How the DNA Helix Twists on Privacy, Property, and Paternity in the Probate Courts

by Kenneth H. Ryesky August 20th, 2014 5:27 am

Following an adventurous life that brought him from Vietnam to America, Truong Dinh Tran settled in New York, where he invested in various business and real estate ventures, and died a centimillionaire in 2012. Having left no last will and testament to dispose of his worldly assets, his property will be disposed of under New York's intestacy laws. Truong was known to have had intimate relationships with multiple women during his lifetime. Not surprisingly, five persons alleging that they are Truong's grandchildren now seek a piece of the pie.

At the behest of the five individuals, a hair sample was removed from Truong's body by the New York City Medical Examiner's office, and was given to the DNA Diagnostics Center laboratory for testing. The laboratory, obviously aware that sensitive legal issues may explode in its face in light of the conflicting requests from various parties, has been reluctant to cooperate with the five putative grandchildren or anyone else.  The five have brought an action in the New York County Surrogate's Court, praying for an order requiring the Temporary Administrator to authorize the DNA Diagnostics Center to do the testing on the hair sample, and, if such is impracticable or inconclusive, to authorize the lab to use information from prior DNA tests to determine kinship.

The Court specifically found that the hair sample is an asset of the Estate, and that the Estate fiduciary (in this case the Temporary Administrator) alone is empowered to direct testing on the sample. The Court specifically authorized the Temporary Administrator to direct the appropriate actions with respect to any DNA samples of the decedent. The Court declined to order any specific tests until a viability study indicates which particular procedures would likely be productive.

The Court directed that the costs of the testing be borne by those seeking such tests, but without prejudice to demand reimbursement from the Estate.

New York's Surrogate's Court Procedure Act § 2225(b) sets the standard. It mandates "that diligent and exhaustive efforts have been made from all available sources to ascertain the existence of distributees, or members of a class of devisees, legatees or beneficiaries" before the Court can determine that no such individuals exist.

Under circumstances such as those in Tran's Estate, DNA samples are among the "available sources" in which "diligent and exhaustive efforts" be made. The information relevant to DNA testing carries obvious privacy issues that reach well beyond the construction of family tree charts, most notably personal medical issues not only of the decedent, but of the surviving putative heirs. Mismanagement of the decedent's estate, which, in days of yore, risked little more than the wasting and squandering of Estate assets, now implicates personal information and privacy concerns of individuals other than the decedent. The "diligent and exhaustive" search process needs, in the first instance, to be managed by a responsible and accountable individual.

The Tran case is useful precedent for doing so by explicitly defining the DNA sample held by the lab as an Estate asset, thereby placing the estate fiduciary in the driver's seat for conducting the search.


Matter of Tran, 2014 NY Slip Op 32056(U), N.Y.L.J., 8 August 2014, p. 22, col. 3, 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3501, (Surr. Ct. N.Y. Co., 2014).


Lack of Respect for Privacy Curbs Records Access, ask Ireland

by Bradley Jansen July 23rd, 2014 11:08 am

I have been busy with some other issues and have not followed this case as quickly as I would like, but I have been shouting from the rooftops that the genealogy community needs to up its game respecting privacy or risk loss of records access.  The sooner this message sinks in, the better for us all.

The Irish genealogy news site brought this issue to our attention.  Kudos go out to Claire Santry for saying what needs to be said:

Just three weeks on from the launch of the General Register Office's civil registration indexes on IrishGenealogy.ie, the entire collection has been taken offline. Seems no one thought to mention to the Data Protection bods that the collection included personal information of living individuals right up to last year [emphasis added]...

To say this is a gigantic cock up is an understatement...

Embarrassing? It's downright pathetic.

My reaction to this news is unprintable.

She refers to two other articles for more information:


and their followup here:



Unsealing divorces in New York

by Kenneth H. Ryesky May 7th, 2014 8:15 pm

Col. Holland Sackett Duell was a noted New York lawyer, decorated military officer, politician, and yachtsman.  The Colonel's life was interesting; sufficiently interesting that author Christopher Madsen now aspires to write a biography of him.


Duell was twice married, first to Mabel Halliwell and then, after his divorce from Mabel in 1925, to Emilie Brown.  As with other divorces in New York, the court of Duell's divorce from Mabel is sealed.  Section 235 of New York Domestic Relations Law basically seals the court records of all matrimonial actions for one hundred years, absent a court order issued for good cause.


