Jump to content


Photo

Source Privacy?


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 strathglass

strathglass

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 69 posts

Posted 21 June 2020 - 04:28 PM

I find it hard to believe there is no way to mark any part of any source as private.

There must be some options somewhere for at least some source types.

 

My expectations are low given what I've seen ... but are there ANY options or best practices for controlling privacy for sources or elements of sources?

 

(My main application for the moment is a tree uploaded to Ancestry. At least in GEDCOMs I could post-process the export to strip out private text.)



#2 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6443 posts

Posted 21 June 2020 - 07:12 PM

From Help:

The Private switch (!) is used in source templates to privatize things such as a street address data that you want to record, but not make public. The trigger that activates the Private switch is a checkbox in the Sources, Options tab in the Report Settings dialog

No mention of its behaviour in TreeShare for which the only privacy option is the setting for "Upload private facts". If this option is deselected, then the sources for a fact/event marked private won't be uploaded but if cited elsewhere for one not private, a sensitive source will be uploaded.


Tom user of RM7630 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> RMtrix-tiny.png app, a bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#3 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3493 posts

Posted 21 June 2020 - 08:42 PM

Hackish as it would be, your only option may be to leverage the immediacy of RM's backup feature.

Curse. Do a full backup.

Then, specifically delete the the sources or edit them. Follow with RM to Ancestry upload interaction(s).

Restore the full backup.

Curse, rinse, repeat.


---
--- "GENEALOGY, n. An account of one's descent from an ancestor who did not particularly care to trace his own." - Ambrose Bierce
--- "The trouble ain't what people don't know, it's what they know that ain't so." - Josh Billings
---Ô¿Ô---
K e V i N


#4 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6443 posts

Posted 21 June 2020 - 09:04 PM

...

Curse, rinse, repeat.

 

Shouldn't that be "recurse", Kevin?  :lol:


Tom user of RM7630 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> RMtrix-tiny.png app, a bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#5 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3493 posts

Posted 22 June 2020 - 12:39 AM

Shouldn't that be "recurse", Kevin?  :lol:

 
:D PERFECT vernacular comebacker, so apropos !


---
--- "GENEALOGY, n. An account of one's descent from an ancestor who did not particularly care to trace his own." - Ambrose Bierce
--- "The trouble ain't what people don't know, it's what they know that ain't so." - Josh Billings
---Ô¿Ô---
K e V i N


#6 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3973 posts

Posted 22 June 2020 - 08:54 AM

I run into the same issue with media. For example, a modern courthouse marriage application typically includes the birthdates of both spouses. If one of the spouses is deceased and one is not and if I'm publishing an image of the marriage application on the Web, then I'm publishing the birth date of a person still living if I publish the data for the deceased spouse. The only solution I have found so far is to have a redacted version of the record that I  publish online. With much recursing, of course.

 

Jerry



#7 strathglass

strathglass

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 69 posts

Posted 25 June 2020 - 05:09 PM

Thanks all...appreciate the input. The RECURSE option may be it, so thank kbens0n - workable (if painful) method to solve the limitation.

But would be nice to see a source-level privacy flag added to RM!