Re: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building
AMEN I only show the names on my site to the public. To see more information they have to register and prove that they are connected to that branch before they are given such permission. From: Colin Liddell Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 2:13 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building Brian, I too am concerned about the way the attitude to privacy is going and I agree with your comments. I helped a person on one of the Lists I am on with a phone number and address out of the phone book and was then attacked by another list member for putting it on the List. The person who critised me argued that I had invaded their privacy...what a load of rubbish, the phone book is the public arena for all to read and it is online too. If you want privacy, don't put your name in the phone book, don't put you engagement, marriage death or your children's births in the paper. My daughter is a police officer and she laughs when I tell her about the way privacy is affecting family research, especially with birth certificates etc. She said that in all the cases she has dealt with concerning fraud and identity theft, not one had been obtained through family research. She said there were much better and easier ways to obtain the information, I know as I used to be in the job too. Just my two cents worth. Colin. - Original Message - From: Brian L. Lightfoot To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 2:57 PM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building I think this bottle has been passed around many times before. As many of the other replies may so indicate, the choice of “Living” over the actual name seems to be the politically correct answer. But as what little hair I have left grows more grey and my eyes get dimmer, I find myself pondering this over and over myself. I can certainly understand omitting just about all details about a living person but why is it not prudent to just show their names? Before you answer, consider that their birth is a matter of public record, there was probably a newspaper publication naming their parents when they were born, probably a wedding announcement giving names of parents, siblings, and other relatives published in their local city and elsewhere. Their names are easily found by looking in the white pages of a phone book which not only gives the phone number but their residential address. Even if you’re not sure of the exact names of children then a quick click and visit to Spokeo.com reveals quite a bit about the parents including the names of their children. My point is that all this information is readily available and open to the public but for some reason the direction that genealogy has taken in the past 20 years is to hide even their names. Someone tell me why and please do it without using the word “privacy” because their lives have all been public so far. Just wondering. Brian in CA -- Russell G. Strong P. S. Check out Legacy Family Tree today! This full featured genealogy program can be downloaded FREE at http://www.legacyfamilytreestore.com/Articles.asp?ID=133&Click=1114 Oh so many branches and not enough time to check out all the roots!!!. Check out my Genealogy Pages at http://www.rgstrong-genes.com . Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building
I have chosen to only list the dead on my blog, so anything I publish ends when the living generation begins, and to me it's not a matter of privacy but of respect for the living. I am very open about the details of my life, the places I've lived, career etc., some of my cousins aren't. I have just found it easier to not offend them by only dealing with the dead in public. That said, when I share a gedcom with others or receive one I really, really, hate getting them with 200 "living" people in the index. I find them of little value. I don't need to know that living has 5 living children. I don't share my personal gedcom's with just anyone because I list everyone in them with all the facts and documents I can find. Have a great day! Mary Jane http://allwrappedup4u.blogspot.com/ http://foundingfamilylines.blogspot.com From: Brian L. Lightfoot To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 12:57 PM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building I think this bottle has been passed around many times before. As many of the other replies may so indicate, the choice of “Living” over the actual name seems to be the politically correct answer. But as what little hair I have left grows more grey and my eyes get dimmer, I find myself pondering this over and over myself. I can certainly understand omitting just about all details about a living person but why is it not prudent to just show their names? Before you answer, consider that their birth is a matter of public record, there was probably a newspaper publication naming their parents when they were born, probably a wedding announcement giving names of parents, siblings, and other relatives published in their local city and elsewhere. Their names are easily found by looking in the white pages of a phone book which not only gives the phone number but their residential address. Even if you’re not sure of the exact names of children then a quick click and visit to Spokeo.com reveals quite a bit about the parents including the names of their children. My point is that all this information is readily available and open to the public but for some reason the direction that genealogy has taken in the past 20 years is to hide even their names. Someone tell me why and please do it without using the word “privacy” because their lives have all been public so far. Just wondering. Brian in CA From:Richard Falzini [mailto:rfalz...@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 3:56 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building Hello, I have been up dating my web site I have made with Legacy, and at the current moment I do not list names, birth dates, marriage dates, etc. of any living individuals. when the name of a living person should be displayed it says LIVING. I wanted to ask should I keep my site like that, or would it be ok to show the name such as Richard Falzini but suppress all personal data from the viewers of my site? I look forward to all input regarding my question Thanks Rich Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building
