I'm not spreading fallacies. I'm basing information on my experiences and those of others.

Xandervan said: "Not true. The only way data on living individuals can appear online is if the user intentionally circumvented the filters created to block living data. No matter how stringent the rule, there will always be some idiot ready & willing to break it."

I got my information directly from Ancestry.com when the submitter of living person information did not respond to my email. Ancesty.com told me that the submitter had the option to choose living person data (a checkbox) or not and I had to get them to take it off because they "owned" the data..even though Ancestry.com has rights to the data. If the rules have changed, why wasn't the living person data removed? There is still some birthdates for living persons for a few of my branches. If Ancestry.com didn't allow living person information, why isn't Ancestry.com willing to exercise the clause where they have the option to remove personal data?

"Prove it. Nobody else, in at least 10 years, has ever been able to prove a single case of identity theft directly caused by an online tree."

What is your basis for dismissing this concern and support that nobody has had their identity violated with online data? Do you have proof that searchable online databases were not sources of identity theft for obtaining the birthdate and mother's maiden name? Why make ourselves more vulnerable?

"If you have a problem with it, DON'T AGREE to it. Don't submit your gedcom. Or do you have an Ancestry dwarf living in your computer, ready to pop out and twist your arm?"

I have never agreed to upload my data. But some people are under the impression that Ancestry.com doesn't secure rights to the data so I'm pointing out the agreement. If you or others don't have problems...that is fine but I like pointing things out that other people may not have thought of. Many people forget to read the fine print.

"What is the point in submitting it, if you don't want Ancestry to distribute it via their servers to the internet? Or are you implying that Ancestry is "distributing" your data to spammers, criminals and porn sites?"

That is not the only right stated and implied in the agreement. I don't believe Ancestry.com would distribute it to spammer, criminals, and porn sites but they still have rights to the data beyond storing it on their servers. I know people who were surprised their family trees ended up on CD's. They did not VOLUNTEER...maybe they signed the same submission agreement as you are signing:) Maybe you are correct in that it was genealogy.com but what keeps Ancestry.com from continuing that practice? Nothing in the agreement! They own rights to the data that is uploaded and can sell it. They will make "reasonable efforts" to remove the living person information. That is not good enough for me. It is your right to accept it but I'm just pointing it out.

For the record, I do not hate TGN/Ancestry.com. I just disagree with many of their recent business practices and decline in quality processes. If you are fine with them, that is your decision. I'm not spreading fallacies. These are facts, concerns, and opinions. I use Family Tree Maker v 16 and have no problem with people storing living person data on their own databases.

Felyze said:
"Based on your 'complaint' with the idea, you probably should also avoid uploading any gedcom data without first removing all living people entries entirely. And for that matter, do not browse the online trees, as they may contain names of living people. As living people frequently appear in searches for the deceased, I'd also avoid doing any research on the deceased to avoid accidentally finding information on living people. And with the restrictions you have now placed on yourself, based on your arguments, you have ruled out living and otherwise, your best course of action would be to refrain from the hobby of genealogy."

Because of my concerns, I do not upload my tree but find and share information with my cousins directly. There are LOTS of ways of obtaining information and making contacts without people posting their family trees with living person information online. Why in the heck would I refrain from the hobby of genealogy? I've been doing this for 15+ years. I've been able to find some wonderful information through both online and traditional methods of researching without violating my principles of protecting the data of living persons by not posting it on a searchable format that could lead to misuse and potential execution by Ancestry.com of their full rights to the data. There is a lot more to a genealogy hobby than downloading and reposting trees and merging data from Ancestry.com! I would hope that and suspect that you actually see genealogy beyond Ancestry.com and online trees so let's just call your ranting silly:)

I have a right to object to the petion for synching FTM and online trees partly because of my concerns I have expressed about online family trees and the Ancestry.com policies. I also believe that TGN priorities should be 1) restore the pre-2008 Family Tree Maker features and capabilities and improve the quality of the rewritten FTM. 2) Improve the quality of the Ancestry.com online database; 3) Add more informational databases on Ancestry.com for research. Don't you think these are high priorities? In my estimate as a computer professional, it will take no less than a year for 1-3 to occur if they focus their resources on those goals. I, as many long term customers, feel betrayed by TGN's decline in quality in products, databases and services. I have not given up hope that they will improve but that hope is fading.

You've expressed your opinions. I've expressed mine.