Slashdot Mirror
Illinois Prof Calls for a Federal Law To Safeguard Digital Afterlives
An anonymous reader writes "A new paper from Professor Jason Mazzone at the University of Illinois calls for federal laws to regulate what happens to digital accounts after the account holder's death. Mazzone argues that Facebook and other online services have policies for deceased users' accounts that do not adequately protect the individual property and privacy interests at stake. The full text of the paper (called "Facebook's Afterlife") is also available: "
And I mean, comprehensive deletion.
Outside of nefarious uses, the information of a dead person is of no pactical value to facebook or its advertising customers. Dead people don't buy anything.
As such, it is a cost center to retain the information of dead people. They should eliminate all such data, to keep a high relevancy with thir advertising customers, and avoid having stale and inaccurate data to sell.
I just don't put the only accessible copies of important files (even photographs and blog entries) in the hands of facebook, google, or anyone of the like. Files are on my own systems (including my own webserver). Why should I trust those other sites to act in my best interest, whether I am alive or not?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Why does everyone think there needs to be some Federal mandate regulating every single damn issue imaginable?
The reason why we have so many big corporations with no competition is because the regulations prevent any new competition from coming in.
The *last* thing we need is more Federal Laws!!!
Facebook's Afterlife
Jason Mazzone
University of Illinois College of Law
2012
I'm not sure the right answer is to make things harder than they are already to deal with an account for someone who is dead.
What a huge mess, people these days have accounts everywhere. It seems like what is really needed is a dead person "cleaning" service to go through the deceased persons computer, figure out what accounts they had and then go hoover anything from them the family might want to save, then delete the account. You don't want to make it impossible for such a service to exist, as most people would be unable technically to figure all this out.
Also I don't think sites auto-deleting you is a good idea; I could see people wanting to leave the Facebook page (or the like) up even after someone was dead, as kind of a tribute. Facebook probably isn't going to keep it forever - but then again perhaps they would, as there is advertising money to be made just from people coming to pay tribute with a last post on the Wall...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't want my Facebook deleted in the event of my death! My friends would lose all of the photos I posted of them! And all the comments and links and everything I posted on their timelines. And what if they want to come back years later and reminisce about old times. There are lots of reasons living customers might want to look at the information. Wouldn't it be better to freeze the account?
I am actually pretty sure that there is no federal guidelines on privacy after death in real life either. I am not a lawyer, but it seem like personal information which is privileged (legal, medical, etc.) can only be sealed with a court order. Which means that, by default, it does not survive an individual. Why would digital information be more privileged than, for example, psychiatric records?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Just what we need! More federal laws! Especially ones that regulate free web services. That would be a great benefit to us all.
Note to the sarcastically imparied: please don't reply to this comment!
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Had a friend who commented heavily on my photos. We had a number of back and forth conversations.
He then deleted his Facebook account because Facebook is clearly evil, and Google totally isn't.
He's since come back to Facebook, and I've re-friended him, however:
It still looks like I'm a freaking schizo, because half the comments on my photos appear to be me talking to myself.
"I don't want my Facebook deleted in the event of my death!"
And if your friends don't want their photo kept after your death? What if they want to forget you? What if they want to move on? What would you have, a friends list and a dead friends list, and watch the dead friends list get longer and longer, and the friends list get shorter and shorter?
Facebook: Bobby5765 had died, we've automatically moved him to the dead friends list.
1 year later,
Facebook: Bobby5765 died one year ago, why not come visit his page, he'd have liked that.
2 months later
Facebook: Was Bobby5765's using his real name?
3 months later
Facebook: Did Bobby5765 have any relatives? Why not connect with them by selecting them from his contacts list below.
4 months later
Facebook: Bobby5765's friends indicated you're his son, we're sorry for your loss, why not remember Bobby5765 by visiting old photographs of him.
Moving on is important. What you want done with YOUR digital data after your death should be an account choice you make, not another data mining opportunity for Facebook. Default should be 'delete after 6 months'. Then your friends can archive anything they want on their site or computer.
What I don't want to see, is Facebook milking dead relatives for marketing purposes.
It was Facebook that really got my Mom into this whole "Computer thing". Since she passed, we have used her account as a hub for pictures, gatherings, and contacts. I see the point of eventually deleting her account, but it was surprising how many images and data that was singularly relevant to my family that was on her account that isn't recorded elsewhere... I would never have known the depth of her digital involvement if I didn't review her account. It's been priceless for my family. My two cents.
That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
Paypal has gone to great lengths to not legally be a bank. At a bank, or brokerage firm, or other places that I park money in, they have all given me a form to declare a beneficiary. Does Paypal do that?
Generally, in the State of California (and many/most? other states), unclaimed accounts in banks, ets, are turned over to the state. I found a few thousand dollars in insurance payments (I'm a doctoid), some going back 20 years.
Also, once someone dies, bank accounts etc. are frozen (or should be) to new deposits. I once bought something on ebay, turned out to be defective. I tried contacting the seller; no response. (This was circa 2001-2, btw). A few months later I found the seller's address. So I wrote a nice complaint letter. Shortly after I received a refund from the seller's husband. He wife had died. She did a lot of ebay, and he had no idea how to use a computer.....
