Re: [Gramps-users] A request for comments on privacy settings - especially from new users

[Kaj P. <701...@te...>]

Very wise words, Duncan. I completely agree in your point of view, that 
Gramps is also used by people who do not know much of genealogy, maybe 
not computer programmes neither. So, best case, they install this 
software themselves, or aided by a children, and then that's all. This 
is also the case for me, well not the computer knowledge, since I have 
been working with these things for whole my life. But genealogy is just 
some weeks old, and the option field this discussion concerns, had not 
come for my eyes yet.

I also completely disagree with the signature pez4brian in that "for any 
reports and exports, the default should always be to include 
everything". This is the philosophy of Microsoft, which has given us the 
most unsafe environment of all. Not until during the resent years they 
have understood, that the advantage that also unskilled people can go on 
and run a computer, is not worth everything. The price with decreased 
privacy is often too high. And your example, Duncan, with Facebook, is 
also very relevant.

Shortly, it is much better that the beginner will discover by 
her-/himself that the report is not complete, that some people are 
missing, search for, and find, the option field, and select the desired 
level of privacy, and this way becoming aware of the possible risk. This 
way she/he also has learnt where to find the option field, when it is 
time to change it the next time.

Kaj Persson
(Sweden)


On 2011-03-30 07:37, Duncan Lithgow wrote:
> Regarding bug report #4055 http://www.gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=4055
>
> We'd like to hear users thoughts, and we understand that lots of users
> don't have accounts on the bug tracker - so here is the discussion so
> far.
>
> The bug report text:
>
> In the 'Narrative website' report, when looking through the dialogues
> for export, under the tab 'Privacy' the entry for handling 'Living
> People' is set to value 'include' by default. This must be a mistake
> as it would never be the default action of any sensible researcher to
> export information about living relatives. I've marked this as major
> because of the serious potential for Gramps creating a breach of
> privacy because of incautious defaults.
>
> Comments on the bug tracker:
>
> dsblank (developer) on 2010-06-08 07:51 wrote:
>
> There are many reasons for making a NarWeb report (sharing all details
> with trusted users, making a CDROM, etc), so I don't agree that this
> is a bug---just a difference of what should be the initial value.
> Gramps remembers the setting once you set it. On the other hand, I am
> re-writing all reports to use the same selection options that the
> Exporters use, so I will look at this when selecting a default for the
> initial install with the new selection options. Thanks!
>
> pez4brian (administrator) on 2011-03-29 23:44 wrote:
>
> I also agree that this is not a bug. Plenty of people publish the
> pages on a password protected web site which only their immediate
> family can access. Any sensible researcher who is going to publish the
> output on a public, unprotected web site is going to go looking
> through the options for a way to limit the private data that is
> exported. And then they find it, as Doug says, it will be remembered.
>
> Personally, I think that for any reports and exports, the default
> should always be to include everything.
>
> I'm not sure we can easily resolve this among ourselves. If you feel
> strongly about the change, we may need to circulate this on the devel
> list to get a consensus. Otherwise, I suggest we table it.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> DuncanNZ (manager) on 2011-03-30 01:32 wrote:
>
> I agree with what you say about 'Any sensible researcher', but Gramps
> is just as often a persons introduction to genealogy software. People
> say similar things about Facebook: 'any sensible person goes in and
> changes their privacy settings'.
>
> Gramps is not just for 'sensible' genealogy researchers, it's also for
> people who are completely new to genealogy and don't think about
> privacy. Something we can all learn from the ongoing privacy issues
> with facebook is that a lot of people just don't think about the
> consequences of being very public.
>
> I've tried hard to protect my families privacy and still I've had four
> occasions where bits of private information have slipped onto the web.
> Two of those got in a bit of trouble, one of the them with someone who
> I really would have liked to get talking - I don't see that happening
> now. (Only one of those events was connected with any 'weakness' in
> gramps)
>
> If we need to take this debate anywhere I would like to hear what
> people on the users list think - I'll go and do that now!
>