A Poll On An Ethical Gray Area

Much more personal information has been released already covering the 1942 year in the OP. Non-anonymized census records have already been released for 1950 and prior years as they are only protected for 72 years.

I voted yes and agree that this is a gray area.

I am a genealogist also, and if I found this cover online and could see that it was a relative, I would be very interested in obtaining it! Not to cover it up, but more to put this person's life/problems into some kind of context. As parcelpostguy says, the 1950 Census info has already been released, and it is released based on the assumption that it is so old that nobody can really be hurt by its release. And this cover is older than that. If it were from the 1960's, I would be on the fence. If from the 1970's I would probably say 'no'.

I would also choose to believe that the recipient didn't care if the info got out - if he DID care deeply, he would have done something about it at the time. But that is my choice. I am sure others would opt differently.

PS: Alcoholism runs in my family and I have had a number of close family members whose lives were deeply affected by the 'disease'. I don't believe it is something to be hidden. It has affected me, by osmosis, and to learn something like this about a relative could provide a lot of answers about why I am the way I am, or why the family is the way it is.

If we are going to ask about personal info, how about, say, adoption records or adoption info from the same era? People adopted children with the full expectation that their 'secret' would never be divulged, but the current state of American society tends to side with the child and adoption records are being released left and right. Just because it is 'fashionable' now, doesn't make it right. Especially given the expectations of the people involved at the time. Anyway, just another 'what if'.

I voted yes. HIPAA is not an issue/concern here, as it doesn't apply to private individuals; there is no custodial duty with respect to the data. Also, as several people have previously mentioned, the dates of the documents and prospective ages of the party(ies) in question make it extremely unlikely that they are still alive, let alone have an interest in safeguarding that information.

Were this a document from 2005, my response would likely be different.

I voted No because among other reasons, hiding personal info takes a small effort so why not do so?
I see many assumptions that members made to justify their choice. I'll add mine.
Although I voted for privacy, I think it's unlikely that someone's privacy was invaded, unless you respect the dead's privacy.
80 years passed since this letter was sent, so most likely the people involved and their children are not alive anymore.
Someone offered that if the family sold the letter, they gave up on their privacy. I'm inclined to assume that the owner of the letter died and strangers took over the property, hence the disregard for privacy, and absence of relatives.
One general question came to my mind, How much effort should a collector make to find the offsprings of the cover before publishing it?

On your last question, "none whatsoever". The recipient or his/her relatives had no wish to keep the item. And any surviving relatives may have no wish to have anything to do with the original party.

I cannot agree with this assumption. Considering these were people alive 80 years ago, it is likely. However, as a general assumption, this would imply that people do not end relationships without and do not care they hurting their former partners.

These days, people post far more private documents (movies) to take revenge.

I voted no because I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the surviving relatives and friends, if any, that they would prefer not to have their families' private, in this case medical, information advertised. I don't care how old it is. My viewpoint is - unless it's a famous person (and I would still hesitate) and the item is being sold largely on that basis, what's to be gained by revealing the individual's name? There is none, so why plaster it on ebay? Granted, the article is in the public domain now, so to speak, and all kinds of folks will own it before it turns to dust, but that doesn't mean that a regard for privacy, which costs nothing if the person's name itself is not valuable for any reason, shouldn't be considered. Again, the ebay audience may be tiny compared with the 8 billion that live on this planet, but it's still bigger than one or two. And the relatives and friends may never know that it appears on ebay unless they are customers and go looking specifically for items related to their family, but again I find that irrelevant. Unless there is an overwhelming reason for revealing the name, go with the considerate route and keep it off.

And I don't buy the argument at all about the person him/herself and their surviving relatives not caring about the person's private info being spread around. Did the internet exist and was it widely used 30 years ago? Did ebay exist 40 years ago? Did shredders exist 100 years ago? This modern assumption that anything goes if someone throws something in the trash simply wouldn't occur to 99% of people out there today, never mind 50 or 100 years ago. And I know from clearing out my grandparents', parents' and father-in-law's possessions that being meticulous about every scrap of paper is well down the list of priorities, never mind "the family sold it before." Although we ourselves did take particular care to sift through all their papers and make decisions on keep/shred.

My two cents (or dollars).

I voted yes to this one; the age of document is enough for me; in my time in the news business I found that you cannot guess what people may or may not want hidden. (I was amazed over the years what some folks willingly discussed and equally shocked about some of the nit-picky things people wanted hushed up - but, to each his own.)

I might also have been swayed to NO if the document was 1980 or more recent.

I voted Yes. The timeline is back in the 1940's and in your possession. In my collection I have 4 covers in 1941 that were sent by 4 different, Navy men, Postmarked " USS Arizona". Sadly, all 4 names are part of the "Wall of Names" at the USS Arizona Memorial. Should I hide their names on the covers or is this part of history and that I should be honored to share these covers, by these heroes to the world? Yes, there could be descendants, but it is my possession now. But for me, collecting covers is collecting history and just being a custodian at this time.

And what if there are descendants? Two of my mother's cousins (mine too, once removed) went down with the U.S.S Arizona.
So, there is a probability of descendants. Anyone named Iversen?

littleriverphil, I don't doubt there are a lot of descendants from those who lost their lives on the Arizona. The covers I have were being sent from the ones on board the USS Arizona and not the recipients. In any event, I am so sorry for your loss family's loss. I remember my dad telling me that they had to cover all the windows and keep things dark. My father in law (already passed) actually witnessed the attack and remembers the turrets just shooting up in the sky without much accuracy. Thinking I'm going off a different tangent on this post, but perhaps later I can post the actual covers with the postmark of USS Arizona. Sorry no Iversen cover.

Ya never know, always thought those boys were too busy ashore to write home.