Heck, my heirs may not even know I have a Paypal account, or care. Or an Amazon account, for sellers. $$ is disbursed to a checking account. What if the checking account is closed, and Amazon's disbursement gets bounced back?
Okay, I know there are some /.-ers out there, the anti-government Libertarian, of which I feel some affinity too, who would say the worse evil is letting governments get their greedy hands on such funds. Except, I can imagine a situation in the corporations get to keep such fund in the event a person dies, maybe with an up front death benefit choice combined with a perk> you will get 0.5% more interest if you make Big Bank you beneficiary. But, Big Bank sends hit-men out on a few customers every now and then.
I can also imagine a government doing that, just much less likely than a corporation doing it.
end of rant
I think the policy should confirm and enforce that all entities need to abide by the wishes of the deceased (without reason). I don't think we can simply come to a single standard act to {delete, freeze, publicitize} the information.
Then, close the policy with clauses that outline in the event nothing is in the will, the information is available via common law practices (for example a spouse having access to a safety deposit box).
If I want my account deleted, so be it. If I want it open to the public, so be it. If I want to hand over the keys to my social media account to my best friend to let him keep posting as me, then so be it.
What I don't want is for my wishes to be for my wife to have access to all my information (Dropbox, KeePass safes, bank accounts) and her to be denied that access.
Interestingly enough, this is relevant to my studies. Although my studies focus more on the accounting/legal aspect of it, we can safely generalise to a certain extent, since the those regulators are obviously affected by the culture. So allow me a little lecture. (Don't worry, there will be a tl;dr at the end)
Basically, we learn about rules and regulations, and approaches to it. And if we distill it, we can come down to two basic approaches: Rules-based and Principles-based. And frankly, the difference between them is as big as the Atlantic.
A rules based approach can be summed up as "Follow-or-Else! NO Exceptions!". They fear being too lax and inclusive, and letting some wrongdoing go unchecked, therefore rules based approach require regulation that is strict and inflexible. Every possible permutation and approved deviation must be encoded, to avoid loop-hole abuse. Everyone can and *should* remain within the framework; any difference is obviously is a sly attempt to get a pass, and hence must be stopped.
A principles-based approach, on the other hand, can be summed up as "Comply! or Explain the noncompliance..." A principle fears being too strict and exclusive, and fear some rightdoing being unfairly checked, and thus a principles-based approach prefer regulation that's more flexible and amenable. It should have a solid core, but the gaps between those core model is a flexible fence, not a solid wall. You should remain within the framework, but should you find yourself pressing the boundaries, you will be asked to explain why, and should there be a genuine reason, the fence would be flexible enough to allow you that deviation, and yet allow to be considered a part of the framework and not a deviant.
If we were to apply broad strokes, we can say that the US prefers a rules-based approach, whilst the UK (and Europe, as an extension) prefers a principles based approach. (Obviously, it is not a 1:1 correlation, but you can see the influence)
Which is why the US citizen are always saying "There ought to be a LAW!" for everything. You don't want a generally understood principle, you dismiss that as naive, since a stampede of rule-breaker will run through it the moment you blink.
No, what you want is a law, that is clear cut and fair. It's set down in stone, and let's everyone know what the boundaries are. And the more encompassing the laws are(note the difference between this statement and a mere "more laws"), the better.
And this is why for example (to pick a topic that is dear to the average slashdotter's heart), you have your amendments, and why they can say "it's digital, so it's different", because, well, their ain't no law that says it works on digital thingamajig too!
A principles-based approach would have tackled this differently and understood that the same rule held even in digital form.
(Please understand that I am NOT saying one is better than the other, merely explaining how the approaches differentiate whilst tackling a problem)
TL;DR You want laws because you know that everyone follows the letter rather than the spirit, and thus you want your preference written down in letter, inviolable and incontestable.
[E&OE]
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
by the very nature of the final word, this time around none of the account holders will get a chance to complain... posthumously.
So is the next move after "Would you please rat out your friend for using a nickname?" possibly going to be a particularly considerate pop-up like "Has this friend of yours gone belly-up?"
If it's on the internet, it's not 'yours', it's someone elses. Your mmo account data, fb pics, mp3s "bought" on itunes are not owned by you, they're leased. Want to own yoururchased itunes collection? Then burn them to disc, that removes the copy protection, and now you own them, and can do what you want with them. Trusting anything "cloud based" to always be there for you is being ignorant. Don't like it, don't use that service.
the regulations should basically state
1 Each company should have a standard "Trouble Ticket" of type "Account Holder Deceased"
2 A Person having a valid power of attorney or other similar document shall be able to (when Proof of Death can be shown) takeover the account and or merge the assets.
3 in cases of Social Media the account should be flagged as belonging to a Deceased person (btw having flags for Fictional and Corporate Personas would also be a good idea)
and that just about covers everything needed (except handling the problem of account holders without somebody to wind them up)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge