We have done some checking and testing.
One of the readily and freely available applications (in Windows) that
our group likes the handling of privacy issues is Legacy. The people,
events etc marked private do not appear. The ideal from a genealogist
point of view.
An idea that came up, worth some discussion - To add another button
under the "Restrict data on living people". This would do exactly the
same thing, how ever it would include the names of all people, living
and dead. This would not be an issue if the handling of people marked as
private is resolved, as they would not appear at all. It would also
resolve the issue of excluding events, notes etc that are marked as
private. Those files could be shared freely, and the user could inform
those they share the file with that there maybe more information available.
> Brian Matherly wrote:
>>> I have made a start on the list of what is
>>> included in reports. This
>>> is a list of people / name, events and notes that
>>> have been marked as
>>> private in the database, but are included in a
>>> report. (see attached
>>> file). Suggestions welcome.
>>> This came from discussion at our local genealogy
>>> group, the
>>> consensus is that private mean do not include. Some
>>> of the points made are;
>>> 1. A person with a relative working for the
>>> government in a position
>>> classified as secret. They are in the
>>> database, but should not be
>>> included in reports as their details are
>>> classified. Marked as
>>> private, but appears in reports.
>>> 2. Another with Military service that is
>>> classified and marked as
>>> private, but appears in reports.
>>> 3. Another, a mother with a child, believed by
>>> her partner to be his.
>>> The mother does not want details known until
>>> she tell the child at
>>> the age of 18. Marked as private, but appears
>>> in reports.
>>> 4. A point that had 100% agreement. It revolves
>>> around privacy
>>> issues, and identity theft. Something that is
>>> becoming more of a
>>> problem. eg: the proposed government bill to
>>> restrict BDM records
>>> to immediate family only, for the same reason.
>>> 5. The question that came out of the discussion
>>> is what use is being
>>> able to mark something as private if it is
>>> If, for example a user produces a web site, with
>>> access password
>>> restricted to family members then the options of
>>> what information can
>>> and can not be included are limited. You have two
>>> options, use the
>>> current features to mark people, event and notes as
>>> private, but these
>>> currently don't work or use the option restrict data
>>> on living people,
>>> but this applies to all, no options.
>> Thanks for your comments and elicitation. This will be
>> I agree 100% that we need to improve the handling of
>> private data. I can imagine three ways that we could
>> support the privacy flag in reports:
>> 1) Always exclude it. We could make it so that data
>> marked Private can in no way EVER make it into a
>> 2) Global setting. We could add a setting in the
>> "Preferences" area where a user could select whether
>> private data is included in reports or not.
>> 3) Report option. We could add a new option to every
>> report that allows the user to select whether private
>> data is included in that report or not.
>> All three strategies are valid and feasible. But which
>> one is best?
>> BTW: There is a feature request filed here that
>> Feel free to add your own comments there.
> Hi Brian,
> Some thoughts from our group.
> Option 1, seems to be too restrictive, but would be a last resort.
> It completely defeats the sharing of data unless it is open / not marked
> as private. If this is used then we can see requests to open it up at a
> later date.
> Option 2, again restrictive, but not to the same extent. It does how
> ever limit the user to a single option unless preferences are changed
> for each report.
> Option 3, this would give more flexibility in the output, ie: for
> immediate family or more general viewing, as in a web site. This would
> be our choice.
> Is it possible to use the same options when exporting a file ? The
> same considerations about sharing data apply to exported files as they
> do with reports.
> The end consideration in all of this is privacy, and this includes
> for those who provide us with information to use and trust that we will
> use it as they wish. If this ever changes then it will definitely make
> researching family histories, as opposed to just doing genealogy, a lot
> more difficult.
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
> Gramps-users mailing list