Curators Disregarding Privacy and Geni Rules

Mike Stangel If i have to play by the rules how come they get away with it... I don't know what this man is talking about.. I have nothing to hide anyway because any one could look me up unless of course I lived under a rock or in the maine woods... If say i was a crime victim or somthing then I might bring out the lawyers but i see no need here...

Paul Frere Hart the guidance we've given the curators is that profiles born more than 150 years ago would require extraordinary justification for being private, and that in general they should feel free to make such profiles public. It seems as though you're talking about notable living people, in which case there's no blanket rule for making those public except to say that it can only be done if the profile is marked a Master Profile and therefore under the oversight of a curator. If a private profile is merged with a Master Profile, the result will be that the (public) Master Profile remains. Feel free to send me an Inbox message with the details if you'd like us to look into this further.

"Curators may also send a Master Profile request to the managers of private profiles. By accepting the request, the profile manager grants permission to make the profile a Master Profile. The Curator who submitted the request will become the Curator of the profile."

http://help.geni.com/entries/20385782-What-is-a-Master-Profile-

Yet my feed says:

R. Owen Wyant added Doris Lee Fisher (Feigenbaum) to the Notable businesspeople project. 8:14 AM
R. Owen Wyant added Doris Lee Fisher (Feigenbaum) to the Philanthropists project. 8:13 AM
R. Owen Wyant added Doris Lee Fisher (Feigenbaum) to the Stanford University project. 8:11 AM
Kevin Lawrence Hanit added Doris Lee Fisher (Feigenbaum) to the Jewish Celebrity Birthday Calendar project.
Kevin Lawrence Hanit curated profiles for John J Fisher and Doris Lee Fisher (Feigenbaum)

These living individuals and were marked PRIVATE. Nobody asked me anything. They just took over the profiles, marked them MP and now I do not have permissions to mark them private.

I DO NOT GRANT PERMISSION.

Mike Stangel -- for Doris Lee Fisher it seems clear there has never been a merge. The only Manager is Paul. And the most recent line in Revisions is "Doris Fisher (Feigenbaum)'s profile was updated by Kevin Hanit. master Thu at 9:47 PM" with the line before that being from Nov 23 2012.

So - do the rules no longer require Curators to send a Master Profile request to the managers of private profiles before making them into Master Profiles (as Paul reminds above the FAQ in Help says), or do the records show Paul received one and accepted it (which he clearly believes did not happen) or ??

Slight revision - I meant not only send the request - but also receive a "yes" response - before making the Living Profile into a Master Profile.

Thank you Lois,

However it is not only Doris Fisher that is the problem.

All of these individuals have been removed from me:

Robert Joseph Fisher
William S Fisher
John J Fisher

The only individual I have ever given permission to make public was Donald Fisher (He passed away in 2009) and that was AFTER it was already taken from me.

could you explain how you think a multi billionaire public figure could possibly come to harm by having a public geni profile?

It's all a matter of personal taste. I had reservations about revealing the family tragedy involved with my great-uncle-by-marriage, but he was important enough to be in Wikipedia - so sooner or later the cat would have come out of the bag anyway.

This dude: Lt. General Harold L. George

My grandfather's sister was his first wife; their only child died young, and the marriage ended in divorce soon afterward.

Doris Fisher is also in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doris_F._Fisher If she is withdrawn now, eventually someone else will just put her back on.

IMHO Wikipedia = fair game, should probably be a Master Profile anyway. Maybe some of the Curators think that way also.

This are people, whether they are billionaires or not, they have a right to privacy. As Genealogists, we find out more than what you see on Wiki. I will not post that information to a profile as long as I am not sure of their privacy at least until they have passed.

I am not sure how information can be used. I do not have a criminal mind. But I can tell you how this is hurting Geni... Genealogist are running away from this website because of privacy concerns. And they are the ones we want here the most.

It may be hard to believe but I actually have other billionaires in my family who I am attempting to have contact with. How welcoming are they going to be if they think their personal data may end up online?

I already stopped adding in most of my information to the website. I do one place studies, so not even a third of the people I have are listed. Plus I have source data for ten times that amount. I expect to be working on it for the next ten years.

