Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
SCraig
Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Would all of you who don't think they is anything wrong with Ancestry.com
posting the California birth index which shows the birth information of
millions of living people, please indicate so by posting your own complete
birth name, birth date, birth place and mother's maiden name here.
The response over at Ancestry.com is to delete any messages that don't agree
with the party line. Also, of course, none of the Ancestry.com message
board moderators have offered up their birth information. Apparently, this
full disclosure doesn't apply to them.
Craig
posting the California birth index which shows the birth information of
millions of living people, please indicate so by posting your own complete
birth name, birth date, birth place and mother's maiden name here.
The response over at Ancestry.com is to delete any messages that don't agree
with the party line. Also, of course, none of the Ancestry.com message
board moderators have offered up their birth information. Apparently, this
full disclosure doesn't apply to them.
Craig
-
Dani
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Wah!
"SCraig" <sassy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i1Gle.2059$rY6.2007@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
"SCraig" <sassy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i1Gle.2059$rY6.2007@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Would all of you who don't think they is anything wrong with Ancestry.com
posting the California birth index which shows the birth information of
millions of living people, please indicate so by posting your own complete
birth name, birth date, birth place and mother's maiden name here.
The response over at Ancestry.com is to delete any messages that don't
agree
with the party line. Also, of course, none of the Ancestry.com message
board moderators have offered up their birth information. Apparently,
this
full disclosure doesn't apply to them.
Craig
-
SCraig
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Do you always post pointless responses?
Craig
"Dani" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:lkKle.20242$tM3.2524@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Wah!
"SCraig" <sassy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i1Gle.2059$rY6.2007@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Craig
"Dani" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:lkKle.20242$tM3.2524@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Wah!
"SCraig" <sassy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i1Gle.2059$rY6.2007@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Would all of you who don't think they is anything wrong with Ancestry.com
posting the California birth index which shows the birth information of
millions of living people, please indicate so by posting your own complete
birth name, birth date, birth place and mother's maiden name here.
The response over at Ancestry.com is to delete any messages that don't
agree
with the party line. Also, of course, none of the Ancestry.com message
board moderators have offered up their birth information. Apparently,
this
full disclosure doesn't apply to them.
Craig
-
roro
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
"SCraig" <sassy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i1Gle.2059$rY6.2007@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
John Smith, 09/17/48, Brooklyn, NY, Mary Brown
Have fun.
news:i1Gle.2059$rY6.2007@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Would all of you who don't think they is anything wrong with Ancestry.com
posting the California birth index which shows the birth information of
millions of living people, please indicate so by posting your own complete
birth name, birth date, birth place and mother's maiden name here.
The response over at Ancestry.com is to delete any messages that don't
agree
with the party line. Also, of course, none of the Ancestry.com message
board moderators have offered up their birth information. Apparently,
this
full disclosure doesn't apply to them.
Craig
John Smith, 09/17/48, Brooklyn, NY, Mary Brown
Have fun.
-
SCraig
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
"roro" <roro@test.com> wrote in message news:avMle.2538$Lb.2250@trndny05...
"SCraig" <sassy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i1Gle.2059$rY6.2007@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
John Smith, 09/17/48, Brooklyn, NY, Mary Brown
Have fun.
_______________
Exactly. You won't post a real name because you know it's an invasion of
privacy.
Craig
"SCraig" <sassy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i1Gle.2059$rY6.2007@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Would all of you who don't think they is anything wrong with Ancestry.com
posting the California birth index which shows the birth information of
millions of living people, please indicate so by posting your own complete
birth name, birth date, birth place and mother's maiden name here.
The response over at Ancestry.com is to delete any messages that don't
agree
with the party line. Also, of course, none of the Ancestry.com message
board moderators have offered up their birth information. Apparently,
this
full disclosure doesn't apply to them.
Craig
John Smith, 09/17/48, Brooklyn, NY, Mary Brown
Have fun.
_______________
Exactly. You won't post a real name because you know it's an invasion of
privacy.
Craig
-
roro
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
"SCraig" <sassy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:V3Qle.2218$kS3.597@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
The story of my life, no one believes me when I say my name is "John Smith".
Kindly prove that my name is not real or that I don't exist.
news:V3Qle.2218$kS3.597@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"roro" <roro@test.com> wrote in message
news:avMle.2538$Lb.2250@trndny05...
"SCraig" <sassy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i1Gle.2059$rY6.2007@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Would all of you who don't think they is anything wrong with
Ancestry.com
posting the California birth index which shows the birth information of
millions of living people, please indicate so by posting your own
complete
birth name, birth date, birth place and mother's maiden name here.
The response over at Ancestry.com is to delete any messages that don't
agree
with the party line. Also, of course, none of the Ancestry.com message
board moderators have offered up their birth information. Apparently,
this
full disclosure doesn't apply to them.
Craig
John Smith, 09/17/48, Brooklyn, NY, Mary Brown
Have fun.
_______________
Exactly. You won't post a real name because you know it's an invasion of
privacy.
Craig
The story of my life, no one believes me when I say my name is "John Smith".
Kindly prove that my name is not real or that I don't exist.
-
Huntersglenn
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
roro wrote:
John Smith doesn't exactly sound Danish, and that might make some people
doubt that it's your real name <grin>.
Cathy
The story of my life, no one believes me when I say my name is "John Smith".
Kindly prove that my name is not real or that I don't exist.
John Smith doesn't exactly sound Danish, and that might make some people
doubt that it's your real name <grin>.
Cathy
-
Dani
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Do You?
No I do not.
But yours was pointless to begin with......
"SCraig" <sassy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xkLle.1991$kS3.1636@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
No I do not.
But yours was pointless to begin with......
"SCraig" <sassy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xkLle.1991$kS3.1636@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Do you always post pointless responses?
Craig
"Dani" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:lkKle.20242$tM3.2524@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Wah!
"SCraig" <sassy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i1Gle.2059$rY6.2007@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Would all of you who don't think they is anything wrong with Ancestry.com
posting the California birth index which shows the birth information of
millions of living people, please indicate so by posting your own
complete
birth name, birth date, birth place and mother's maiden name here.
The response over at Ancestry.com is to delete any messages that don't
agree
with the party line. Also, of course, none of the Ancestry.com message
board moderators have offered up their birth information. Apparently,
this
full disclosure doesn't apply to them.
Craig
-
SCraig
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
What's your birth name, birth date, place of birth and mother's maiden name.
Since you don't think having all that information online for millions of
living person is dangerous, you should have not problem posting it her. Why
are you such a hypocrite?
Craig
"Dani" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:g%3me.23075$i42.19364@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Do You?
No I do not.
But yours was pointless to begin with......
"SCraig" <sassy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xkLle.1991$kS3.1636@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Since you don't think having all that information online for millions of
living person is dangerous, you should have not problem posting it her. Why
are you such a hypocrite?
Craig
"Dani" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:g%3me.23075$i42.19364@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Do You?
No I do not.
But yours was pointless to begin with......
"SCraig" <sassy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xkLle.1991$kS3.1636@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Do you always post pointless responses?
Craig
"Dani" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:lkKle.20242$tM3.2524@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Wah!
"SCraig" <sassy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i1Gle.2059$rY6.2007@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Would all of you who don't think they is anything wrong with Ancestry.com
posting the California birth index which shows the birth information of
millions of living people, please indicate so by posting your own
complete
birth name, birth date, birth place and mother's maiden name here.
The response over at Ancestry.com is to delete any messages that don't
agree
with the party line. Also, of course, none of the Ancestry.com message
board moderators have offered up their birth information. Apparently,
this
full disclosure doesn't apply to them.
Craig
-
Doug Chadduck
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
SCraig wrote:
I don't think standing in the middle of the street in front of my house
is particularly dangerous. Does it make me a hypocrite if I chose not to?
I think posting birth information, for living people, on the internet is
in particularly poor taste, especially when it is a company doing it for
profit. I don't think it is particularly dangerous. I never use my
mother's maiden name for anything. And I often make up a ficticious
birth date and birth place if it's just bleh bleh bleh info that no one
ever has legal or financial need to verify. Just kinda my own personal
way of being harmlessly contrary with the various bueracracies.
I've a friend who is a full on Pivate Investigater. If someone wants to
steal your identity, everything they need to find out is incredibly
cheaply had, legally.That's a reality we can do little if anything
about. Not saying it's right, wrong, good, or bad. It just is what it is.
I've been a victim of Identity Theft also. I got real lucky. It was over
in about a week and the guy was in custody. It was a couple more weeks
of writing letters and making calls before all the dust settled.
I think all we can really do is be careful and be aware and when our
privacy is not respected, be extra aware.
How do you feel about National ID cards and routine use of finger or
thumbprints. Just curious.
What's your birth name, birth date, place of birth and mother's maiden name.
Since you don't think having all that information online for millions of
living person is dangerous, you should have not problem posting it her. Why
are you such a hypocrite?
I don't think standing in the middle of the street in front of my house
is particularly dangerous. Does it make me a hypocrite if I chose not to?
I think posting birth information, for living people, on the internet is
in particularly poor taste, especially when it is a company doing it for
profit. I don't think it is particularly dangerous. I never use my
mother's maiden name for anything. And I often make up a ficticious
birth date and birth place if it's just bleh bleh bleh info that no one
ever has legal or financial need to verify. Just kinda my own personal
way of being harmlessly contrary with the various bueracracies.
I've a friend who is a full on Pivate Investigater. If someone wants to
steal your identity, everything they need to find out is incredibly
cheaply had, legally.That's a reality we can do little if anything
about. Not saying it's right, wrong, good, or bad. It just is what it is.