Finally, at least one reason stands out amongst the others: " Does not an individual deserve the right of privacy, especially regarding their identity?" This has been an issue that the courts have been struggling with. Is just the name alone all that there is to an "identity" because just knowing a name is not identity theft. Identity theft is obtaining and fraudulently using a person's personal information for financial gain. There are many acts that a person does throughout their lives to negate that expectation of privacy. If you register to vote, you gave up that right. If you own property, you gave up that right. If you have a telephone, you gave up that right. If you got married, you gave up that right. If you got divorced, you gave up that right. If you ever posted a message on the Internet, you gave up that right. If you own a firearm, you gave up that right. If you own a motor vehicle, you gave up that right (in some states). If you’re on Facebook, you gave up that right. This is not me stating an opinion but rather the way in which courts have ruled. So when a genealogist posts names of living people, he or she must have gleaned that information from some public document...birth record, marriage announcement, etc. If a genealogist must withhold names of living people, shouldn't newspapers and TV news also follow the same rules. Imagine how silly such news reports would sound: "A Living person today was arrested in Boston for assaulting a Living person and his wife, another Living person. According to Police Chief Living person, the accused Living person was arrested earlier this year for the burglary of the home of 3 other Living persons." Sounds quite silly doesn't it, yet that is exactly how many genealogy sites appear. I've even gotten a request to remove the name of a previous wife, since deceased. I guess he didn't want his family members or his current wife to know that he was married before. And the craziest one of all was a request to remove the names of a person's dead parents. Why? I haven't a clue. Both requests were denied. Not my mistake that he married the wrong person and not my mistake that he isn't proud of his parents. Change the public records and then I'll change my web sites. (Oh, I should add once again, that for these living persons only their names appear. I withhold all other personal information.) The bottom line: I think there is no clear cut rule here. If you are making your own genealogical web pages then do whatever you are comfortable with. But think about it for a long time first before you make that decision. Brian in CA -Original Message- From: Lee Bruch [mailto:lbr...@nwlink.com] Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 11:09 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building Further, a practical and safety matter: In an ideal world there would not be identity theft. But it is getting relatively common. To have names associated with the family background is one of the strong tools a identity thief could use. Genealogy sites are known as one of the potential easy sources of private information. A thief could, of course, amass the info in other ways, but ... if one were to follow that logic, everything about a person, would be public because "if might be gotten elsewhere so why bother safeguarding it". And further, an ethical matter: Does not an individual deserve the right of privacy, especially regarding their identity? It seems to me as if the minimum one could do is to at least ask their permission before exposing their name on a public family tree. And even further, a legal matter: I don't know the law in all states nor nations. But it wouldn't surprise me if some nations, such as some countries in Western Europe had restrictions on that. Though again, I don't know Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building
Lee, It has always seemed to me that America is much more concerned with privacy rather than western Europe. I do not find it to be a big issue in the UK, and very few people have asked me not to publish their name. I am not aware of any country over here which have restrictions. Ron Ferguson http://www.fergys.co.uk/ GOONS #5307 "Lee Bruch" wrote: >Further, a practical and safety matter: >In an ideal world there would not be identity theft. But it is getting >relatively common. To have names associated with the family background is one >of the strong tools a identity thief could use. Genealogy sites are known as >one of the potential easy sources of private information. A thief could, of >course, amass the info in other ways, but ... if one were to follow that >logic, everything about a person, would be public because "if might be gotten >elsewhere so why bother safeguarding it". > >And further, an ethical matter: >Does not an individual deserve the right of privacy, especially regarding >their identity? It seems to me as if the minimum one could do is to at least >ask their permission before exposing their name on a public family tree. > >And even further, a legal matter: >I don't know the law in all states nor nations. But it wouldn't surprise me if >some nations, such as some countries in Western Europe had restrictions on >that. Though again, I don't know > >-Original Message-ittle hair I have left grows more grey and my eyes get >dimmer, I >> find myself pondering this over and over myself. I can certainly >> understand omitting just about all details about a living person but >> why is it not prudent to just show their names? >> >> Before you answer, consider that their birth is a matter of public >> record, there was probably a newspaper publication naming their >> parents when they were born, probably a wedding announcement giving >> names of parents, siblings, and other relatives published in their >> local city and elsewhere. Their names are easily found by looking in >> the white pages of a phone book which not only gives the phone number >> but their residential address. Even if you’re not sure of the exact >> names of children then a quick click and visit to Spokeo.com reveals >> quite a bit about the parents including the names of their children. >> >> My point is that all this information is readily available and open to >> the public but for some reason the direction that genealogy has taken >> in the past 20 years is to hide even their names. Someone tell me why >> and please do it without using the word “privacy†because their >> lives have all been public so far. Just wondering. >> >> Brian in CA >> >> *From:*Richard Falzini [mailto:rfalz...