Suggestions

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

  • The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
  • You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
  • And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
  • The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Quick Search

Single word search

New Military Records

New military records

Was your ancestor a war hero?

View thousands of brand new military records, including Chelsea Pensioner records, Military Nurses, Prisoners of war and much more.

View military records today

Icons

  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

meaningless responses to review requests

Page 0 + 1 of 2

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. »
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

JaneyCanuck

JaneyCanuck Report 16 May 2011 19:10

I have reported a number of posts on the Living Relatives board in the last couple of weeks, as privacy violations.

In most cases, I carefully copy the message, my review request and the number I am given when I submit the request.

I have received several responses by email that look like this:


Subject: Request For Review:Message Board Response
Dear Janey
Thanks for reporting this post to us. We have taken a look at it and have decided that it can remain on our message boards.
Kind Regards,
Genes Support Team


Well, that's useful. WHAT post??

The decisions made by "the team" are notoriously arbitrary and inconsistent.

I want to be able to assess that decision and make further representations if I think it necessary.

I take the protection of individuals' PRIVACY and IDENTITY seriously. I expect this corporation to do the same. If I see individuals' identity and details of their personal lives being improperly published on this site, I am going to pursue the issue.

Without a reference number, so I know what decision relates to what report, how am I to do that?

Perhaps that is the point ...


Please put the REFERENCE NUMBER on replies to review requests.

JaneyCanuck

JaneyCanuck Report 16 May 2011 19:15

And please FIX THE EMOTICON CODE PROBLEM that is in plain evidence in the above post.

Honest to ... what is the hold-up there???

JaneyCanuck

JaneyCanuck Report 16 May 2011 19:26

I've identified one of the posts that I asked be reviewed for privacy violations, and that has now been restored to the board.

It contains:

Marital history of the parents of an individual born in 1940.
Full name and birth details of that individual.
Marital history of that individual.
Full names and birthdates and mother's surname details of individuals born in the 1960s, children of the individual born in 1940.

All without the knowledge or consent of any of the obviously living individuals in question.


Anybody else here think that is consistent with the protection of individuals' privacy and personal data?

I don't. I've asked for an explanation.

TootyFruity

TootyFruity Report 16 May 2011 19:58

For what it is worth I agree with Janey. That post should not have been reinstated, not only does it contravene the Data Protection Act but also Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

JaneyCanuck

JaneyCanuck Report 16 May 2011 19:59

WHAT???

Does somebody want to post in this thread and tell me exactly what GROUNDS were cited in reporting my three posts in this thread as abusive???

They were not, and I am therefore going to reproduce them in full here.

See my next post.

JaneyCanuck

JaneyCanuck Report 16 May 2011 20:02

The first three posts in this thread read as follows.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16 May 2011 19:10

I have reported a number of posts on the Living Relatives board in the last couple of weeks, as privacy violations.

In most cases, I carefully copy the message, my review request and the number I am given when I submit the request.

I have received several responses by email that look like this:



Subject: Request For Review:Message Board Response
Dear Janey
Thanks for reporting this post to us. We have taken a look at it and have decided that it can remain on our message boards.
Kind Regards,
Genes Support Team


Well, that's useful. WHAT post??
-edit- The email writer at GR *can't tell me* -- doesn't know.

The decisions made by "the team" are notoriously arbitrary and inconsistent.

I want to be able to assess that decision and make further representations if I think it necessary.

I take the protection of individuals' PRIVACY and IDENTITY seriously. I expect this corporation to do the same. If I see individuals' identity and details of their personal lives being improperly published on this site, I am going to pursue the issue.

Without a reference number, so I know what decision relates to what report, how am I to do that?

Perhaps that is the point ...


Please put the REFERENCE NUMBER on replies to review requests.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And please FIX THE EMOTICON CODE PROBLEM that is in plain evidence in the above post.

Honest to ... what is the hold-up there???

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've identified one of the posts that I asked be reviewed for privacy violations, and that has now been restored to the board.

It contains:

Marital history of the parents of an individual born in 1940.
Full name and birth details of that individual.
Marital history of that individual.
Full names and birthdates and mother's surname details of individuals born in the 1960s, children of the individual born in 1940.

All without the knowledge or consent of any of the obviously living individuals in question.

Anybody else here think that is consistent with the protection of individuals' privacy and personal data?

I don't. I've asked for an explanation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JaneyCanuck

JaneyCanuck Report 16 May 2011 20:06

TF -- I think the Human Rights Act doesn't apply (as the constitutional Charter of Rights in Canada wouldn't) because it applies only to "public authorities" -- but I think the Data Protection Act most definitely applies to the birth registration details, at least, contained in that post.


In case the person with the itchy trigger finger hasn't figured it out, this board is for making suggestions to the management of this site.

My suggestion is that I be provided with a reference to the post I have reported when I am informed of the decision to leave the post on the boards.


Quite apart from the suggestions repeated here at nauseam:

that the board be *actively* moderated and not policed by other members

that proper rules be established for the personal information given by posters on that board, and that the rules be enforced *actively*

that the board be eliminated as a waste of everyone's time, as diminishing the value of this website, and as an inevitable source of privacy violations

TootyFruity

TootyFruity Report 16 May 2011 20:12

Janey, I was drawn to item 1 and in my ignorance thought it may apply.