I've been a victim of Identity Theft also. I got real lucky. It was over
in about a week and the guy was in custody. It was a couple more weeks
of writing letters and making calls before all the dust settled.
I think all we can really do is be careful and be aware and when our
privacy is not respected, be extra aware.
How do you feel about National ID cards and routine use of finger or
thumbprints. Just curious.
-
Ron Parsons
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
In article <9f6dnSwxv9lMbQXfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
Doug Chadduck <dchadduck@comcast.net> wrote:
The data is public record.
http://www.vitalsearch-ca.com/ has had it posted for some time and not
for a fee.
Doug Chadduck <dchadduck@comcast.net> wrote:
I think posting birth information, for living people, on the internet is
in particularly poor taste, especially when it is a company doing it for
profit. I don't think it is particularly dangerous. I never use my
mother's maiden name for anything. And I often make up a ficticious
birth date and birth place if it's just bleh bleh bleh info that no one
ever has legal or financial need to verify. Just kinda my own personal
way of being harmlessly contrary with the various bueracracies.
The data is public record.
http://www.vitalsearch-ca.com/ has had it posted for some time and not
for a fee.
-
Robert Heiling
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Ron Parsons wrote:
It is? Which public record are you referring to? and for what purpose and
intended use was the information gathered?
That's Ancestry.com and you need a Guest pass if you aren't a subscriber. But
if this "public record" is so easy to get because it is a "public record",
then why does Ancestry.com even need to have it out there?
Bob
In article <9f6dnSwxv9lMbQXfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
Doug Chadduck <dchadduck@comcast.net> wrote:
I think posting birth information, for living people, on the internet is
in particularly poor taste, especially when it is a company doing it for
profit. I don't think it is particularly dangerous. I never use my
mother's maiden name for anything. And I often make up a ficticious
birth date and birth place if it's just bleh bleh bleh info that no one
ever has legal or financial need to verify. Just kinda my own personal
way of being harmlessly contrary with the various bueracracies.
The data is public record.
It is? Which public record are you referring to? and for what purpose and
intended use was the information gathered?
http://www.vitalsearch-ca.com/ has had it posted for some time and not
for a fee.
That's Ancestry.com and you need a Guest pass if you aren't a subscriber. But
if this "public record" is so easy to get because it is a "public record",
then why does Ancestry.com even need to have it out there?
Bob
-
Doug Chadduck
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Ron Parsons wrote:
No question. I was just thinking of outfits like Ancestry.com, etc., who
I find kind of tacky and tasteless in some of the ways they do business.
No big.
Saw "Ancestry.com" at least twice on the first page.
But you have to sign up for a "free Guest Pass", which is as far as my
curiosity took me.
In article <9f6dnSwxv9lMbQXfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
Doug Chadduck <dchadduck@comcast.net> wrote:
I think posting birth information, for living people, on the internet is
in particularly poor taste, especially when it is a company doing it for
profit. I don't think it is particularly dangerous. I never use my
mother's maiden name for anything. And I often make up a ficticious
birth date and birth place if it's just bleh bleh bleh info that no one
ever has legal or financial need to verify. Just kinda my own personal
way of being harmlessly contrary with the various bueracracies.
The data is public record.
No question. I was just thinking of outfits like Ancestry.com, etc., who
I find kind of tacky and tasteless in some of the ways they do business.
No big.
Saw "Ancestry.com" at least twice on the first page.
But you have to sign up for a "free Guest Pass", which is as far as my
curiosity took me.
-
Doug Chadduck
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Robert Heiling wrote:
their fee than go out and find and gather the data on their own.
Ron Parsons wrote:
In article <9f6dnSwxv9lMbQXfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
Doug Chadduck <dchadduck@comcast.net> wrote:
I think posting birth information, for living people, on the internet is
in particularly poor taste, especially when it is a company doing it for
profit. I don't think it is particularly dangerous. I never use my
mother's maiden name for anything. And I often make up a ficticious
birth date and birth place if it's just bleh bleh bleh info that no one
ever has legal or financial need to verify. Just kinda my own personal
way of being harmlessly contrary with the various bueracracies.
The data is public record.
It is? Which public record are you referring to? and for what purpose and
intended use was the information gathered?
http://www.vitalsearch-ca.com/ has had it posted for some time and not
for a fee.
That's Ancestry.com and you need a Guest pass if you aren't a subscriber. But
if this "public record" is so easy to get because it is a "public record",
then why does Ancestry.com even need to have it out there?
Bob
No "need". They just make lots of money at it. Easier for many to pay
their fee than go out and find and gather the data on their own.
-
Huntersglenn
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Robert Heiling wrote:
According to ancestry.com, the original source is:
State of California. California Birth Index, 1905-1995. Center for
Health Statistics, California Department of Health Services, Sacramento,
California.
Just because information isn't easy for most people to get to, doesn't
mean that it isn't public record. Marriages, deed transactions, real
estate assessments, divorces, births and deaths are public records in
most places, even if the various governments don't have the information
online. I'm sure that ancestry.com paid the state of California for
permission to put those records into a searchable database, but regular
researchers can and have gone to courthouses and government offices and
transcribed records that were later put online (offhand I know of a few
genweb sites that have online databases that were obtained from
researchers who took the time and effort to sit for days on end in the
various offices in order to get those records).
Cathy
Ron Parsons wrote:
In article <9f6dnSwxv9lMbQXfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
Doug Chadduck <dchadduck@comcast.net> wrote:
I think posting birth information, for living people, on the internet is
in particularly poor taste, especially when it is a company doing it for
profit. I don't think it is particularly dangerous. I never use my
mother's maiden name for anything. And I often make up a ficticious
birth date and birth place if it's just bleh bleh bleh info that no one
ever has legal or financial need to verify. Just kinda my own personal
way of being harmlessly contrary with the various bueracracies.
The data is public record.
It is? Which public record are you referring to? and for what purpose and
intended use was the information gathered?
According to ancestry.com, the original source is:
State of California. California Birth Index, 1905-1995. Center for
Health Statistics, California Department of Health Services, Sacramento,
California.
Just because information isn't easy for most people to get to, doesn't
mean that it isn't public record. Marriages, deed transactions, real
estate assessments, divorces, births and deaths are public records in
most places, even if the various governments don't have the information
online. I'm sure that ancestry.com paid the state of California for
permission to put those records into a searchable database, but regular
researchers can and have gone to courthouses and government offices and
transcribed records that were later put online (offhand I know of a few
genweb sites that have online databases that were obtained from
researchers who took the time and effort to sit for days on end in the
various offices in order to get those records).
Cathy
-
Robert Heiling
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Huntersglenn wrote:
Are you claiming that that is a complete answer to my questions? It doesn't look
like it to me.
That's all rather vague, general, and unspecific. And if you're citing un-named
online databases of un-named content, I'm even less impressed. I'm trying to get
to the root of this and none of that helped. Sorry.
Bob
Robert Heiling wrote:
Ron Parsons wrote:
In article <9f6dnSwxv9lMbQXfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
Doug Chadduck <dchadduck@comcast.net> wrote:
I think posting birth information, for living people, on the internet is
in particularly poor taste, especially when it is a company doing it for
profit. I don't think it is particularly dangerous. I never use my
mother's maiden name for anything. And I often make up a ficticious
birth date and birth place if it's just bleh bleh bleh info that no one
ever has legal or financial need to verify. Just kinda my own personal
way of being harmlessly contrary with the various bueracracies.
The data is public record.
It is? Which public record are you referring to? and for what purpose and
intended use was the information gathered?
According to ancestry.com, the original source is:
State of California. California Birth Index, 1905-1995. Center for
Health Statistics, California Department of Health Services, Sacramento,
California.
Are you claiming that that is a complete answer to my questions? It doesn't look
like it to me.
Just because information isn't easy for most people to get to, doesn't
mean that it isn't public record. Marriages, deed transactions, real
estate assessments, divorces, births and deaths are public records in
most places, even if the various governments don't have the information
online. I'm sure that ancestry.com paid the state of California for
permission to put those records into a searchable database, but regular
researchers can and have gone to courthouses and government offices and
transcribed records that were later put online (offhand I know of a few
genweb sites that have online databases that were obtained from
researchers who took the time and effort to sit for days on end in the
various offices in order to get those records).
That's all rather vague, general, and unspecific. And if you're citing un-named
online databases of un-named content, I'm even less impressed. I'm trying to get
to the root of this and none of that helped. Sorry.
Bob
-
Bruce Remick
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
"Robert Heiling" <robheil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:42990F7D.82CFAFBA@comcast.net...
It sounds like a pretty concise and logical explanation to me. I have seen lots
of these local vital records transcribed from public records and made available
online by some dedicated individuals. I didn't realize this thread was intended
to impress you or to provide you with specific data. Or that you're actually
on a special mission to get to the root of all this-- whatever "all this" might
be. The subject doesn't seem all that complicated to me. And we're sorry, too.
Bruce
'DOB on request'
news:42990F7D.82CFAFBA@comcast.net...
Huntersglenn wrote:
Robert Heiling wrote:
Ron Parsons wrote:
In article <9f6dnSwxv9lMbQXfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
Doug Chadduck <dchadduck@comcast.net> wrote:
I think posting birth information, for living people, on the internet is
in particularly poor taste, especially when it is a company doing it for
profit. I don't think it is particularly dangerous. I never use my
mother's maiden name for anything. And I often make up a ficticious
birth date and birth place if it's just bleh bleh bleh info that no one
ever has legal or financial need to verify. Just kinda my own personal
way of being harmlessly contrary with the various bueracracies.
The data is public record.
It is? Which public record are you referring to? and for what purpose and
intended use was the information gathered?
According to ancestry.com, the original source is:
State of California. California Birth Index, 1905-1995. Center for
Health Statistics, California Department of Health Services, Sacramento,
California.
Are you claiming that that is a complete answer to my questions? It doesn't
look
like it to me.
Just because information isn't easy for most people to get to, doesn't
mean that it isn't public record. Marriages, deed transactions, real
estate assessments, divorces, births and deaths are public records in
most places, even if the various governments don't have the information
online. I'm sure that ancestry.com paid the state of California for
permission to put those records into a searchable database, but regular
researchers can and have gone to courthouses and government offices and
transcribed records that were later put online (offhand I know of a few
genweb sites that have online databases that were obtained from
researchers who took the time and effort to sit for days on end in the
various offices in order to get those records).
That's all rather vague, general, and unspecific. And if you're citing
un-named
online databases of un-named content, I'm even less impressed. I'm trying to
get
to the root of this and none of that helped. Sorry.
Bob
It sounds like a pretty concise and logical explanation to me. I have seen lots
of these local vital records transcribed from public records and made available
online by some dedicated individuals. I didn't realize this thread was intended
to impress you or to provide you with specific data. Or that you're actually
on a special mission to get to the root of all this-- whatever "all this" might
be. The subject doesn't seem all that complicated to me. And we're sorry, too.
Bruce
'DOB on request'
-
Huntersglenn
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Robert Heiling wrote:
I'm claiming that ancestry states that it obtained those records from
what the state of California ALREADY had available to the public --
therefore, the birth information was a matter of public record.
I think the problem is that I have no idea what "root" it is that you're
trying to get to. I didn't name specific databases because I was trying
to keep the post short. But, you want specific examples, I can provide
those. The GenWeb site for Tyrrell County, North Carolina has death
certificates on their site -- volunteers went to the courthouse in
Columbia, NC and scanned in the death certificates and then indexed them
so that the information could be put online. The same site has marriage
licenses online which were obtained the same way, and also a death
index. They have bastardy bonds online (up to a certain year) and those
were the result of someone going to the state archives and transcribing
the records. Researchers also transcribed the federal census records
for the county, indexed them and put them online for all to see.
As for real estate assessments, I can go to the web site for any city in
the area where I live, and pull up information on specific addresses --
the date the property was sold and for what price. I can go to my local
courthouse and look up marriages, divorces, deeds and deaths -- all I
have to do is tell the clerks that I'm doing genealogical research. All
of that information is public. If I went in and spoke with the head of
the various departments where those records are kept, I could most
likely gain permission to enter that information into the computer, then
format it and make it available on the internet.
There are a lot of records out there that are considered "public". In
the past, people doing genealogy either had to rely on paying a
genealogist to get copies of those records for them, rely on the
kindness of strangers to get copies of those records for them, or else
plan trips to go get copies of the records for themselves. There are
now more instances where researchers are transcribing all the records
(marriage, death or birth), formatting them and putting them online for
all to be able to easily see. Ancestry has indexed the records from the
California birth index and made the database searchable -- pretty much
the same as they've done with other records, including the census (which
can be referred to for free in most library systems). Even the Family
History Library charges to cover postage if you order records from them,
and all they're doing is making public records more accesible to the
researchers.
Sorry if this answer still doesn't help you get to the root of whatever
it is that you're trying to get to the root of.
Cathy
Huntersglenn wrote:
It is? Which public record are you referring to? and for what purpose and
intended use was the information gathered?
According to ancestry.com, the original source is:
State of California. California Birth Index, 1905-1995. Center for
Health Statistics, California Department of Health Services, Sacramento,
California.
Are you claiming that that is a complete answer to my questions? It doesn't look
like it to me.
I'm claiming that ancestry states that it obtained those records from
what the state of California ALREADY had available to the public --
therefore, the birth information was a matter of public record.
Just because information isn't easy for most people to get to, doesn't
mean that it isn't public record. Marriages, deed transactions, real
estate assessments, divorces, births and deaths are public records in
most places, even if the various governments don't have the information
online. I'm sure that ancestry.com paid the state of California for
permission to put those records into a searchable database, but regular
researchers can and have gone to courthouses and government offices and
transcribed records that were later put online (offhand I know of a few
genweb sites that have online databases that were obtained from
researchers who took the time and effort to sit for days on end in the
various offices in order to get those records).
That's all rather vague, general, and unspecific. And if you're citing un-named
online databases of un-named content, I'm even less impressed. I'm trying to get
to the root of this and none of that helped. Sorry.
I think the problem is that I have no idea what "root" it is that you're
trying to get to. I didn't name specific databases because I was trying
to keep the post short. But, you want specific examples, I can provide
those. The GenWeb site for Tyrrell County, North Carolina has death
certificates on their site -- volunteers went to the courthouse in
Columbia, NC and scanned in the death certificates and then indexed them
so that the information could be put online. The same site has marriage
licenses online which were obtained the same way, and also a death
index. They have bastardy bonds online (up to a certain year) and those
were the result of someone going to the state archives and transcribing
the records. Researchers also transcribed the federal census records
for the county, indexed them and put them online for all to see.
As for real estate assessments, I can go to the web site for any city in
the area where I live, and pull up information on specific addresses --
the date the property was sold and for what price. I can go to my local
courthouse and look up marriages, divorces, deeds and deaths -- all I
have to do is tell the clerks that I'm doing genealogical research. All
of that information is public. If I went in and spoke with the head of
the various departments where those records are kept, I could most
likely gain permission to enter that information into the computer, then
format it and make it available on the internet.
There are a lot of records out there that are considered "public". In
the past, people doing genealogy either had to rely on paying a
genealogist to get copies of those records for them, rely on the
kindness of strangers to get copies of those records for them, or else
plan trips to go get copies of the records for themselves. There are
now more instances where researchers are transcribing all the records
(marriage, death or birth), formatting them and putting them online for
all to be able to easily see. Ancestry has indexed the records from the
California birth index and made the database searchable -- pretty much
the same as they've done with other records, including the census (which
can be referred to for free in most library systems). Even the Family
History Library charges to cover postage if you order records from them,
and all they're doing is making public records more accesible to the
researchers.
Sorry if this answer still doesn't help you get to the root of whatever
it is that you're trying to get to the root of.
Cathy
-
Robert Heiling
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Huntersglenn wrote:
Just for background on this, I had asked another person a question. You jumped in to
answer the question instead and that doesn't mean that you've answered it if you skip
past part of it.
and I suppose you didn't see the "for what purpose and intended use was the
information gathered?"
I'm not even going to attempt to respond to all of that. Whew! Believe what you will
including that the word "root" has some sinister meaning.
Bob
Robert Heiling wrote:
Huntersglenn wrote:
Just for background on this, I had asked another person a question. You jumped in to
answer the question instead and that doesn't mean that you've answered it if you skip
past part of it.
It is? Which public record are you referring to? and for what purpose and
intended use was the information gathered?
According to ancestry.com, the original source is:
State of California. California Birth Index, 1905-1995. Center for
Health Statistics, California Department of Health Services, Sacramento,
California.
Are you claiming that that is a complete answer to my questions? It doesn't look
like it to me.
I'm claiming that ancestry states that it obtained those records from
what the state of California ALREADY had available to the public --
therefore, the birth information was a matter of public record.
and I suppose you didn't see the "for what purpose and intended use was the
information gathered?"
Just because information isn't easy for most people to get to, doesn't
mean that it isn't public record. Marriages, deed transactions, real
estate assessments, divorces, births and deaths are public records in
most places, even if the various governments don't have the information
online. I'm sure that ancestry.com paid the state of California for
permission to put those records into a searchable database, but regular
researchers can and have gone to courthouses and government offices and
transcribed records that were later put online (offhand I know of a few
genweb sites that have online databases that were obtained from
researchers who took the time and effort to sit for days on end in the
various offices in order to get those records).
That's all rather vague, general, and unspecific. And if you're citing un-named
online databases of un-named content, I'm even less impressed. I'm trying to get
to the root of this and none of that helped. Sorry.
I think the problem is that I have no idea what "root" it is that you're
trying to get to. I didn't name specific databases because I was trying
to keep the post short. But, you want specific examples, I can provide
those. The GenWeb site for Tyrrell County, North Carolina has death
certificates on their site -- volunteers went to the courthouse in
Columbia, NC and scanned in the death certificates and then indexed them
so that the information could be put online. The same site has marriage
licenses online which were obtained the same way, and also a death
index. They have bastardy bonds online (up to a certain year) and those
were the result of someone going to the state archives and transcribing
the records. Researchers also transcribed the federal census records
for the county, indexed them and put them online for all to see.
As for real estate assessments, I can go to the web site for any city in
the area where I live, and pull up information on specific addresses --
the date the property was sold and for what price. I can go to my local
courthouse and look up marriages, divorces, deeds and deaths -- all I
have to do is tell the clerks that I'm doing genealogical research. All
of that information is public. If I went in and spoke with the head of
the various departments where those records are kept, I could most
likely gain permission to enter that information into the computer, then
format it and make it available on the internet.
There are a lot of records out there that are considered "public". In
the past, people doing genealogy either had to rely on paying a
genealogist to get copies of those records for them, rely on the
kindness of strangers to get copies of those records for them, or else
plan trips to go get copies of the records for themselves. There are
now more instances where researchers are transcribing all the records
(marriage, death or birth), formatting them and putting them online for
all to be able to easily see. Ancestry has indexed the records from the
California birth index and made the database searchable -- pretty much
the same as they've done with other records, including the census (which
can be referred to for free in most library systems). Even the Family
History Library charges to cover postage if you order records from them,
and all they're doing is making public records more accesible to the
researchers.
Sorry if this answer still doesn't help you get to the root of whatever
it is that you're trying to get to the root of.
I'm not even going to attempt to respond to all of that. Whew! Believe what you will
including that the word "root" has some sinister meaning.
Bob
-
Robert Heiling
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Bruce Remick wrote:
I hope your sarcasm filled whatever need you had for it and that you are better now
as a result. There's no way to respond to that and I can only hope that other
posters will wish to carry this thread on unemotionally.
Bob
"Robert Heiling" <robheil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:42990F7D.82CFAFBA@comcast.net...
Huntersglenn wrote:
Robert Heiling wrote:
Ron Parsons wrote:
In article <9f6dnSwxv9lMbQXfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
Doug Chadduck <dchadduck@comcast.net> wrote:
I think posting birth information, for living people, on the internet is
in particularly poor taste, especially when it is a company doing it for
profit. I don't think it is particularly dangerous. I never use my
mother's maiden name for anything. And I often make up a ficticious
birth date and birth place if it's just bleh bleh bleh info that no one
ever has legal or financial need to verify. Just kinda my own personal
way of being harmlessly contrary with the various bueracracies.
The data is public record.
It is? Which public record are you referring to? and for what purpose and
intended use was the information gathered?
According to ancestry.com, the original source is:
State of California. California Birth Index, 1905-1995. Center for
Health Statistics, California Department of Health Services, Sacramento,
California.
Are you claiming that that is a complete answer to my questions? It doesn't
look
like it to me.
Just because information isn't easy for most people to get to, doesn't
mean that it isn't public record. Marriages, deed transactions, real
estate assessments, divorces, births and deaths are public records in
most places, even if the various governments don't have the information
online. I'm sure that ancestry.com paid the state of California for
permission to put those records into a searchable database, but regular
researchers can and have gone to courthouses and government offices and
transcribed records that were later put online (offhand I know of a few
genweb sites that have online databases that were obtained from
researchers who took the time and effort to sit for days on end in the
various offices in order to get those records).
That's all rather vague, general, and unspecific. And if you're citing
un-named
online databases of un-named content, I'm even less impressed. I'm trying to
get
to the root of this and none of that helped. Sorry.
Bob
It sounds like a pretty concise and logical explanation to me. I have seen lots
of these local vital records transcribed from public records and made available
online by some dedicated individuals. I didn't realize this thread was intended
to impress you or to provide you with specific data. Or that you're actually
on a special mission to get to the root of all this-- whatever "all this" might
be. The subject doesn't seem all that complicated to me. And we're sorry, too.
I hope your sarcasm filled whatever need you had for it and that you are better now
as a result. There's no way to respond to that and I can only hope that other
posters will wish to carry this thread on unemotionally.
Bob
-
Huntersglenn
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Robert Heiling wrote:
not been directed at you or a question you asked.
That picky, huh? Well, let's see...most states require people to fill
out birth certificates when their children are born. I'm not quite sure
why they do this, but I suppose that it helps them keep track of their
population in one way or another. As for any specific reason as to why
the state of California requires birth registration, I'd say that you'd
have to contact them directly to ask.
I never implied that the word "root" has some sinister meaning. I was
saying that I have no idea what it is that you mean when you say that
you're trying to get to the "root" of all this. You asked me for
examples of public records being made available on the internet, and I
gave them to you.
Cathy
Huntersglenn wrote:
Robert Heiling wrote:
Huntersglenn wrote:
Just for background on this, I had asked another person a question. You jumped in to
answer the question instead and that doesn't mean that you've answered it if you skip
past part of it.
I was only following your lead when you replied to a comment that had
not been directed at you or a question you asked.
It is? Which public record are you referring to? and for what purpose and
intended use was the information gathered?
According to ancestry.com, the original source is:
State of California. California Birth Index, 1905-1995. Center for
Health Statistics, California Department of Health Services, Sacramento,
California.
Are you claiming that that is a complete answer to my questions? It doesn't look
like it to me.
I'm claiming that ancestry states that it obtained those records from
what the state of California ALREADY had available to the public --
therefore, the birth information was a matter of public record.
and I suppose you didn't see the "for what purpose and intended use was the
information gathered?"
That picky, huh? Well, let's see...most states require people to fill
out birth certificates when their children are born. I'm not quite sure
why they do this, but I suppose that it helps them keep track of their
population in one way or another. As for any specific reason as to why
the state of California requires birth registration, I'd say that you'd
have to contact them directly to ask.
Just because information isn't easy for most people to get to, doesn't
mean that it isn't public record. Marriages, deed transactions, real
estate assessments, divorces, births and deaths are public records in
most places, even if the various governments don't have the information
online. I'm sure that ancestry.com paid the state of California for
permission to put those records into a searchable database, but regular
researchers can and have gone to courthouses and government offices and
transcribed records that were later put online (offhand I know of a few
genweb sites that have online databases that were obtained from
researchers who took the time and effort to sit for days on end in the
various offices in order to get those records).
That's all rather vague, general, and unspecific. And if you're citing un-named
online databases of un-named content, I'm even less impressed. I'm trying to get
to the root of this and none of that helped. Sorry.
I think the problem is that I have no idea what "root" it is that you're
trying to get to. I didn't name specific databases because I was trying
to keep the post short. But, you want specific examples, I can provide
those. The GenWeb site for Tyrrell County, North Carolina has death
certificates on their site -- volunteers went to the courthouse in
Columbia, NC and scanned in the death certificates and then indexed them
so that the information could be put online. The same site has marriage
licenses online which were obtained the same way, and also a death
index. They have bastardy bonds online (up to a certain year) and those
were the result of someone going to the state archives and transcribing
the records. Researchers also transcribed the federal census records
for the county, indexed them and put them online for all to see.
As for real estate assessments, I can go to the web site for any city in
the area where I live, and pull up information on specific addresses --
the date the property was sold and for what price. I can go to my local
courthouse and look up marriages, divorces, deeds and deaths -- all I
have to do is tell the clerks that I'm doing genealogical research. All
of that information is public. If I went in and spoke with the head of
the various departments where those records are kept, I could most
likely gain permission to enter that information into the computer, then
format it and make it available on the internet.
There are a lot of records out there that are considered "public". In
the past, people doing genealogy either had to rely on paying a
genealogist to get copies of those records for them, rely on the
kindness of strangers to get copies of those records for them, or else
plan trips to go get copies of the records for themselves. There are
now more instances where researchers are transcribing all the records
(marriage, death or birth), formatting them and putting them online for
all to be able to easily see. Ancestry has indexed the records from the
California birth index and made the database searchable -- pretty much
the same as they've done with other records, including the census (which
can be referred to for free in most library systems). Even the Family
History Library charges to cover postage if you order records from them,
and all they're doing is making public records more accesible to the
researchers.
Sorry if this answer still doesn't help you get to the root of whatever
it is that you're trying to get to the root of.
I'm not even going to attempt to respond to all of that. Whew! Believe what you will
including that the word "root" has some sinister meaning.
I never implied that the word "root" has some sinister meaning. I was
saying that I have no idea what it is that you mean when you say that
you're trying to get to the "root" of all this. You asked me for
examples of public records being made available on the internet, and I
gave them to you.
Cathy
-
roro
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
"Huntersglenn" <huntersglenn@cox.net> wrote in message
news:rVQle.35796$aB.13115@lakeread03...
I could be Danish through maternal ancestry. There have been relations
between Denmark and England for 1200 years, so English family names are
hardly unknown in Denmark. The Ellis Island database has more than 170
Smiths who claim to be Danish. If you want to tell all the Smiths in Denmark
that they are not Danish, then have at it.
news:rVQle.35796$aB.13115@lakeread03...
roro wrote:
The story of my life, no one believes me when I say my name is "John
Smith".
Kindly prove that my name is not real or that I don't exist.
John Smith doesn't exactly sound Danish, and that might make some people
doubt that it's your real name <grin>.
Cathy
I could be Danish through maternal ancestry. There have been relations
between Denmark and England for 1200 years, so English family names are
hardly unknown in Denmark. The Ellis Island database has more than 170
Smiths who claim to be Danish. If you want to tell all the Smiths in Denmark
that they are not Danish, then have at it.
-
Robert Heiling
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Huntersglenn wrote:
Most very definitely! I wouldn't have wasted my time typing it if I wasn't expecting an
answer. We're talking about people's privacy being violated here and that's a serious
matter. A lot of us are very concerned about this.
So you're admittedly guessing on that, but still think that Ancestry.com should be able to
splatter that information all over the Internet.
The onus for that is on the people who claim that it's "public record" without knowing what
legislation permits that data collection and use. What legislation permits the creation of
an index and what is it's intented use within the department? What particualr clause in the
legislation specifically permitted the sale of the index to Ancestry.com and what
conditions were placed on its use?
Bob
Robert Heiling wrote:
Huntersglenn wrote:
snip
and I suppose you didn't see the "for what purpose and intended use was the
information gathered?"
That picky, huh?
Most very definitely! I wouldn't have wasted my time typing it if I wasn't expecting an
answer. We're talking about people's privacy being violated here and that's a serious
matter. A lot of us are very concerned about this.
Well, let's see...most states require people to fill
out birth certificates when their children are born. I'm not quite sure
why they do this, but I suppose that it helps them keep track of their
population in one way or another.
So you're admittedly guessing on that, but still think that Ancestry.com should be able to
splatter that information all over the Internet.