@yahoo.com] > > > > >> *Subject:* [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building >> >> Hello, >> >> I have been up dating my web site I have made with Legacy, and at the >> current moment I do not list names, birth dates, marriage dates, etc. >> >> of any living individuals. >> >> when the name of a living person should be displayed it says LIVING. >> >> I wanted to ask should I keep my site like that, or would it be ok to >> show the name such as Richard Falzini but suppress all personal data >> from the viewers of my site? >> >> I look forward to all input regarding my question >> >> Thanks >> >> Rich > > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building
Brian, I too am concerned about the way the attitude to privacy is going and I agree with your comments. I helped a person on one of the Lists I am on with a phone number and address out of the phone book and was then attacked by another list member for putting it on the List. The person who critised me argued that I had invaded their privacy...what a load of rubbish, the phone book is the public arena for all to read and it is online too. If you want privacy, don't put your name in the phone book, don't put you engagement, marriage death or your children's births in the paper. My daughter is a police officer and she laughs when I tell her about the way privacy is affecting family research, especially with birth certificates etc. She said that in all the cases she has dealt with concerning fraud and identity theft, not one had been obtained through family research. She said there were much better and easier ways to obtain the information, I know as I used to be in the job too. Just my two cents worth. Colin. - Original Message - From: Brian L. Lightfoot To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 2:57 PM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building I think this bottle has been passed around many times before. As many of the other replies may so indicate, the choice of “Living” over the actual name seems to be the politically correct answer. But as what little hair I have left grows more grey and my eyes get dimmer, I find myself pondering this over and over myself. I can certainly understand omitting just about all details about a living person but why is it not prudent to just show their names? Before you answer, consider that their birth is a matter of public record, there was probably a newspaper publication naming their parents when they were born, probably a wedding announcement giving names of parents, siblings, and other relatives published in their local city and elsewhere. Their names are easily found by looking in the white pages of a phone book which not only gives the phone number but their residential address. Even if you’re not sure of the exact names of children then a quick click and visit to Spokeo.com reveals quite a bit about the parents including the names of their children. My point is that all this information is readily available and open to the public but for some reason the direction that genealogy has taken in the past 20 years is to hide even their names. Someone tell me why and please do it without using the word “privacy” because their lives have all been public so far. Just wondering. Brian in CA Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building
Further, a practical and safety matter: In an ideal world there would not be identity theft. But it is getting relatively common. To have names associated with the family background is one of the strong tools a identity thief could use. Genealogy sites are known as one of the potential easy sources of private information. A thief could, of course, amass the info in other ways, but ... if one were to follow that logic, everything about a person, would be public because "if might be gotten elsewhere so why bother safeguarding it". And further, an ethical matter: Does not an individual deserve the right of privacy, especially regarding their identity? It seems to me as if the minimum one could do is to at least ask their permission before exposing their name on a public family tree. And even further, a legal matter: I don't know the law in all states nor nations. But it wouldn't surprise me if some nations, such as some countries in Western Europe had restrictions on that. Though again, I don't know -Original Message- From: JLB [mailto:j...@jgen.ws] Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 10:32 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building The information is only publicly available if someone already knows a name. Why make it easier for the snoops by giving out the names? Anyone born after about 1900 can still have living children. My grandmother born in 1899 does. --- JL Beeken JLog - simple computer technology for genealogists http://www.jgen.ws/jlog/ On 10/28/2012 9:57 PM, Brian L. Lightfoot wrote: > I think this bottle has been passed around many times before. As many > of the other replies may so indicate, the choice of “Living†over > the actual name seems to be the politically correct answer. But as > what little hair I have left grows more grey and my eyes get dimmer, I > find myself pondering this over and over myself. I can certainly > understand omitting just about all details about a living person but > why is it not prudent to just show their names? > > Before you answer, consider that their birth is a matter of public > record, there was probably a newspaper publication naming their > parents when they were born, probably a wedding announcement giving > names of parents, siblings, and other relatives published in their > local city and elsewhere. Their names are easily found by looking in > the white pages of a phone book which not only gives the phone number > but their residential address. Even if you’re not sure of the exact > names of children then a quick click and visit to Spokeo.com reveals > quite a bit about the parents including the names of their children. > > My point is that all this information is readily available and open to > the public but for some reason the direction that genealogy has taken > in the past 20 years is to hide even their names. Someone tell me why > and please do it without using the word “privacy†because their > lives have all been public so far. Just wondering. > > Brian in CA > > *From:*Richard Falzini [mailto:rfalz...