How many even know that a Curator can make any of your profiles public? I had one about a year ago that found an obituary in that days newspaper, went online and found I had a profile for the individual. She added in the death date and it AUTOMATICALLY marked the profile as Public. She never asked me anything and the person was not even buried yet.

When I first joined Geni, I had this idea that it was going to be the "Facebook" of Genealogy, with family members connecting. I have 85 family members on the site. However, it has turned into this giant monster where the only thing important is adding in names to the world tree. Be damned about whether someone wants their information in it or not.

Geni recently hailed the fact that they have 100 million profiles.

https://www.geni.com/blog/genis-world-family-tree-surpasses-100-mil...

However they didn't mention it took them almost 8 years to get there and the world population increased 500 million while they were working on it. We are losing the race and the world population will be at 8 billion before we hit 200 million profiles. Maybe if Geni hadn't alienated so many people they would be closer to their goal.

I think you are under a fundamental misconception as to the nature and purpose of Geni. Its mission statement IS to build One Universal PUBLIC Tree.

If your relatives do not want their information to be public *at all*, they need to contact Wikipedia and demand their articles be taken down. If they don't do that, they have no grounds for complaint.

There are other sites for the construction and maintenance of *private* trees. It sounds as though you might be happier at one of them.

PS: Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds to be bragging of how many "billionaires" are in your family?

I understand that all the profiles will eventually become public. I do not understand why we are making living people public. There are more than enough deceased people throughout the ages that we could work on.

I am not bragging. While it is highly unusual, I was only using it show how this problem with my private profiles becoming public can jeopardized my relationship with others I am attempting to get information from.

I personally am not even close to being a millionaire, more or less a billionaire. THAT would be something to brag about.

Re: I do not understand why we are making living people public.

I'm surprised to hear that from a genealogist. I wasn't able to find my family's connections back into the past until I found our way to Gore Vidal, famous novelist (living at the time). It is a reality of how minds work that we remember our connections to "notables.". And nothing wrong with a little bragging, in fun. :)

Geni has set up various methods to help with the private / public figure issue, and we invite more suggestions. After all, notables are genealogists too, and there are plenty of them as geni members, their family privacy undisturbed.

There is a fairly new tool, perhaps underutilized, and that's the "memories" module, similar to the "guestbook" for living members. So when someone passes on, family members and only family (as defined by https://www.geni.com/company/privacy ) can share more intimate stories and recollections with each other.

You will, I think, rarely find a public / notable / curated profile revealing "too much". And I know for myself i edit anything on request. It's been requested twice in five years.

My grandmother used to say the best way to keep a secret is not to tell anyone.

I think that's very good advice. I don't put anything online that will be upsetting if made public.

Despite any assurances of privacy, once the information is on the Internet, you've effectively lost control of it. Information could be made public at any time, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Of course, it's better if we all cooperate to honor the preferences of living people but the ultimate responsibility for revealing sensitive information, in my opinion, rests with the person who enters the information.

Many of you seem to be disregarding the Rules Geni says it is following / Curators will follow in the FAQ Paul quoted - specifically -

http://help.geni.com/entries/20385782-What-is-a-Master-Profile-

"Curators may also send a Master Profile request to the managers of private profiles. By accepting the request, the profile manager grants permission to make the profile a Master Profile. "

It does NOT say - a Curator can do that OR a Curator can just decide on his/her own to make the Living Profile into a Master Profile without asking a Manager of the Profile and without receiving permission from a Manager.

I know I saw this referred to in Public Discussions when Geni first gave Curators this ability as proof there were protections.

That Curators see no reason to follow Geni's rules is very upsetting.

Or is the problem that Geni has changed this rule (and others?) while still stating it in its FAQs - thus both deceiving those of us who are relying on Geni's statement of its rules, and causing some Curators to be seen unfairly as breaking the rules?

"Curators may also send a Master Profile request to the managers of private profiles."

this is old. the FAQ has not been updated to reflect our current tools

Jason Scott Wills - there is a major difference between having Tools which make it Possible to do something, and having permission to do something.

The FAQ was last updated February 13, 2014.
When did the Tools change?
And when did Geni officially Change Its Policy on this?

I agree with lois.. for once.. Private User you following?