As for any specific reason as to why
the state of California requires birth registration, I'd say that you'd
have to contact them directly to ask.
The onus for that is on the people who claim that it's "public record" without knowing what
legislation permits that data collection and use. What legislation permits the creation of
an index and what is it's intented use within the department? What particualr clause in the
legislation specifically permitted the sale of the index to Ancestry.com and what
conditions were placed on its use?
Bob
-
Never anonymous Bud
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Using a finger dipped in purple ink, Robert Heiling <robheil@comcast.net> scribed:
No, it isn't.
Registrant:
The Vitalsearch Company LLC (VITALSEARCH-CA-DOM)
4000 Pimlico Dr.
Suite 114-143
Pleasanton, CA 94588-3485
US
Domain Name: VITALSEARCH-CA.COM
Administrative Contact:
The Vitalsearch Company LLC (28425248O) vitalsearch@elite.net
4000 Pimlico Dr.
Suite 114-143
Pleasanton, CA 94588-3485
US
(209) 383-1746 fax: 999 999 9999
--
Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.
This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....
http://www.vitalsearch-ca.com/ has had it posted for some time and not
for a fee.
That's Ancestry.com
No, it isn't.
Registrant:
The Vitalsearch Company LLC (VITALSEARCH-CA-DOM)
4000 Pimlico Dr.
Suite 114-143
Pleasanton, CA 94588-3485
US
Domain Name: VITALSEARCH-CA.COM
Administrative Contact:
The Vitalsearch Company LLC (28425248O) vitalsearch@elite.net
4000 Pimlico Dr.
Suite 114-143
Pleasanton, CA 94588-3485
US
(209) 383-1746 fax: 999 999 9999
--
Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.
This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....
-
Althiom
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
On Sat, 28 May 2005 19:59:15 -0700, Robert Heiling
<robheil@comcast.net> wrote:
other hand (she wore a merkin :>) you just feel like getting in
arguments with someone.
Information in and of itself is neither good nor bad. What uses are
made of informaiton is the sole responsiblity of the person using the
information, so it seems to me that your whole question is moot.
Althiom
<robheil@comcast.net> wrote:
Huntersglenn wrote:
Robert Heiling wrote:
Huntersglenn wrote:
It is? Which public record are you referring to? and for what purpose and
intended use was the information gathered?
There is more than on public record????
and I suppose you didn't see the "for what purpose and intended use was the
information gathered?"
It appears to me that you, Sir, are being obstnately obtuse, or on the
other hand (she wore a merkin :>) you just feel like getting in
arguments with someone.
Information in and of itself is neither good nor bad. What uses are
made of informaiton is the sole responsiblity of the person using the
information, so it seems to me that your whole question is moot.
Althiom
-
Robert Heiling
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Never anonymous Bud wrote:
Strangely enough, it has Ancestry written all over the page and, since we've been
talking about CA Birth records, I clicked "California State Databases" from
Ancestry.com and there they were.
Are you saying that because the name above isn't Ancestry.com that Ancestry has no
financial stake in the company?
Bob
Using a finger dipped in purple ink, Robert Heiling <robheil@comcast.net> scribed:
http://www.vitalsearch-ca.com/ has had it posted for some time and not
for a fee.
That's Ancestry.com
No, it isn't.
Strangely enough, it has Ancestry written all over the page and, since we've been
talking about CA Birth records, I clicked "California State Databases" from
Ancestry.com and there they were.
Registrant:
The Vitalsearch Company LLC (VITALSEARCH-CA-DOM)
4000 Pimlico Dr.
Suite 114-143
Pleasanton, CA 94588-3485
US
Domain Name: VITALSEARCH-CA.COM
Administrative Contact:
The Vitalsearch Company LLC (28425248O) vitalsearch@elite.net
4000 Pimlico Dr.
Suite 114-143
Pleasanton, CA 94588-3485
US
(209) 383-1746 fax: 999 999 9999
Are you saying that because the name above isn't Ancestry.com that Ancestry has no
financial stake in the company?
Bob
-
SCraig
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
"Ron Parsons" <jrp59@gte.net> wrote in message
news:jrp59-8EBE5F.18085728052005@news.verizon.net...
In article <9f6dnSwxv9lMbQXfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
Doug Chadduck <dchadduck@comcast.net> wrote:
The data is public record.
http://www.vitalsearch-ca.com/ has had it posted for some time and not
for a fee.
____________________
Actually you are totally wrong. The link you posted is just a commercial
site that takes you to Ancestry.com.
Craig
news:jrp59-8EBE5F.18085728052005@news.verizon.net...
In article <9f6dnSwxv9lMbQXfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
Doug Chadduck <dchadduck@comcast.net> wrote:
I think posting birth information, for living people, on the internet is
in particularly poor taste, especially when it is a company doing it for
profit. I don't think it is particularly dangerous. I never use my
mother's maiden name for anything. And I often make up a ficticious
birth date and birth place if it's just bleh bleh bleh info that no one
ever has legal or financial need to verify. Just kinda my own personal
way of being harmlessly contrary with the various bueracracies.
The data is public record.
http://www.vitalsearch-ca.com/ has had it posted for some time and not
for a fee.
____________________
Actually you are totally wrong. The link you posted is just a commercial
site that takes you to Ancestry.com.
Craig
-
Never anonymous Bud
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Using a finger dipped in purple ink, Robert Heiling <robheil@comcast.net> scribed:
The site has links to Ancestry (and I'm sure they get paid for referrals),
but the site does NOT show any indication of being owned by Ancestry.com.
--
Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.
This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....
Strangely enough, it has Ancestry written all over the page and, since we've been
talking about CA Birth records, I clicked "California State Databases" from
Ancestry.com and there they were.
The site has links to Ancestry (and I'm sure they get paid for referrals),
but the site does NOT show any indication of being owned by Ancestry.com.
--
Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.
This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....
-
Bob Melson
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Althiom wrote:
<snip>
of one of the meanings of the ancient and honorable word merkin that,
you should pardon the expression, came immediately to _my_ mind. For
shame! :-0
<snip>
--
Robert G. Melson | Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions | ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas | Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
<snip>
It appears to me that you, Sir, are being obstnately obtuse, or on the
other hand (she wore a merkin :>) you just feel like getting in
And you, m'friend have a sly, subtle but dirty mind if you were thinking
of one of the meanings of the ancient and honorable word merkin that,
you should pardon the expression, came immediately to _my_ mind. For
shame! :-0
<snip>
--
Robert G. Melson | Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions | ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas | Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
-
Althiom
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
On Sun, 29 May 2005 05:46:45 GMT, Bob Melson <melsonr@yahoo.com>
wrote:
<snip>
Dirty, for a toupee?? I must differ, but I digress. Have a nice day.
Althiom
wrote:
<snip>
It appears to me that you, Sir, are being obstnately obtuse, or on the
other hand (she wore a merkin :>) you just feel like getting in
And you, m'friend have a sly, subtle but dirty mind if you were thinking
of one of the meanings of the ancient and honorable word merkin that,
you should pardon the expression, came immediately to _my_ mind. For
shame! :-0
Dirty, for a toupee?? I must differ, but I digress. Have a nice day.
Althiom
-
Phyllis
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Actually, the onus is on those who ask the questions to ask the proper
authority. Perhaps you can ask he legislature of California if they
have the right to make a record public.
I'm not sure there is a constitutional right to privacy though. Maybe
there is and I've just forgotten it.
Robert Heiling wrote:
authority. Perhaps you can ask he legislature of California if they
have the right to make a record public.
I'm not sure there is a constitutional right to privacy though. Maybe
there is and I've just forgotten it.
Robert Heiling wrote:
The onus for that is on the people who claim that it's "public record" without knowing what
legislation permits that data collection and use. What legislation permits the creation of
an index and what is it's intented use within the department? What particualr clause in the
legislation specifically permitted the sale of the index to Ancestry.com and what
conditions were placed on its use?
Bob
-
Bruce Remick
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
"Robert Heiling" <robheil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:429937F0.1175152A@comcast.net...
State governments have decided that birth/marriage/death/land/probate/etc.
records will be available to the public. If you are so intent in getting to the
root of all this, instead of throwing out questions and challenging newsgroup
readers to provide detailed answers that satisfy you, you should do a little
investigative research for yourself and then maybe post your findings here.
Those selected CA vital records apparently already were available in a format
that made them convenient to place in a database. Ancestry has provided a link
to these records for its subscribers, which I would hardly describe as
"splattering that information all over the internet". I find this database as a
convenience that has been useful to me in finding information for my own
genealogical research. My name and personal data doesn't happen to be available
in one of these online databases (as far as I know), but it wouldn't concern or
threaten me if they were. If some consider public access to this vital
information as an invasion of their privacy, that's simply the price we all pay
for living in a relatively open society. Some people consider a video camera
trained on a busy urban intersection to be an invasion of their privacy if they
happen to pass within the camera's field of view.
Bruce
news:429937F0.1175152A@comcast.net...
Huntersglenn wrote:
Robert Heiling wrote:
Huntersglenn wrote:
snip
and I suppose you didn't see the "for what purpose and intended use was
the
information gathered?"
That picky, huh?
Most very definitely! I wouldn't have wasted my time typing it if I wasn't
expecting an
answer. We're talking about people's privacy being violated here and that's a
serious
matter. A lot of us are very concerned about this.
Well, let's see...most states require people to fill
out birth certificates when their children are born. I'm not quite sure
why they do this, but I suppose that it helps them keep track of their
population in one way or another.
So you're admittedly guessing on that, but still think that Ancestry.com
should be able to
splatter that information all over the Internet.
As for any specific reason as to why
the state of California requires birth registration, I'd say that you'd
have to contact them directly to ask.
The onus for that is on the people who claim that it's "public record" without
knowing what
legislation permits that data collection and use. What legislation permits the
creation of
an index and what is it's intented use within the department? What particualr
clause in the
legislation specifically permitted the sale of the index to Ancestry.com and
what
conditions were placed on its use?
Bob
State governments have decided that birth/marriage/death/land/probate/etc.
records will be available to the public. If you are so intent in getting to the
root of all this, instead of throwing out questions and challenging newsgroup
readers to provide detailed answers that satisfy you, you should do a little
investigative research for yourself and then maybe post your findings here.
Those selected CA vital records apparently already were available in a format
that made them convenient to place in a database. Ancestry has provided a link
to these records for its subscribers, which I would hardly describe as
"splattering that information all over the internet". I find this database as a
convenience that has been useful to me in finding information for my own
genealogical research. My name and personal data doesn't happen to be available
in one of these online databases (as far as I know), but it wouldn't concern or
threaten me if they were. If some consider public access to this vital
information as an invasion of their privacy, that's simply the price we all pay
for living in a relatively open society. Some people consider a video camera
trained on a busy urban intersection to be an invasion of their privacy if they
happen to pass within the camera's field of view.
Bruce
-
Robert Heiling
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Bruce Remick wrote:
My questions have already served their purpose which was to determine what depth of
knowledge was behind the various statements being made here.
You're entitled to your opinion.
Bob
SNIP
State governments have decided that birth/marriage/death/land/probate/etc.
records will be available to the public. If you are so intent in getting to the
root of all this, instead of throwing out questions and challenging newsgroup
readers to provide detailed answers that satisfy you, you should do a little
investigative research for yourself and then maybe post your findings here.
My questions have already served their purpose which was to determine what depth of
knowledge was behind the various statements being made here.
Those selected CA vital records apparently already were available in a format
that made them convenient to place in a database. Ancestry has provided a link
to these records for its subscribers, which I would hardly describe as
"splattering that information all over the internet". I find this database as a
convenience that has been useful to me in finding information for my own
genealogical research. My name and personal data doesn't happen to be available
in one of these online databases (as far as I know), but it wouldn't concern or
threaten me if they were. If some consider public access to this vital
information as an invasion of their privacy, that's simply the price we all pay
for living in a relatively open society. Some people consider a video camera
trained on a busy urban intersection to be an invasion of their privacy if they
happen to pass within the camera's field of view.
You're entitled to your opinion.
Bob
-
D. Stussy
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
On Sat, 28 May 2005, Ron Parsons wrote:
Wrong. The data WAS public record - but was "withdrawn" by legislative action.
In article <9f6dnSwxv9lMbQXfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
Doug Chadduck <dchadduck@comcast.net> wrote:
I think posting birth information, for living people, on the internet is
in particularly poor taste, especially when it is a company doing it for
profit. I don't think it is particularly dangerous. I never use my
mother's maiden name for anything. And I often make up a ficticious
birth date and birth place if it's just bleh bleh bleh info that no one
ever has legal or financial need to verify. Just kinda my own personal
way of being harmlessly contrary with the various bueracracies.
The data is public record.
Wrong. The data WAS public record - but was "withdrawn" by legislative action.
http://www.vitalsearch-ca.com/ has had it posted for some time and not
for a fee.
-
D. Stussy
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
On Sun, 29 May 2005, SCraig wrote:
Wrong. It WAS public record - but has been "withdrawn" by legislative action.
"Ron Parsons" <jrp59@gte.net> wrote in message
news:jrp59-8EBE5F.18085728052005@news.verizon.net...
In article <9f6dnSwxv9lMbQXfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
Doug Chadduck <dchadduck@comcast.net> wrote:
I think posting birth information, for living people, on the internet is
in particularly poor taste, especially when it is a company doing it for
profit. I don't think it is particularly dangerous. I never use my
mother's maiden name for anything. And I often make up a ficticious
birth date and birth place if it's just bleh bleh bleh info that no one
ever has legal or financial need to verify. Just kinda my own personal
way of being harmlessly contrary with the various bueracracies.
The data is public record.
Wrong. It WAS public record - but has been "withdrawn" by legislative action.
-
D. Stussy
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
On Sun, 29 May 2005, Phyllis wrote:
The CA legislature has already acted on this. That's why the database is NO
LONGER AVAILABLE via the state's Department of Health. What ancestry.com is
using is a legacy copy that got out before the above action was taken.
Otherwise, it would have been updated and not stopped 10 years ago.
The U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that the people may have additional
rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution (as amended) as long as
those aren't forbidden. See the 10th Amendment.
Actually, the onus is on those who ask the questions to ask the proper
authority. Perhaps you can ask he legislature of California if they have the
right to make a record public.
The CA legislature has already acted on this. That's why the database is NO
LONGER AVAILABLE via the state's Department of Health. What ancestry.com is
using is a legacy copy that got out before the above action was taken.
Otherwise, it would have been updated and not stopped 10 years ago.
I'm not sure there is a constitutional right to privacy though. Maybe there
is and I've just forgotten it.
The U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that the people may have additional
rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution (as amended) as long as
those aren't forbidden. See the 10th Amendment.
-
Dr. Brian Leverich
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
On 2005-05-29, D. Stussy <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
Wrong, partially. The CA birth, marriage, and death indices
are still available on CD-ROM to anyone who will write a check
to the State of California. They cost roughly $100 per decade
of data. Go look at the DHS's website.
What has changed is the data items are now somewhat more
restricted. Birth records, for example, no longer carry
parents' names. Courtesy of the confluence of idiocy on
the parts of banks (for using "mother's maiden name") and
lusers who don't understand that "identity theft" is just
the media's sensationalist term for garden-variety credit
card fraud and a handful of other terribly mundane crimes,
we've now lost access to genealogically relevant data for
no good reason at all.
BTW, it is absolutely *certain* that BMD information will
continue to be distributed to government agencies and sold
to commercial outfits forever. Age, marital status, and
death affects contracts and many other aspects of civil
society, and government agencies and private entities *have*
to know with certainty who they're dealing with in a wide
range of interactions.
Cheers, B.
On Sat, 28 May 2005, Ron Parsons wrote:
In article <9f6dnSwxv9lMbQXfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
Doug Chadduck <dchadduck@comcast.net> wrote:
I think posting birth information, for living people, on the internet is
in particularly poor taste, especially when it is a company doing it for
profit. I don't think it is particularly dangerous. I never use my
mother's maiden name for anything. And I often make up a ficticious
birth date and birth place if it's just bleh bleh bleh info that no one
ever has legal or financial need to verify. Just kinda my own personal
way of being harmlessly contrary with the various bueracracies.
The data is public record.
Wrong. The data WAS public record - but was "withdrawn" by legislative action.
Wrong, partially. The CA birth, marriage, and death indices
are still available on CD-ROM to anyone who will write a check
to the State of California. They cost roughly $100 per decade
of data. Go look at the DHS's website.
What has changed is the data items are now somewhat more
restricted. Birth records, for example, no longer carry
parents' names. Courtesy of the confluence of idiocy on
the parts of banks (for using "mother's maiden name") and
lusers who don't understand that "identity theft" is just
the media's sensationalist term for garden-variety credit
card fraud and a handful of other terribly mundane crimes,
we've now lost access to genealogically relevant data for
no good reason at all.
BTW, it is absolutely *certain* that BMD information will
continue to be distributed to government agencies and sold
to commercial outfits forever. Age, marital status, and
death affects contracts and many other aspects of civil
society, and government agencies and private entities *have*
to know with certainty who they're dealing with in a wide
range of interactions.
Cheers, B.
-
D. Stussy
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
On Sun, 29 May 2005, Dr. Brian Leverich wrote:
Then that's recent news. There was a period of a few years where this
information was NOT available for purchase - after the complaints to the
legislature came in about its availability.
Identity theft is not limited to crimes of a financial nature. [Both legal
and] Illegal aliens are on the voting roles; how do you think they got there?
Many other places have an automatic hold on the information in the absence of a
proven relationship to the person. Look at South Dakota. They only make the
information available to the general public after 100 years. Missouri does
similarly. Other states (e.g. Kansas) never makes it public.
On 2005-05-29, D. Stussy <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2005, Ron Parsons wrote:
In article <9f6dnSwxv9lMbQXfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
Doug Chadduck <dchadduck@comcast.net> wrote:
I think posting birth information, for living people, on the internet is
in particularly poor taste, especially when it is a company doing it for
profit. I don't think it is particularly dangerous. I never use my
mother's maiden name for anything. And I often make up a ficticious
birth date and birth place if it's just bleh bleh bleh info that no one
ever has legal or financial need to verify. Just kinda my own personal
way of being harmlessly contrary with the various bueracracies.
The data is public record.
Wrong. The data WAS public record - but was "withdrawn" by legislative action.
Wrong, partially. The CA birth, marriage, and death indices
are still available on CD-ROM to anyone who will write a check
to the State of California. They cost roughly $100 per decade
of data. Go look at the DHS's website.
Then that's recent news. There was a period of a few years where this
information was NOT available for purchase - after the complaints to the
legislature came in about its availability.
What has changed is the data items are now somewhat more
restricted. Birth records, for example, no longer carry
parents' names. Courtesy of the confluence of idiocy on
the parts of banks (for using "mother's maiden name") and
lusers who don't understand that "identity theft" is just
the media's sensationalist term for garden-variety credit
card fraud and a handful of other terribly mundane crimes,
we've now lost access to genealogically relevant data for
no good reason at all.