@yahoo.com] > *Subject:* [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building > > Hello, > > I have been up dating my web site I have made with Legacy, and at the > current moment I do not list names, birth dates, marriage dates, etc. > > of any living individuals. > > when the name of a living person should be displayed it says LIVING. > > I wanted to ask should I keep my site like that, or would it be ok to > show the name such as Richard Falzini but suppress all personal data > from the viewers of my site? > > I look forward to all input regarding my question > > Thanks > > Rich Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building
The information is only publicly available if someone already knows a name. Why make it easier for the snoops by giving out the names? Anyone born after about 1900 can still have living children. My grandmother born in 1899 does. --- JL Beeken JLog - simple computer technology for genealogists http://www.jgen.ws/jlog/ On 10/28/2012 9:57 PM, Brian L. Lightfoot wrote: > I think this bottle has been passed around many times before. As many of > the other replies may so indicate, the choice of “Living†over the > actual name seems to be the politically correct answer. But as what > little hair I have left grows more grey and my eyes get dimmer, I find > myself pondering this over and over myself. I can certainly understand > omitting just about all details about a living person but why is it not > prudent to just show their names? > > Before you answer, consider that their birth is a matter of public > record, there was probably a newspaper publication naming their parents > when they were born, probably a wedding announcement giving names of > parents, siblings, and other relatives published in their local city and > elsewhere. Their names are easily found by looking in the white pages of > a phone book which not only gives the phone number but their residential > address. Even if you’re not sure of the exact names of children then a > quick click and visit to Spokeo.com reveals quite a bit about the > parents including the names of their children. > > My point is that all this information is readily available and open to > the public but for some reason the direction that genealogy has taken in > the past 20 years is to hide even their names. Someone tell me why and > please do it without using the word “privacy†because their lives have > all been public so far. Just wondering. > > Brian in CA > > *From:*Richard Falzini [mailto:rfalz...@yahoo.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, October 28, 2012 3:56 PM > *To:* LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com > *Subject:* [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building > > Hello, > > I have been up dating my web site I have made with Legacy, and at the > current moment I do not list names, birth dates, marriage dates, etc. > > of any living individuals. > > when the name of a living person should be displayed it says LIVING. > > I wanted to ask should I keep my site like that, or would it be ok to > show the name such as Richard Falzini but suppress all personal data > from the viewers of my site? > > I look forward to all input regarding my question > > Thanks > > Rich > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ > Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ > Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp > Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and > on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). > To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ > Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ > Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp > Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and > on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). > To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building
Rich, I'm afraid not. All you can do for those who decline permission is to mark them, individually, as Private should you wish to include names where allowed, or otherwise continue as you are with all the living marked as such. Ron Ferguson http://www.fergys.co.uk/ GOONS #5307 "Richard Falzini" wrote: >Maybe what I want to say is can I edit my site to show names only for people >who wish this, and keep private for those who do not? > >Perhaps you can suggest the settings for me? > >Thanks > > > >> >> From: Ron Ferguson >>To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com >>Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:43 PM >>Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building >> >> >> >>Lee, >> >>Thanks for pointing this out, I should have >mentioned that I do ask for consent for publishing names of living people, if >they decline I mark them “Private” – personal choice – I do not like pages of >“Living”. If I don’t know, or cannot contact, a person who may still be living, >then I omit them completely. >> >>Ron Ferguson >>http://www.fergys.co.uk/ >> >> >>From: Lee Bruch >>Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 11:06 PM >>To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com >>Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website >building >> IMHO: >Suppress all names and information for living except for those who have given >you explicit (&written) permission to list them >> >>From:Richard Falzini >[mailto:rfalz...@yahoo.com] >>Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 3:56 >PM >>To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com >>Subject: [LegacyUG] >Question regarding website building >> >> >> >>when the name of a living >person should be displayed it says LIVING. >> >>I >wanted to ask should I keep my site like that, or would it be ok to show the >name such as Richard Falzini but suppress all personal data from the viewers of >my site? >> >>I >look forward to all input regarding my question >> >>Thanks >> >>Rich >> > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building