Erica Howton Justin Durand mike s i know this much transparency is important.. I do belive their are a few rule breakers on here that are curators I will not name them but for the most part the major players t (erica justin mike ashley etc etc) hough annoyingly short tempered arrogant and at times down right childish sometimes have never broken this mp rule that paul speaks of That i can see... When my grandpa died suddenly I Pm'd erica here and she took care of the mp within 24 hours... or was it ashley I can't remember my brain is a little post easter candy foggy... But I do agree with lois about rule breaking.. but I also disgaree because I have never seen them use the force for evil in terms of making private profiles public... or vice versea

michael for once you have said something that rings true

" I have never seen them use the force for evil "

curators have never once used their powers for ill purposes and anyone who claims they do is either ignorant or a liar.

Jason Scott Wills I agree to disagree there are some curators in the past that have abused their powers to a degree management has had to step in.. but they've been swiftly delt with I will not name them.. There are a few that like to cause trouble But In terms of offensives that could get them booted I've only seen that once when i've been on here.. So i agree the rule system is working.. Just that it needs to be updated..

I do agree with lois how ever that we need a updated faq with clear consice rules so people know what they are getting into...

And I also agree about permission. There are some curators that won't wait til permission granted to do things and that's a problem but most of them I know erica and justin and so wait til they hear pemission granted before they do anything good or bad so the balence stystem isn't as all screwed up as some people claim it is

and I agree and this rarely happens with Justin Durand that privacy is dead and that we have to adapt to it...

I agree and disgaree with Paul.. If you make it clear people can opt out then you have covered your bases.. People have the tools to remeady within reason what is false demaning inflamatory etc etc as for the reliability of things just common sense is needed just because it's on the internet doesn't allways mean it's true

I was thinking about the "criminal" aspect about this.

I recently had a close relative pass away who was living at home alone. As soon as I saw the obit online, I immediately marked the profile as deceased and private.

However let's say that I was not as active on Geni and a curator went in and marked the person as deceased as has happened to me before and that profile went automatically Public.

If I had had that close relatives address on the profile (Contact tab), it would now be public info for anyone.

Meanwhile, that persons 4th cousin who happens to be the Black Sheep in the family now gets a notice in his Geni feed that his cousin's profile has been updated. He checks it out, sees the address and seeing the cousin's spouse passed away a few years ago, scopes out the house and determines it is empty.

When he gets caught, he points to Geni as the place he got the address and idea to rob the place.

Unlikely... yes. But possible. Just look at all the things people do with info on other websites such as Craigslist to commit crimes.

We only need one example of someone committing a crime with info from a genealogy website for folks to get all up in arms.

Hehe... Or someone could attempt to rent out the house while it is empty...

http://www.shelbynews.com/news/article_39563016-5302-56a6-b2f8-e05f...

For those who say "don't put the information online if you don't want it to seen.”

That isn't going to fly in a court of law when Geni gives some distant relative the tools to place the info online and then a Geni curator makes it public.

Remember there are individuals who have placed info on this site and have never come back. There are individuals who have placed info on the site and died years ago.

They have never signed a statement saying their info could become public.

I was surprised a year ago when I realized all my deceased profiles had become public. I do not remember agreeing to that either and I am here at least once a week.

If curators cannot take the time to write a message and request a private profile be made public, how can we believe that they are taking the time to ensure private information (as displayed on the person’s profile) stays private?

Has anyone even contacted the poor (unpaid) Curator: Kevin Lawrence Hanit who is a decent and methodical guy, and by now has been much maligned behind his back for intentions and actions he isn't likely to have had in a million years?
In all likelihood, he saw an accurate, well developed profile for a public figure, and MPed it in order to maintain it as the preeminant version on Geni.

If Geni has stopped sending the automatic request / alert to the manager about making the profile an MP, he is quite likely not to have known that.

If you're pointing out a problem with Geni's alerts - Mike Stangel might be able to chat with you about this a bit further - Geni is very good at talking through programming flexibility. In fact, I doubt it can be beaten by anyone offering free family tree storage facilities; and, indeed, by anyone charging for them.

If we're talking about internet privacy - and I'm grinning with you at the potential detective novel plot, Paul (maybe we should write it) - I think Private User is correct to point out that Geni makes it clear that they're trying to build one world tree for the public.

I think the denouement of your whodunnit will not escape the fact that anyone who puts another person's home address into the public domain is culpable. Making it 'Private', would definitely not make you innocent.