Madsen, having been rebuffed by the Westchester County Clerk in seeking access to the file, brought a proceeding for a court order, claiming that the book he seeks to write will be "an academic work of historical importance," and speculating that information sealed in the divorce case file might contain some facts of public interest for his tome in the making.


The last of Holland and Mabel's children died in 2003, and Madsen's petition to the court was unopposed.  Nevertheless, Justice Francesca E. Connolly denied Madsen's petition for an order to unseal the file.  Madsen v. Westchester County Clerk, 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1899, 2014 NY Slip Op 50675(U) (Sup. Ct., Westchester Co. 2014).


The statute was last tweaked by the New York State Legislature in 1979, way back before modern text media technology altered the personal privacy scene.  Even then, the statute provides that the only information about a sealed matrimonial case file to be made available to a curious member of the public is a "certificate of disposition" which effectively says only that the divorce (or child custody decree) was granted; evidence and testimony are shielded for 100 years absent a compelling reason.

Justice Connolly* wrote in her opinion:  "[F]ishing expeditions into sealed records should not be permitted; rather, a petitioner seeking access to sealed records must be able to articulate and particularize the relevance of the information sought to an important pending matter.   ...  Public officials charged with safeguarding records containing the intimate details of litigants' lives bear a 'heavy responsibility'  ...  By sparingly exercising their discretion to permit access to these records, courts promote an atmosphere of privacy for litigants that encourages open and honest disclosure in the context of matrimonial litigation."

Justice Connolly did not consider Madsen's literary pursuits sufficient reason to unseal the record, even though the divorcing couple and all of their children are now deceased and would not suffer embarrassment from the disclosure.

The New York scheme, then, strikes a balance between the free flow of information and the need for privacy.

Madsen will just have to wait until 2025 to write about whatever lurid details attended to the Colonel's divorce.


[*  In New York, the lowest courts of general jurisdiction are the Supreme Courts, to be found in each county; the jurists who sit on the benches wearing the black robes are invested with the title "Justice" and not "Judge."].




What's Behind the Adoption?

by Kenneth H. Ryesky April 23rd, 2014 10:18 am


 Arnold Levien was an accomplished engineer, and perhaps more accomplished still as a real estate investor.  At the time of his death in 1979 he was a multimillionaire, and his Will established a Trust of which his children and/or grandchildren were income beneficiaries, pending the Trust's termination.  The terminating event for the Trust was the attainment of age 35 of the last of his surviving great-grandchildren who was alive on the date of his death.  Upon termination, the Trust principle was distributable to Arnold's surviving great-grandchildren.


The trustees of the Trust were empowered, in their absolute discretion, to invade the principle for early distribution to an income beneficiary on account of "serious illness, misfortune or other emergency affecting any such beneficiary."


Two of Arnold's grandchildren, Stephen and Harlan (apparently neither of whom is anything resembling a slouch in his own right), are afflicted with muscular dystrophy.  Neither has sired any biological natural children.  Their respective (and apparently coordinated) requests to the trustees for early Trust principle distribution on account of their medical situations were rebuffed; they sued the trustees.  The lawsuit was settled in July 2012 by agreement giving Stephen and Harlan each a six-figure cash payment, in return for which, they "relinquish all rights as beneficiaries of income and/or principal of the Trust" and would "make no further requests of the Trustees for income or principal."


As will be discussed shortly, the settlement agreement had a gag clause prohibiting its terms from being disclosed to others.


In October 2012, Stephen and Harlan each respectively adopted an adult son, said adoptions having been validly formalized in Texas courts.  Apparently, one of the adopted sons is older than his adoptive father.  The Trustees of the Trust were apprised of these adoptions shortly thereafter.


In February 2013, the last of Arnold's surviving great-grandchildren alive at Arnold's death attained the age of 35, thereby terminating the Trust.  Kenneth Ives and Parvin Johnson, Stephen and Harlan's adoptive sons (this Kenneth not to be confused with Kenneth Levien, one of the trustees, nor with the author of this posting) claimed their respective shares of Trust principle as Arnold's great-grandchildren (each share being worth in excess of a million dollars before taxes), and the trustees of the Trust sought declaratory judgment that Kenneth and Parvin were not entitled to shares of the Trust as Arnold's great-grandchildren.