Maybe what I want to say is can I edit my site to show names only for people who wish this, and keep private for those who do not? Perhaps you can suggest the settings for me? Thanks > > From: Ron Ferguson >To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com >Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:43 PM >Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building > > > >Lee, > >Thanks for pointing this out, I should have mentioned that I do ask for consent for publishing names of living people, if they decline I mark them “Private” – personal choice – I do not like pages of “Living”. If I don’t know, or cannot contact, a person who may still be living, then I omit them completely. > >Ron Ferguson >http://www.fergys.co.uk/ > > >From: Lee Bruch >Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 11:06 PM >To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com >Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building > IMHO: Suppress all names and information for living except for those who have given you explicit (&written) permission to list them > >From:Richard Falzini [mailto:rfalz...@yahoo.com] >Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 3:56 PM >To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com >Subject: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building > > > >when the name of a living person should be displayed it says LIVING. > >I wanted to ask should I keep my site like that, or would it be ok to show the name such as Richard Falzini but suppress all personal data from the viewers of my site? > >I look forward to all input regarding my question > >Thanks > >Rich > > > > >Legacy User Group guidelines: >http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp >Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: >http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ >Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: >http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ >Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp >Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on >our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). >To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building
I have been asking for permission from family, however in the create web page section I click the "other" tab where it gives the option to suppress details or change to living. Is there a way I use that feature for the one's i have not gotten consent from and for the one's I did just show there names > > From: Ron Ferguson >To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com >Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:43 PM >Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building > > > >Lee, > >Thanks for pointing this out, I should have mentioned that I do ask for consent for publishing names of living people, if they decline I mark them “Private” – personal choice – I do not like pages of “Living”. If I don’t know, or cannot contact, a person who may still be living, then I omit them completely. > >Ron Ferguson >http://www.fergys.co.uk/ > > >From: Lee Bruch >Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 11:06 PM >To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com >Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building > IMHO: Suppress all names and information for living except for those who have given you explicit (&written) permission to list them > >From:Richard Falzini [mailto:rfalz...@yahoo.com] >Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 3:56 PM >To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com >Subject: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building > > > >when the name of a living person should be displayed it says LIVING. > >I wanted to ask should I keep my site like that, or would it be ok to show the name such as Richard Falzini but suppress all personal data from the viewers of my site? > >I look forward to all input regarding my question > >Thanks > >Rich > > > > >Legacy User Group guidelines: >http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp >Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: >http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ >Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: >http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ >Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp >Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on >our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). >To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] Question regarding website building
Rich, Your choice. Have a look in the Ancestry section of my website. You can start with me at http://www.fergys.co.uk/genealogy/1.php Last time I checked I was still living, but I don't use that option, I simply suppress the data. You can then see whether you prefer my way or the one which you currently use. Ron Ferguson http://www.fergys.co.uk/ GOONS #5307 "Richard Falzini" wrote: >Hello, > I have been up dating my web site I have made with Legacy, and at the >current moment I do not list names, birth dates, marriage dates, etc. >of any living individuals. > > >when the name of a living person should be displayed it says LIVING. > >I wanted to ask should I keep my site like that, or would it be ok to show the >name such as Richard Falzini but suppress all personal data from the viewers >of my site? > >I look forward to all input regarding my question > >Thanks > > >Rich Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
[LegacyUG] Question regarding website building
Hello, I have been up dating my web site I have made with Legacy, and at the current moment I do not list names, birth dates, marriage dates, etc. of any living individuals. when the name of a living person should be displayed it says LIVING. I wanted to ask should I keep my site like that, or would it be ok to show the name such as Richard Falzini but suppress all personal data from the viewers of my site? I look forward to all input regarding my question Thanks Rich Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