Identity theft is not limited to crimes of a financial nature. [Both legal
and] Illegal aliens are on the voting roles; how do you think they got there?
BTW, it is absolutely *certain* that BMD information will
continue to be distributed to government agencies and sold
to commercial outfits forever. Age, marital status, and
death affects contracts and many other aspects of civil
society, and government agencies and private entities *have*
to know with certainty who they're dealing with in a wide
range of interactions.
Many other places have an automatic hold on the information in the absence of a
proven relationship to the person. Look at South Dakota. They only make the
information available to the general public after 100 years. Missouri does
similarly. Other states (e.g. Kansas) never makes it public.
-
Ralph Bailey
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Simply stated, Bob, what is the point you are trying to prove?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Heiling" <robheil@comcast.net>
To: <ALT-GENEALOGY-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Never anonymous Bud wrote:
Strangely enough, it has Ancestry written all over the page and, since we've
been
talking about CA Birth records, I clicked "California State Databases" from
Ancestry.com and there they were.
Are you saying that because the name above isn't Ancestry.com that Ancestry
has no
financial stake in the company?
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Heiling" <robheil@comcast.net>
To: <ALT-GENEALOGY-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Never anonymous Bud wrote:
Using a finger dipped in purple ink, Robert Heiling <robheil@comcast.net
scribed:
http://www.vitalsearch-ca.com/ has had it posted for some time and not
for a fee.
That's Ancestry.com
No, it isn't.
Strangely enough, it has Ancestry written all over the page and, since we've
been
talking about CA Birth records, I clicked "California State Databases" from
Ancestry.com and there they were.
Registrant:
The Vitalsearch Company LLC (VITALSEARCH-CA-DOM)
4000 Pimlico Dr.
Suite 114-143
Pleasanton, CA 94588-3485
US
Domain Name: VITALSEARCH-CA.COM
Administrative Contact:
The Vitalsearch Company LLC (28425248O) vitalsearch@elite.net
4000 Pimlico Dr.
Suite 114-143
Pleasanton, CA 94588-3485
US
(209) 383-1746 fax: 999 999 9999
Are you saying that because the name above isn't Ancestry.com that Ancestry
has no
financial stake in the company?
Bob
-
Robert Heiling
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
"Brian Leverich" wrote:
That's not likely to abuse the privacy of a living person is it?
"You must provide:
Name on the record
Date of birth
Place of birth (city or county)
Father’s name
Mother’s name (including maiden name) "
and note the word *must*. i.e. You need to know ALL that information before you will
be provided an official document with the same information that you provided. Source:
http://www.state.sd.us/doh/VitalRec/vital.htm
Right as to date! http://www.state.sd.us/doh/VitalRec/vital.htm
You may be confusing having the convenience of having the processing done by ANY
county with actually having the records there. Undoubtedly they access the same
database, although I admittedly don't know that as a fact.
If you can't prove that they do, then it's wrong to state that they do. Those
statements don't cut it.
In light of that statement, how are we to interpret what you said earlier in regard
to the California situation: "we've now lost access to genealogically relevant data
for no good reason at all."?
If you don't know that to be fact, then . . . And what is your source for the
purchase price quote? i.e. sources?
Bob
On 2005-05-29, D. Stussy <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
Many other places have an automatic hold on the information in the absence of a
proven relationship to the person. Look at South Dakota. They only make the
information available to the general public after 100 years. Missouri does
similarly. Other states (e.g. Kansas) never makes it public.
Mostly wrong again. Take South Dakota.
Birth records over 100 years of age are available to anyone
via the Web.
That's not likely to abuse the privacy of a living person is it?
More recent records do NOT require proven
relationship to the person: all you need to get statewide
searches is name, birthdate, and mother's maiden name.
"You must provide:
Name on the record
Date of birth
Place of birth (city or county)
Father’s name
Mother’s name (including maiden name) "
and note the word *must*. i.e. You need to know ALL that information before you will
be provided an official document with the same information that you provided. Source:
http://www.state.sd.us/doh/VitalRec/vital.htm
Go read the South Dakota state government's Website.
The page containing that information was dated 05/11/2005.
Right as to date! http://www.state.sd.us/doh/VitalRec/vital.htm
The records are duplicated at the county level, and it's
not obvious you even need that much information to request
a certificate from a county.
You may be confusing having the convenience of having the processing done by ANY
county with actually having the records there. Undoubtedly they access the same
database, although I admittedly don't know that as a fact.
Moreover, I couldn't find a full listing of the South Dakota
government's data products, but they undoubtably sell their
vitals to commercial interests. That's standard.
If you can't prove that they do, then it's wrong to state that they do. Those
statements don't cut it.
And vitals are only one of a hundred ways to get birth
information.
In light of that statement, how are we to interpret what you said earlier in regard
to the California situation: "we've now lost access to genealogically relevant data
for no good reason at all."?
For example, for $2500 anyone can buy South
Dakota's full voter registration rolls. I can't find a specific
file format for that dataset, but it is not unusual for voter
rolls to include birthdate (because you have to be 18 to vote).
If you don't know that to be fact, then . . . And what is your source for the
purchase price quote? i.e. sources?
Bob
-
Dr. Brian Leverich
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
On 2005-05-29, D. Stussy <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
Mostly wrong again. Take South Dakota.
Birth records over 100 years of age are available to anyone
via the Web. More recent records do NOT require proven
relationship to the person: all you need to get statewide
searches is name, birthdate, and mother's maiden name.
Go read the South Dakota state government's Website.
The page containing that information was dated 05/11/2005.
The records are duplicated at the county level, and it's
not obvious you even need that much information to request
a certificate from a county.
Moreover, I couldn't find a full listing of the South Dakota
government's data products, but they undoubtably sell their
vitals to commercial interests. That's standard.
And vitals are only one of a hundred ways to get birth
information. For example, for $2500 anyone can buy South
Dakota's full voter registration rolls. I can't find a specific
file format for that dataset, but it is not unusual for voter
rolls to include birthdate (because you have to be 18 to vote).
Cheers, B.
Many other places have an automatic hold on the information in the absence of a
proven relationship to the person. Look at South Dakota. They only make the
information available to the general public after 100 years. Missouri does
similarly. Other states (e.g. Kansas) never makes it public.
Mostly wrong again. Take South Dakota.
Birth records over 100 years of age are available to anyone
via the Web. More recent records do NOT require proven
relationship to the person: all you need to get statewide
searches is name, birthdate, and mother's maiden name.
Go read the South Dakota state government's Website.
The page containing that information was dated 05/11/2005.
The records are duplicated at the county level, and it's
not obvious you even need that much information to request
a certificate from a county.
Moreover, I couldn't find a full listing of the South Dakota
government's data products, but they undoubtably sell their
vitals to commercial interests. That's standard.
And vitals are only one of a hundred ways to get birth
information. For example, for $2500 anyone can buy South
Dakota's full voter registration rolls. I can't find a specific
file format for that dataset, but it is not unusual for voter
rolls to include birthdate (because you have to be 18 to vote).
Cheers, B.
-
Robert Heiling
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
" Brian Leverich" wrote:
Fair enough. Then which is accurate? Looks like they need to edit their webpages and at a
minimum, one still already needs to know the name of record, date of birth, and mother's
maiden name in order to get an official record stating that information. Also no way to
browse the records under that system.
I see. You earlier said: "government agencies and private entities *have* to know with
certainty who they're dealing with in a wide range of interactions.". Why can't they
simply take your word for it like we're supposed to do with everything you say? ;^)
See above.
Hold on a sec. Individual genealogists in general can't drop whatever it cost Ancestry for
the CA birth records either.
Then why bring it up?
You're changing the subject, which is birthdates. The issue was as to whether or not one
got the birthdates in the released copies of the voter rolls.<vbg>
Bob
On 2005-05-30, Robert Heiling <robheil@comcast.net> wrote:
"Brian Leverich" wrote:
More recent records do NOT require proven
relationship to the person: all you need to get statewide
searches is name, birthdate, and mother's maiden name.
"You must provide:
Name on the record
Date of birth
Place of birth (city or county)
Father’s name
Mother’s name (including maiden name) "
and note the word *must*. i.e. You need to know ALL that information before you will
be provided an official document with the same information that you provided. Source:
http://www.state.sd.us/doh/VitalRec/vital.htm
Go read the South Dakota state government's Website.
The page containing that information was dated 05/11/2005.
Right as to date! http://www.state.sd.us/doh/VitalRec/vital.htm
Er.
Go to the page labeled "Genealogy":
Access to Birth Records
Records with dates of birth under 100 years of age are
available at both the County and State level for a $10
search fee to any person who can provide the name on
the record, the date of birth and the mother's maiden
name. All records are required to be issued in the form
of a certified copy.
Fair enough. Then which is accurate? Looks like they need to edit their webpages and at a
minimum, one still already needs to know the name of record, date of birth, and mother's
maiden name in order to get an official record stating that information. Also no way to
browse the records under that system.
###
Moreover, I couldn't find a full listing of the South Dakota
government's data products, but they undoubtably sell their
vitals to commercial interests. That's standard.
If you can't prove that they do, then it's wrong to state that
they do. Those statements don't cut it.
I've been buying governmental data products for decades
now. It's part of my professional life.
I see. You earlier said: "government agencies and private entities *have* to know with
certainty who they're dealing with in a wide range of interactions.". Why can't they
simply take your word for it like we're supposed to do with everything you say? ;^)
If you can't prove that they don't, then it's wrong to
state that they don't. *Your* statements don't cut it.
See above.
###
And vitals are only one of a hundred ways to get birth
information.
In light of that statement, how are we to interpret what
you said earlier in regard to the California situation:
"we've now lost access to genealogically relevant data
for no good reason at all."?
Individual genealogists in general can't drop $2500 for a
statewide voters roll or the statewide DMV record set.
So they've lost access, whereas more blooded parties can
still get at the data.
Hold on a sec. Individual genealogists in general can't drop whatever it cost Ancestry for
the CA birth records either.
###
For example, for $2500 anyone can buy South
Dakota's full voter registration rolls. I can't find a specific
file format for that dataset, but it is not unusual for voter
rolls to include birthdate (because you have to be 18 to vote).
If you don't know that to be fact, then . . . And
what is your source for the purchase price quote? i.e. sources?
Some states do include birth dates in the voters roll
record set. I've never personally handled South Dakota
because it wasn't a sufficiently large market for any
of my past employers' products.
Then why bring it up?
Re the $2500, prove I'm wrong. Google is your friend.
Note that at least one state's voter rolls can be
downloaded for free over the Internet. (:
You're changing the subject, which is birthdates. The issue was as to whether or not one
got the birthdates in the released copies of the voter rolls.<vbg>
Bob
-
D. Stussy
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
On Mon, 30 May 2005, Dr. Brian Leverich wrote:
That only proves that they have recently changed their position. Such wasn't
the case during 2004 or earlier.
On 2005-05-29, D. Stussy <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
Many other places have an automatic hold on the information in the absence of a
proven relationship to the person. Look at South Dakota. They only make the
information available to the general public after 100 years. Missouri does
similarly. Other states (e.g. Kansas) never makes it public.
Mostly wrong again. Take South Dakota.
Birth records over 100 years of age are available to anyone
via the Web. More recent records do NOT require proven
relationship to the person: all you need to get statewide
searches is name, birthdate, and mother's maiden name.
Go read the South Dakota state government's Website.
The page containing that information was dated 05/11/2005.
That only proves that they have recently changed their position. Such wasn't
the case during 2004 or earlier.
-
Dr. Brian Leverich
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
On 2005-05-30, Robert Heiling <robheil@comcast.net> wrote:
Er.
Go to the page labeled "Genealogy":
Access to Birth Records
Records with dates of birth under 100 years of age are
available at both the County and State level for a $10
search fee to any person who can provide the name on
the record, the date of birth and the mother's maiden
name. All records are required to be issued in the form
of a certified copy.
###
I've been buying governmental data products for decades
now. It's part of my professional life.
If you can't prove that they don't, then it's wrong to
state that they don't. *Your* statements don't cut it.
###
Individual genealogists in general can't drop $2500 for a
statewide voters roll or the statewide DMV record set.
So they've lost access, whereas more blooded parties can
still get at the data.
###
Some states do include birth dates in the voters roll
record set. I've never personally handled South Dakota
because it wasn't a sufficiently large market for any
of my past employers' products.
Re the $2500, prove I'm wrong. Google is your friend.
Note that at least one state's voter rolls can be
downloaded for free over the Internet. (:
Cheers, B.
"Brian Leverich" wrote:
More recent records do NOT require proven
relationship to the person: all you need to get statewide
searches is name, birthdate, and mother's maiden name.
"You must provide:
Name on the record
Date of birth
Place of birth (city or county)
Father’s name
Mother’s name (including maiden name) "
and note the word *must*. i.e. You need to know ALL that information before you will
be provided an official document with the same information that you provided. Source:
http://www.state.sd.us/doh/VitalRec/vital.htm
Go read the South Dakota state government's Website.
The page containing that information was dated 05/11/2005.
Right as to date! http://www.state.sd.us/doh/VitalRec/vital.htm
Er.
Go to the page labeled "Genealogy":
Access to Birth Records
Records with dates of birth under 100 years of age are
available at both the County and State level for a $10
search fee to any person who can provide the name on
the record, the date of birth and the mother's maiden
name. All records are required to be issued in the form
of a certified copy.
###
Moreover, I couldn't find a full listing of the South Dakota
government's data products, but they undoubtably sell their
vitals to commercial interests. That's standard.
If you can't prove that they do, then it's wrong to state that
they do. Those statements don't cut it.
I've been buying governmental data products for decades
now. It's part of my professional life.
If you can't prove that they don't, then it's wrong to
state that they don't. *Your* statements don't cut it.
###
And vitals are only one of a hundred ways to get birth
information.
In light of that statement, how are we to interpret what
you said earlier in regard to the California situation:
"we've now lost access to genealogically relevant data
for no good reason at all."?
Individual genealogists in general can't drop $2500 for a
statewide voters roll or the statewide DMV record set.
So they've lost access, whereas more blooded parties can
still get at the data.
###
For example, for $2500 anyone can buy South
Dakota's full voter registration rolls. I can't find a specific
file format for that dataset, but it is not unusual for voter
rolls to include birthdate (because you have to be 18 to vote).
If you don't know that to be fact, then . . . And
what is your source for the purchase price quote? i.e. sources?
Some states do include birth dates in the voters roll
record set. I've never personally handled South Dakota
because it wasn't a sufficiently large market for any
of my past employers' products.
Re the $2500, prove I'm wrong. Google is your friend.
Note that at least one state's voter rolls can be
downloaded for free over the Internet. (:
Cheers, B.
-
Phyllis
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Has it been withdrawn from being a public record, or has it been
withdrawn from the Internet? In other words, could someone go to the
appropriate office and look it up? If so, it is still a public record.
D. Stussy wrote:
withdrawn from the Internet? In other words, could someone go to the
appropriate office and look it up? If so, it is still a public record.
D. Stussy wrote:
The data is public record.
Wrong. It WAS public record - but has been "withdrawn" by legislative action.
-
Phyllis
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
Where I live they put the precinct voting registration list right on the
door of the voting place. Name, address, phone number, and I forget
what else, but you wouldn't have to even buy it, just copy whatever
names you want.
Dr. Brian Leverich wrote:
door of the voting place. Name, address, phone number, and I forget
what else, but you wouldn't have to even buy it, just copy whatever
names you want.
Dr. Brian Leverich wrote:
On 2005-05-29, D. Stussy <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
Many other places have an automatic hold on the information in the absence of a
proven relationship to the person. Look at South Dakota. They only make the
information available to the general public after 100 years. Missouri does
similarly. Other states (e.g. Kansas) never makes it public.
Mostly wrong again. Take South Dakota.
Birth records over 100 years of age are available to anyone
via the Web. More recent records do NOT require proven
relationship to the person: all you need to get statewide
searches is name, birthdate, and mother's maiden name.
Go read the South Dakota state government's Website.
The page containing that information was dated 05/11/2005.
The records are duplicated at the county level, and it's
not obvious you even need that much information to request
a certificate from a county.
Moreover, I couldn't find a full listing of the South Dakota
government's data products, but they undoubtably sell their
vitals to commercial interests. That's standard.
And vitals are only one of a hundred ways to get birth
information. For example, for $2500 anyone can buy South
Dakota's full voter registration rolls. I can't find a specific
file format for that dataset, but it is not unusual for voter
rolls to include birthdate (because you have to be 18 to vote).
Cheers, B.
-
D. Stussy
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
On Mon, 30 May 2005, Phyllis wrote:
It was withdrawn from being a public record. However, they can't take it back
from all the places it exists on the Internet.
Has it been withdrawn from being a public record, or has it been withdrawn
from the Internet? In other words, could someone go to the appropriate office
and look it up? If so, it is still a public record.
It was withdrawn from being a public record. However, they can't take it back
from all the places it exists on the Internet.
-
Ron Parsons
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
In article <Pine.LNX.4.62.0505292150420.95@kd6lvw.ampr.org>,
"D. Stussy" <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
Instead of the flat "Wrong." that you used to reply to be above, which
could easily be taken as ill informed rudeness, have you considered
using a reply that begins with, "I think you are wrong." which would be
considered civil.
"D. Stussy" <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
The data is public record.
Wrong. The data WAS public record - but was "withdrawn" by legislative
action.
Wrong, partially. The CA birth, marriage, and death indices
are still available on CD-ROM to anyone who will write a check
to the State of California. They cost roughly $100 per decade
of data. Go look at the DHS's website.
Then that's recent news. There was a period of a few years where this
information was NOT available for purchase - after the complaints to the
legislature came in about its availability.
Instead of the flat "Wrong." that you used to reply to be above, which
could easily be taken as ill informed rudeness, have you considered
using a reply that begins with, "I think you are wrong." which would be
considered civil.
-
D. Stussy
Re: Caliifornia birth index (1905 - 1995) on Ancestry.com
On Mon, 30 May 2005, Ron Parsons wrote:
No, because that praseology is also used to express doubt. I knew you were
wrong.
In article <Pine.LNX.4.62.0505292150420.95@kd6lvw.ampr.org>,
"D. Stussy" <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
The data is public record.
Wrong. The data WAS public record - but was "withdrawn" by legislative
action.
Wrong, partially. The CA birth, marriage, and death indices
are still available on CD-ROM to anyone who will write a check
to the State of California. They cost roughly $100 per decade
of data. Go look at the DHS's website.
Then that's recent news. There was a period of a few years where this
information was NOT available for purchase - after the complaints to the
legislature came in about its availability.
Instead of the flat "Wrong." that you used to reply to be above, which
could easily be taken as ill informed rudeness, have you considered
using a reply that begins with, "I think you are wrong." which would be
considered civil.
No, because that praseology is also used to express doubt. I knew you were
wrong.