In a verbose ruling [Levien v. Johnson, 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1802, 2014 NY Slip Op 30995(U) (Surr. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2014)], the New York County Surrogate's Court dealt with the Trustee's relevant contentions as follows:


A.  Arnold did not intend to benefit non-biological descendants:  The laws of New York (and other states) recognize offspring by adoption on par with biological offspring, and Wills are so construed unless a contrary intention is specified.  No contrary intention on the part of Arnold was specified in his Will, and none was otherwise proven.


B.  The adoptions were unique and unforeseeable if not a sham:  Adoption is specifically recognized as a valid method of creating parent-child relationships under the laws of New York (and other states).  Adoption is foreseeable and, inasmuch as no misrepresentations were made to the Texas courts in the course of the adoption proceedings, the adoptions were valid and not sham.


C.  Stephen and Harlan had a duty to disclose their anticipated adoptions to the Trustees during the course of the settlement negotiations in the prior lawsuit:  No such duty was shown, and, even if it did exist, it would not affect the status of Kenneth and Parvin as adoptive children of Arnold's grandchildren.


D.  The distributions of principle to Kenneth and Parvin would circumvent the settlement agreement in the prior lawsuit:  Though the settlement agreement was intended to bind the "heirs, executors, successors, and assigns" of Stephen and Harlan, it did not in any way affect Stephen and Harlan's rights and capacities to adopt.



And so, if this court decision stands, Kenneth and Parvin will get their shares from their adoptive great-grandfather's life labors.


But the Court did not dismiss the trustees' claims against Stephen and Harlan for breach of contract.  The trustees contend that the only way Kenneth and Parvin could have learned of the terms of Arnold's Will was through Stephen and Harlan; Kenneth and Parvin contend that they knew that information before the settlement agreement was entered into.  On the disputed facts, a trial is necessary, and dismissal on motion is inappropriate.  Never mind that Arnold's Will, having been duly probated, is a matter of public record.


The foregoing is an abbreviated synopsis of a very wordy judicial opinion; the reader is free to read the original opinion if he or she so desires.


Never mind that there obviously was a scheme involved here, the propriety of which shall not now be taken to the mats.  The decision in the case brings forth some questions hitting at the intersection of genealogy and privacy.  What are the uses and misuses of adoption?  How, if at all, should adult adoptions be treated differently than infant adoptions or pre-teen adoptions or teenager adoptions?  How open or private should side deals behind adoptions be? 


Regardless of whether or not this particular court decision stands (the dollars at stake here may well be impetus for an appeal), these questions will likely be reprised somewhere, at some future time, in some form.






Facebook Group Privacy

by Bradley Jansen April 22nd, 2014 11:48 am

Probably like many other genealogists (fellow amateurs as well as professionals) who are on Facebook, I'm in several genealogical groups (mostly geographic based on counties in the United States or provinces abroad).

I've been impressed with the privacy-consciousness of many of the groups.  In particular, I'd like to single out for praise the "Southern Maryland Families" Facebook group which has this message pinned by moderator Wanda Simmons as the top comment:

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY: To every member - while we strongly encourage everyone to reply to all discussions and share family history/lineage information with others here in this group, we ask that everyone please be aware of the privacy act laws and sensitivity issues when posting family history information. You cannot publically (and that includes here within our group) display a full month/day/year birthdate for anyone born after 1940 or if they are living. We do not want to invade anyone's privacy or break any laws. As with everything else we do in life, here we have a few rules and regulations to abide by and to watch out for when posting. Please, still feel free to continue to share family history in abundance, just as long as everyone is aware of and follows these very few but very necessary rules we will be fine. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and understanding with this matter. If you have any questions in reference to this post, please contact me. Have A Nice Day!

The moderators and, well, traditions and customs of many of the other groups have shown a laudable respect for protecting the privacy of living people.  This consciousness is much more important in the digital age.

So again, thanks and kudos to Wanda (who gives "all the praise and credit to our group members for holding to this thought/golden rule each day as they are posting and sharing their information"), and let's do what we can to make sure this understanding of the importance of privacy becomes more uniformly enforced within our community on Facebook and the rest of the digital world!


HHS Says Lab Results Empower Consumers

by Bradley Jansen February 6th, 2014 1:15 pm

Time to renew the 23AndMe access to lab tests fight!  Background from previous posts here.

As most readers here are familiar on hand of the government (in this case the Federal Trade Commission Food and Drug Administration) has stopped consumers from getting genetic medical test results.  Now another hand of the government, this time the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) clarifies in a final ruling February 3:

"The right to access personal health information is a cornerstone of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule," HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a press release. "Information like lab results can empower patients to track their health progress, make decisions with their health care professionals, and adhere to important treatment plans."

Explains the Medscape story:

Under the HIPAA Privacy Rule, patients or their designees or personal representatives can get a copy of their protected health information, including an electronic copy, with limited exceptions, but may have to put their request in writing and pay for the cost of copying, mailing, or electronic transfer, the release said. In most cases, copies must be given to the patient within 30 days of his or her request.

How on earth can the FTC continue their heavy-handed interference with private contracts now?!


Death and Privacy Part III

by Bob Gellman February 5th, 2014 12:46 pm

Death and Privacy:  Part III

By Bob Gellman

In 2013, I posted two short articles discussing whether and how privacy rights continue after the death of a data subject. The focus was on US law. I thought that it would be worthwhile to offer some additional information and resources to anyone who has an interest in the topic.

I attended the 2014 Computers, Privacy & Data Protection Conference in Brussels, Belgium, in January 2014, where there was a panel on Post-Mortem Privacy: Exploring Deceased’s Privacy in a Digital World. The Centre for Creativity, Regulation, Enterprise & Technology (CREATe) organized the panel.

Some post-mortem privacy issues, such as what happens to a Facebook page when the owner dies, have been the subject of attention and litigation in the US, but explorations of the general topic in Europe have gone further. Whether dead individuals have rights under the EU Data Protection Directive is not as clear as it might be, and the law in EU Member States varies somewhat. The materials below explore this and other related topics.

First, here are the particulars about the panel:

Chair Michael Birnhack, Tel Aviv University (IL)

Moderator Irina Baraliuc, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)

Panel:  Damien McCallig, Galway University (IE); Elaine Kasket, British Psychological Society (UK); Jan Bikker, University of Dundee (UK); Wendy Moncur, University of Dundee (UK); Edina Harbinja, University of Strathclyde (UK).

 This panel explores the issues surrounding post mortem privacy (PMP): privacy of the deceased in the digital realm. This concept has only recently become a subject of concern in various disciplines, including law, sociology, psychology, computer sciences, anthropology, and forensics. The panel aims to tackle and explain how the competing privacy interests of the deceased, bereaved family, heirs and society should be dealt with following death. It will assess and question the value and importance of the various aspects of privacy in digital remains from personal interest and public interest perspectives. Panelists, drawn from a diverse range of disciplines and interests, will explore the challenges posed to the values and aspects of privacy by our interactions with digital technology and post-death phenomena, specifically digital legacy, inheritance, identity, property, mourning and the repurposing or further uses of digital remains.

This interdisciplinary panel envisages tackling the following PMP-related challenges:

● The bequest, inheritance and repurposing of personal data (such as emails, photos and social network site interactions) in the context of the death of technology users;

● Technologically-mediated mourning and memorialisation and posthumously maintained bonds with the dead;

● Comparative legal issues related to the phenomenon of PMP (personality, data protection, copyright);

● PMP themes relating to the interests of victims experienced in global disasters, whether survivors, the deceased or next-of-kin.

 Second, I looked at some of the materials that the panel members made available, and here are a few links that may be of interest. This is not a comprehensive list of materials, but it will give interested parties a start.


An issue of Scripted (2013) has several articles about post-mortem privacy by people from the CPDP panel. I won’t list the details here. Click on the link above for abstract and copies.


Dealing with digital death Posted on Monday, October 14th, 2013 at 4:30 am By Damien McCallig

Through the use of email, social media, and other online accounts, our lives and social interactions are increasingly mediated by digital service providers. As the volume of these interactions increases and displaces traditional forms of communication and commerce the question of what happens to those accounts, following the death of the user, takes on greater significance.

Should the relatives or heirs of a deceased Facebook user have the ‘right’ to access, take control of, or even delete the account? Some of you reading this will recoil in dread at such a thought, quickly remembering all of those digital indiscretions and private messages you would prefer to assign to oblivion but never got around to deleting. Other readers may remember a friend, no longer alive today, and will possibly turn to social media later to seek out a picture and recall a shared memory.



The Law of Digital Remains. Reconciling the dignity and interests of the deceased with those of the living. Damien McCallig, School of Law, National University of Ireland Galway.

