General Chat

i find it so frustrating when someone gives you permission to see their tree and it is just full of hidden relations. can someone please explain this to me. my idea of genes reunited is to bring families together and to interact with each others trees, i understand that the relatives are still living that they are hiding but what is their to hide, you are not giving out confidential information. i have to admit now that if someone asks me to see my tree and gives me permission to look at theirs i do and if there are loads of hidden relations i dont give them access as i have done a lot of work on my tree over a good number of years and i wont give that information away lightly unless i know that there is a connection.

I believe that "Hidden Relations " are mainly Living entries, details of which are at times discouraged from being open to all......

Bob

To display living relatives you must have permission from each living person to be able to show this information to anyone. Privacy laws and personal privacy is paramount.

Gail

This topic comes up regularly.

Some members feel very strongly about allowing others to see details of living relatives and may even see is as a possible security risk of identity fraud should the details get it the wrong hands.

Personally I don't privatise - but I suspect you will find that there are those on here who sit firmly in the other camp.

There are no privacy laws as such in England. It is also likely to fall outside the scope of the Data Protection Act too as it falls under the category of Research which is exempt.

GR however, make it a condition that living persons must give permission for their name to appear in a tree but this is purely to put the matter beyond doubt. In practice it is virtually impossible to police.

All that said, if an individual decides on preserving their privacy, then they have the right to do so. Better still, don't put anything on a website in the first place you don't want others to see

Do you actually KNOW the person you are opening your tree to?

I wouldn't give details of my family, my nieces, nephews, siblings, cousins and grandbabies to any tom dick or harry.

And if I saw any tom dick or harry with them on public display on someone's tree, then I would go ballistic.

I know that the information is out there, in the public domain... but if someone wants to steal identities, then lets not hand it to them on a plate.

This, unfortunately, is the voice of experience speaking.

Just because we are researching our family tree, it does not give us the right to splash info all over the internet of vulnerable youngsters... or people who may have very good reason to keep their identities hidden.

Imagine if you had someone's details, airily revealed them on a family tree... and that person was actually hiding from an abusive ex.... and believe you me, I have worked in the field, it is not uncommon!

So no.... I will show you the tree, including most of those in the last generation who have died....... but I'll be blowed if I'll pass on any old info on this (my) and my descendants generations.

When I get to know you better, maybe met you a few times, then I might let you have the more up to date info.... if folk don't like that, then tough.... but actually, I have not had anyone have a problem with it, so far.

Love

Daff xxx

I think that I am right in thinking that any entry that does not have a death date becomes a hidden relation. For example great, great, great, great grandad Horace Jones born 1786 but with no date of death remains hidden so it's better to guess at an approximate date of death to enable you to pass on his information if you want to.

I'm sure someone will tell me if this isn't correct

Wendy x

Yes, as long as the birth was also less than 120 years ago. Any individual in the member’s family tree with a year of birth within 120 years, and who has no year of death recorded in the tree, will be shown in the tree as ‘Living Relation’ – this replaces the name usually shown in the tree. This includes your own entry."

I would be interested to know what percentage of trees on here have been privatised by their owner. I have access to over 250 trees on this site and estimate that only around 10 or so have hidden relatives - somewhere around 4% so not that high at all.

My younger generation are hidden for the same reasons as Daff's.

I have 2 trees on my pc, one has everyone on it and the other, I call GR Tree, which does not have my immediate family on it, and the one up load on here, simple.

Kim

I also hide my living relations as I haven't asked them all for permission to post their details.
However, it did occur to me recently that this also means I'm hiding the details of any relatives for which I don't have a death date. I assume that relatives born in the 1820's are not still around!
I have been thinking of going into those and entering a random date with a note that date of death is not known, just so that they show up when I'm sharing my tree.

I had also chosen to have these "hidden names" on GR, but it does affect the possibility of getting good connections.

I am now editing a copy of my tree on my Tree software changing only those names of actual living rellies. Once done, this will be uploaded to GR in place of the current one (which needed updating anyway) and the "Hide Living Relatives" option stopped.

Problem solved, I think.