JaneyCanuck

JaneyCanuck Report 16 May 2011 20:20

It's a complicated (and fascinating, to some!) area. The Human Rights Act may be violated if the government doesn't require that private entities not violate the rights in the Human Rights Act -- or that's how it works in Canada; things may not have been elaborated to that extent in the UK yet. ;)

So the govt enacts the Data Protection Act, for example, that private entities have to comply with.


http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/copying-bmd-certificates.pdf
(emphasis in original)

Guidance - Copying of Birth, Death, Marriage and Civil Partnership Certificates

Reproduction
2. You are authorised to reproduce the layout of the form in any format including on the web, in films and in print. This authorisation is subject to the following conditions: ...

>> That you comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998. This guidance *does not* authorise you to reproduce the contents of any certificate containing personal data about living individuals;



But the point of this thread of mine is still:

When I am informed that a post I have requetsed review of has been allowed to stay on the boards,
I want the REFERENCE NUMBER of my review request cited in the reply I get.

;)

Rambling Rose

Rambling Rose Report 16 May 2011 20:20

I read your first posts Janey, I can't believe they have been rr'd! well no I CAN believe it, but only because I know that dissent from some quarters is jumped on with concrete boots, you've been putting your head above the parapet 'too much' lately haven't you ;-)

Joy Kentish Maid

Joy Kentish Maid Report 16 May 2011 21:01

Gobsmacked.
If there is any justice in this world, the sensible posts by Janey will be reinstated.

jax

jax Report 16 May 2011 21:53

Why on earth would someone report those?...and what sort of reason could they give for doing so?

Does make you wonder sometimes

jax

Rambling Rose

Rambling Rose Report 16 May 2011 22:37

Hi Ice Ice Baby, most of the request reviews are on threads that are giving a lot of very personal information about living individuals being looked for...and those definitely come under the 'data protection' category

I can only conclude that Janey's post fell into the "other" category...but what that covers is anybody's guess!

jax

jax Report 16 May 2011 22:41

I had one reported for just saying " Another thread on chat" and giving the link

What category does that fall into I wonder ?

ja...x

SylviaInCanada

SylviaInCanada Report 16 May 2011 22:57

I cannot believe that those posts were requested for review


although TF's comment about putting your head above the parapet may have some validity ...... with some people!



sylvia

SylviaInCanada

SylviaInCanada Report 16 May 2011 23:04

Ice~Ice~Baby

Re looking for living relations


I think people have to realise that the Find Living Relations board is not a secure board, it is just the same as the rest of GR


anything you post on there is likely to appear on the intenet within a very short period of time.

Every bit of advice on GR has always been do NOT post information on living people that could lead to their identification

It is not fair on them ........ and it is also against laws such as the Data Protection Act


especially as you do not have the permission of someone that you are looking for!

If you could ask for their permission, then you wouldn't be looking for them would you?


Replies to requests on Find Living Relatives are by pm only ...... so it is possible to put a very guarded request on there, and then supply details to requests by pm



I doubt very much that anyone will find a living relation just by said relation passing by and seeing the post



Most help is being given by the usual helpers on GR, only they are now unable to see what others have found, and there is no baility ofr 2 or more popel to work together to ferret out things.




sylvia

Rambling Rose

Rambling Rose Report 16 May 2011 23:06

Ice Ice baby well to me it is largely down to common sense , if I were, for example, looking for my dad, I might say 'looking for " eddie Murrell *** , born 1920s, Kent, builder. last known to be living in Lancs'.... which gives enough info for someone to help by PM or for him, or family to recognise him...I don't need to put that I'm looking for my 'father' or any really personal details on the board.

NOT ' looking for my dad *** *** born 3/13/24 who deserted my mother and ran off with a trollop, with whom he had the following children *** born 14/12/1957 etc he was last known to be living with his grandchild Louisa born 14/12/89 at 83, solomon kings close, milton on the water.'

None of that is accurate by the way lol.

Joy Kentish Maid

Joy Kentish Maid Report 16 May 2011 23:19

What should not be put in a public board such as this, for all the world to see, is an exact date of birth, such as can be seen in the title of one such thread in the find living relatives board right now that was reported for review over two hours ago.

JaneyCanuck

JaneyCanuck Report 16 May 2011 23:24

Exactly, Rambling Rose! ;)

Have I mentioned how for some time my tree here at GR contained my father's second wife, "stupid mistake", mother of his four children ...

Eventually, I deleted my tree from the ground up and started over. :D


But exactly.

>> No one has to say that the person they are looking for is the father who abandoned their mother, or the mother who abandoned them at birth, or the neighbour man who had an affair with their mother while their father was off at war.

If anybody *does* drop by and recognize the person they're looking for, it is in fact highly unlikely that they're even going to know the person ever had a child! so it's hardly a value added, for the search, to throw all the laundry into the post anyway.

And if a post here at GR is the way they learn that, not only is that hugely unfair on them, it might just make it less likely they'd reply to the post anyway.

JaneyCanuck

JaneyCanuck Report 16 May 2011 23:27

But -- the point of *this* thread is still:



Please include the REFERENCE NUMBER when replying to a request for a review of a post, GenesReunited.


Not the full name of the poster whose post is removed, when that is the case.
(That is what I have received in such replies, to date.)

Not nothing at all, when the post is reinstated.



The REFERENCE NUMBER of the review request

or

a LINK to the post in question.



PLEASE.