Dealing with the aftermath of someone’s death is always a difficult and sensitive issue. In recognition of this, society has developed various rites, rituals and norms to aid the family and loved ones to deal with the physical remains and redistribute the possessions of the deceased. This involves balancing an innate desire to respect the dignity of the deceased with the needs and interests of the surviving family and wider community.

In the pre-digital age laws adequately reflected these rites and norms. For example, personal mementos, photographs, letters, scrapbooks and meaningful tokens that hold sentimental value pass by default along with the physical property they are bound up in. Succession law reflects these norms, with personal property passing by will or the rules of intestacy. The unauthorised interference by unconnected third parties with a deceased’s personal items was generally precluded as they were bound up in property that would remain within the home or in the possession of friends or family. The digital universe has changed this.



Online life after death faces legal uncertainty. Different jurisdictions set different rules for what should happen to online personal data after death

By Loek Essers, IDG News Service 

October 08, 2012, 10:24 AM — When people die in the real world, their online alter egos may live on, creating an unusual situation for those who only knew them through their online presence. The law is only beginning to address this limbo state, and fragmented privacy legislation provides no conclusive answer to the question of who should be allowed to access or delete someone's social networking profile or email correspondence after they die, a panel discussion at the Amsterdam Privacy Conference concluded.

When a Facebook user dies and Facebook is informed of the death, the company "memorializes" the profile, hiding features such as status updates, and allowing only confirmed friends to view the timeline and post on the profile. Maintaining access to such a profile helps in the mourning process, said psychologist Elaine Kasket, who presented a paper on life after death on Facebook at the conference on Monday. "Visible conversation with a person who died and about person who died is important in the grief process," she said.



From death to final disposition: roles of technology in the post-mortem interval 

By Wendy Moncur, Jan Bikker, Elaine Kasket, and John Troyer

Abstract:  In this paper, we describe collaborative processes and stakeholders involved in the period from when a person dies until they are laid to rest: the funeral, final disposition of the body, and (in some circumstances) victim identification. The rich mixture of technologies currently deployed during this brief period are categorized and critically analyzed. We then reflect on the implications of our findings, both for the design of technology that takes the end of life into account, and for the wider HCI community.


 'What Happens to My Facebook Profile When I Die?’: Legal Issues Around Transmission of Digital Assets on Death (February 21, 3013) Lilian Edwards, University of Strathclyde Law School, and Edina Harbinja, University of Strathclyde Law School

 Abstract:  This chapter aims to explore some of the major legal issues pertaining to transmission of digital assets on death. “Digital assets” within this chapter are defined widely and not exclusively to include a huge range of intangible information goods associated with the online or digital world: including social network profiles e.g. on Facebook, Twitter, Google or Linked In; emails, tweets, databases etc; in-game virtual assets (e.g., as bought, found or built in worlds such as Second Life, World of Warcraft, Lineage, etc); digitised text, image, music or sound, such as video, film and e-book files; passwords to various accounts associated with provisions of digital goods and services, either as buyer, user or trader (e.g. to eBay, Amazon, Facebook, YouTube etc); domain names; 2D or 3D personality-related images or icons such as user icons on LiveJournal or avatars in Second Life; and not excluding the myriad types of digital assets emergent as commodities capable of being assigned worth (e.g. “zero day exploits” or bugs in software which antagonists can exploit ).

The chapter explores (a) how far the new digital assets fall into existing paradigms of property (b) the interactions between property, succession, privacy and contract in this domain, especially in the context of assets generated on intermediary sites such as social networks (c) whether we need a notion of "post mortem privacy" and (d) briefly , some solutions to some of the issues thrown up by previous sections, including emerging legislation , and the new breed of "life after death" technology assistants such as Legacy Locker.



Privacy at RootsTech

by Bradley Jansen February 2nd, 2014 9:07 pm

As many technologically-oriented genealogists know, the RootsTech conference at Salt Lake City, Utah starts soon.  In fact, this group blog started at RootsTech last year, and we announced it during an "unconferencing session" with Fred Moss of the Federation of Genealogical Societies, Jim Dempsey with the Center for Democracy and Technology and myself.

The syllabi for this year's conference are available here.

Looking at the schedule, one will find many issues related to privacy and the related tech issues such as storing and sharing your information online and in the cloud.

Just a reminder that "genealogyland" has joined privacy and technology advocates to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) in the Digital Due Process coalition.  For more information, check out http://digitaldueprocess.org.


