ABERDEEN-L Archives

Archiver > ABERDEEN > 2002-01 > 1012428132


From: Irene Esson <>
Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] MI List ?
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:04:15 -0800
References: <003201c1a903$2a28d680$9528d8c1@hsjeuzjk> <004001c1a9d8$41f9bb00$67b301d5@computer>


Ignore the jerk! Irene

George Jamieson wrote:

> Hi Trond,
>
> <snip>
> > However, just recently I received a particularly unpleasant e-mail which
> , I have to >admit, took me aback. "Horrendeous" and "a flagrant
> disrespect of privacy" was >certainly NOT my intention with the list. So,
> to all of you out there, what shall I do? Your >opinions would be
> appreciated and can be sent to the Mailing List.
> <snip>
>
> You've had, and I think deserve, a lot of supportive mail regarding the
> above but I'm not sure what the complaint is really about? I may have
> missed a previous posting, giving more detail, but I don't think so.
>
> The term "a flagrant disrespect of privacy" confuses me.
>
> Does the complaint refer to you compiling your list of subscribers, and
> their email addresses, and posting it publicly to the various lists.
> Possibly without their individual permission. If the individual who sent
> the unpleasant email is complaining because you have included their name
> in your list without his/her permission then that's easy remedied. Remove
> their details. I'm sure Rootsweb etc. can delete any old lists as well.
> This seems to fit the "a flagrant disrespect of privacy" accusation.
>
> If the complaint is, as all the replies seem to indicate, about us listers
> offering to do lookups in whatever source materials we hold. Then I can
> not see where the phrase "a flagrant disrespect of privacy" applies.
> Should I not share the inscription details with a fellow researcher
> because it might contain private details? Surely a MI contains anything
> but private detail.
>
> The other possibility is that the societies are guilty of "a flagrant
> disrespect of privacy" for publishing the MI's. The inscriptions should
> ultimately, IMHO, belong to the folk, or their descendants, that paid good
> money to have them engraved. Sort of old fashioned Copyright. Not the
> property of the societies. Having said that, I'm happy for the societies
> to make whatever profit they can from the efforts of the transcribers and
> to cover the publishing costs.
>
> So is it you, the names of the volunteers on your list or the societies
> that are being accused of the crime?
>
> Regards
> George
> London UK
>
> ==== ABERDEEN Mailing List ====
> Have you used Tree Tops?
> The Free FAMILY TREE & WE'LL MEET AGAIN SERVICE
> http://freespace.virgin.net/tree.tops
>
> ==============================
> To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to:
> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

This thread: