Is it enough? (To not use the names of living individuals)

Is it enough? 

(To not use the names of living individuals)

The stepson of a grand uncle of mine recently contacted me. I had written about his mother and stepfather a few years ago and he found my blog posting to be fascinating. His mother married my grand-uncle when he was about two and a half. In my posting, I mentioned that his mother had a child when he was four-years-old. The child, a boy, was a half-sibling; he and the baby had a common mother but different fathers. What he found so fascinating was that neither he nor his other half-siblings had any knowledge of the child who was born and died about seven weeks later.
My wife commented about the encounter, “What if the mother didn’t want anyone to know?” Was I right in telling the story? It is a tough moral question. I rested my hat upon the following facts:

Both mother and father had passed.
The child had passed (as an infant).
I didn’t name any living individuals in my story.
Last, but not least, I had the sources that told the factual story.

Nevertheless, my wife’s comments made me think. What should be the criteria about when not to tell a story? I try to be careful about never telling the names of living people, is that enough?

Please leave any thoughts or comments below.
————-  DISCLAIMER  ————-

newspapers.com newspapers.com 

Genealogical Ethics?

Lately, I’ve been seeing more and more emails and other
information regarding collaboration. It often makes me a bit concerned.  Nevertheless, as I do more and more of it I’m
beginning to develop security standards.
I mentioned briefly in a note in my last blog, I am
uncomfortable in posting or providing anything that might be personally
identifying information. Mostly, it is the kinds of things that various
security systems would ask as a challenge question.  Things like a person’s mother’s maiden name
or linking a living person with their school (and thus school mascot which I’ve
seen several times as a security question).  
Many people have trouble or concerns regarding social
security numbers.  I don’t so much.  I can understand SSNs being kept private for
three to five years. The biggest reason for that is to allow a person’s estate
to get through probate before someone could easily use that person’s SSN for
identity theft. In that amount of time, the powers to be should know that the
person is dead.
I was recently asked by a researcher for the names of the
children of someone in my tree. The wife of one of my wife’s Grand Uncles was a
cousin of this researcher.  I had the
names for these people but suspect many of them are still alive. They were born
in the 1940s.  So, do I give the
information or not?
If I got the information from a private source, then I would
say no. I would not provide the names.  However,
if I got the information from a public source, then why not?  I wrestled with the question for a bit and concluded
that I would not give the names and relationships directly. Rather, I would
provide a source citation that gave me the information I analyzed and
incorporated into my family tree.   In
this particular case, I gave the link to an obituary for the ancestor that
listed the living children.  I don’t have
an ethical dilemma providing publicly accessible information.  Maybe I should, but I don’t.
This brings me to the point of this posting.  I’ve seen and read many sets of ethics for
genealogy.  However, in all of my reading
I am yet to see a set of ethical rules about what should or should not be
shared with other researchers or people or with the public.  The closest that I think I’ve seen is from
the Board for Certification of Genealogists that states, “I will act, speak,
and write in a manner I believe to be in the best interests of the profession
and scholarship of genealogy.’  Pretty
vague; not much guidance there. 

If someone knows of a rule list about the kind of
information that we should not publish or provide publically, I’d like to know
of it. (Please use the comment form below.) 
If there isn’t such a list, shouldn’t there be one that is clear and
more effective than just privatizing living people.