Practical Practices in Pennsylvania

by Kenneth H. Ryesky February 1st, 2014 10:49 pm

There are two interrelated historical patterns that occur with great frequency:

A. Individuals of power and influence ignore and/or dismiss the significance of an event or development; and, the other side of the coin,

B. There are individuals who engross themselves into any given trend or paradigm shift long before the general acceptance or implementation of such trend or paradigm.

Shortly after the 1993 bomb incident in the World Trade Center parking garage, my brother-in-law, who is very active and high-profile in the broadcast industry, advised broadcasters who had antennae on the WTC Towers to implement back-up antennae at other locations, just in case the WTC antennae would suddenly be removed from service.  Eight years later, my then 12-year-old son, who made a daily 1-hour commute from Long Island to his school in Queens via the Long Island Railroad, had one of the relatively few operational cell phones in the September 11, 2001 chaos. Those cell phone providers who depended solely upon their WTC Tower antennae were caught short-handed, and my brother-in-law was quite unhappily vindicated (as were my wife and I, who had been criticized and castigated for giving a twelve-year-old kid a cell phone).

And, let us not forget what data digitization did to the photographic film manufacturers, and the manufacturers and purveyors of the cameras that used the film, and the processors of the film.

So it goes with privacy and the genealogical community. Those genealogists who failed to recognize the broader privacy issues are now being abruptly sucked into the great privacy debate. And the privacy conversation, genealogy and otherwise, is now spotlighting many areas and issues which heretofore had been seemingly unconnected to our main focuses of concern. One of these is privacy and the taxation process. [It is parenthetically noted that old taxation records are valuable genealogical resources; indeed, it was the sovereigns' concerns for collecting the taxes that was the impetus for the use of surnames in many societies.].

We are now at the point where all but the most naive in the contemporary genealogical community in America are at least generally aware of how the IRS's data security (mal)practices affect their genealogical research.

It has come to the attention of this tax lawyer that the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue has issued the following pronouncement:

"Beginning with the 2014 income tax filing season, the department instituted new security measures to identify and intercept fraudulent refund filings. As part of this initiative to ensure refunds are issued only to their rightful owners, taxpayers may be asked to confirm their identities before refunds are issued."

How this new initiative fares remains to be seen, but people in the taxation community will certainly be watching to see whether the Pennsylvania Revenue Department is ahead of the IRS on the power curve. Pennsylvania's practices and procedures will play into the discussion as to whether the recent restrictions on the Death Master File access (of which I posted on 7 January 2014) are sufficient or are overly broad.

It is a discussion in which the genealogical community must participate.


Taking a Stand in Genealogyland

by Kenneth H. Ryesky January 20th, 2014 3:37 am

"Just how tone deaf is the genealogical community?" asks Brad in his post of 16 January 2014, imploring the leadership in Genealogyland to take a stand against the misuse of public information for nefarious if not lethal purposes. My own posting of 7 January 2014 mentions a loophole in the latest Federal budget agreement's restriction upon Death Master File (SSDI) access; various members of the genealogical community are now pondering the prospects of at least some genealogists obtaining Commerce Department certification for the early access loophole.

As this posting is being written, the Commerce Department is working on its proposed regulations for the DMF early access program; these, we are assured, will soon appear in the Federal Register for public comment.

Many existing professional qualifications are accepted as valid credentials for various purposes by various governmental agencies. The Internal Revenue Service's Office of Professional Responsibility, for example, accepts bar admission or CPA certification as a valid credential for representing taxpayers in matters before the agency. Many government agencies, Federal and state, accept the Certified Professional Contracts Manager or the now superseded but grandfathered Certified Purchasing Manager designation as a substitute for some qualifying experience in procurement and acquisition jobs (my own C.P.C.M. and C.P.M. certificates gave me a fair degree of career mobility within the Department of Defense when I needed it, but lapsed after I transitioned from DoD to the IRS).

As with many other affinity groups, genealogists have elevated themselves to professional status through the use of the certification process. Now that Congress has tasked the Department of Commerce with overseeing a process for early DMF access certification, genealogists are pondering how their own certification credentials might be used to bootstrap their way to the coveted Commerce Department approval.

If professional credentials such as the Certified Genealogist title are to be accepted by the people in Commerce, then the CGs will need to clearly and visibly build confidentiality and ethics into their own certification program. Even more basic is the need to make the criteria for CG certification, including matters of ethics and confidentiality, open and transparent.

Which all brings us back to taking a stand in Genealogyland.

Next Page »