome but not much use to further writing. Disagreements are always fodder for further discussion. As a trial attorney, I am abundantly use to people disagreeing with me and have come to expect it. The comments raise a multitude of issues which were either not covered in the original post or need clarification and supporting arguments. As they used to say on the old TV show, "You Asked For It."

Here is a list of comments in the very altered form of questions:

• Does anyone have any privacy left to protect?
• Are the presence of privacy issues raised by an individual a matter of the level of education or sophistication of the individual?
• Are those who use the Internet regularly less or more likely to be concerned about privacy?
• What kinds of information are truly "private" and who decides? (This question is in the context of drivers licenses, Social Security numbers, birth and marriage certificates, names, addresses, telephone numbers etc.)
• Is there a difference between privacy as a legal concept and privacy as a part of the dominant culture?
• Should we be concerned about what is and what is not socially acceptable when the issue is privacy?
• Should we judge levels of privacy by the feelings of the most sensitive person?
• Should we avoid including information in our family trees because someone will be offended and claim that the information is "private?"
• Disregarding legality, is there any area of human behavior and life that is really private?
• Should we maintain information about living people in our online family trees, with or without assurances from the host of the family tree that they will protect the "privacy" of living people?
• Are online family trees so inherently unreliable that privacy concerns are somewhat ridiculous?
• Are there verifiable facts that should be omitted from family trees out of fear that someone will object?
• Does the controversy over the Social Security Death Index have anything to do with privacy?

Some of these questions have similar answers. But from my perspective there are some over riding issues that make many of them moot. I can summarize the whole issue as follows:

What legitimate privacy concerns are there in entering information in family trees and how much, if any, information about living people should be made available online by anyone other than the individual affected?

This might take a few days to complete but here is the list of questions with my answers:

Does anyone have any privacy left to protect?

This seems to be an emotional question rather than one that has a real answer. But there is a core of truth in the answer. Yes, there are many legitimate and legally protected privacy issues. But it is important to realize that anyone can voluntarily give up any or all of their privacy either knowingly and voluntarily or through ignorance or lack of concern. 

Are the presence of privacy issues raised by an individual a matter of the level of education or sophistication of the individual?

Yes. But overall, the whole concept of privacy is entirely of cultural origin. Individuals from some societies would think us extremely liberal and some would think us entirely too restrictive. Age is more of an indicator of the level of concern about privacy than any other factor in the United States and especially online. 

Are those who use the Internet regularly less or more likely to be concerned about privacy?

This is the kind of question I wish someone would pay me to do a study on. The answer is so obvious that it hardly merits response. Yes, those who use the Internet regularly are less likely to be concerned about privacy.

What kinds of information are truly "private" and who decides? (This question is in the context of drivers licenses, Social Security numbers, birth and marriage certificates, names, addresses, telephone numbers etc.)

Well, I do not consider any document created by any government to be "private." That includes Social Security numbers and everything else. I have to show a driver's license to rent a car, rent a hotel room or whatever. My Army Serial Number and my student number at the university were both my Social Security number. My telephone, even when unlisted, was about as public as could be imagined. None of this information, in my opinion, should have a shred of privacy protection. The problems supposedly caused by identity theft are not solvable by worrying about what information should go into a family tree. I do not know anyone who thinks it is necessary to list Social Security numbers of living people in family trees.

Is there a difference between privacy as a legal concept and privacy as a part of the dominant culture?

Yes, definitely. Privacy laws are extremely narrow in their scope and application. The laws people associate with privacy really pertain to theft, fraud and related crimes. I you were to steal someone's credit card or credit card number and use it to purchase something for yourself or for other purposes, this is credit card fraud, although some count this as "identity theft." In reality, the term "identity theft" is so broadly applied as to be meaningless. To some extent, our legal system reflects our dominant culture as it existed 100 years ago. Laws change much more slowly than the underlying culture they are supposed to protect. 

Should we be concerned about what is and what is not socially acceptable when the issue is privacy?

Yes, especially online and as genealogists. Social acceptance is not a negative. It is positive value. However, if the social conventions of the times disagree with other more basic considerations such as survival and religious beliefs, then mere adherence to social conventions is not enough. You need to be true to your religious heritage as long as it is reasonable and not destructive. 

Should we judge levels of privacy by the feelings of the most sensitive person?

In law, this concept is called the "eggshell skull case." In other words, the most vulnerable members of our society need to be protected. But if we go around worrying that we are going to offend the sensibilities of someone or another, then we are being unrealistically sensitive ourselves. 

Should we avoid including information in our family trees because someone will be offended and claim that the information is "private?"

No. This is really the same question as that above. My rule is and always will be "If you want something to be private, don't put it online." The realistic part of this rule is do not put anything online about living people without their clear consent. But if they are already online and you merely incorporate what they have already put online about themselves or link to it, they have no claim to privacy whatsoever about the information. To me, anything already online is fair game. 

Disregarding legality, is there any area of human behavior and life that is really private?

Hmm, watching TV commercials I would guess not. Privacy is really very relative to the time, place and individuals involved. What may be private for some places and times, is perfectly acceptable in other places and times. For example, how many of us sit there and blog in our underwear or pajamas? 

Should we maintain information about living people in our online family trees, with or without assurances from the host of the family tree that they will protect the "privacy" of living people?

See my answer above about putting things online we wish to keep private. I don't really care what the policy of the online host is if I don't put anything truly private online. 

Are online family trees so inherently unreliable that privacy concerns are somewhat ridiculous?

Yes. But see the same rule I have now repeated twice. 

Are there verifiable facts that should be omitted from family trees out of fear that someone will object?

This is almost exactly the same as a previous question. The same answer applies. But facts are facts and changing history because of concerns about politics, religion or any other reason is totally unacceptable to me. Without this rule, history is nothing more or less than propaganda. 

Does the controversy over the Social Security Death Index have anything to do with privacy?

Despite any an all of the arguments about dead children and Social Security numbers, this issue does not deal with privacy. This issue is entirely one created by an unwillingness of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to implement rather easily done measures that would cure the entire problem. For example, merely check any Social Security Number submitted against the SSDI and that would end 99% of that particular problem. Why they will not do this has nothing to do with privacy, it is entirely political and has to do with who runs what in the government. 

Well, instead of addressing each comment individually, I thought this might work. Of course, if you have more comments, then I will have more to write about. :-)