Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Ordered To Explain Deleted Profile (bbc.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the friend-request dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from BBC: Facebook has been ordered by a UK high court judge to reveal who told it to delete the profile of a jazz musician and his band, six months after he died. The Times reports that the firm said it had acted on a request but had declined to reveal to the family who had instructed it. Mirza Krupalija's partner Azra Sabados says she is certain that it was not a family member or friend. She said losing his posts and messages felt like losing him "a second time." Mr Krupalija, who lived in Sarajevo, suffered a fatal heart attack just after his 57th birthday in 2016. Ms Sabados said she spent a year talking to Facebook before pursuing legal action.

Ms Sabados' lawyer Greg Callus from the law firm 5BR confirmed to the BBC that Facebook is now required to provide the details under what is legally known as a Norwich Pharmacal Order -- where Facebook is innocent but may have information about a third party who could be involved in wrongdoing. The firm will have 21 days to respond.

70 comments

  1. Explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fish. Plankton. And protein from the sea.

  2. zip it? by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

    zip up the profile and stick that up?
    I mean if the messages were that important, maybe someone should've copied them? They did have six months to do so.

    1. Re:zip it? by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But... but it's THE CLOUD.

      Nothing can possibly happen to your data as long as it's in the cloud. /s

    2. Re:zip it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the cloud rained on the memorial I put up, and expected to be there forever, on the side of the road where my friend died, and now its gone. who do I sue?!?

    3. Re: zip it? by houghi · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they did. That does not mean that they feel that it being online and in the public is not a good thing.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re: zip it? by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

      If they did, then they should have what they care for. They can host it on a website they control. Facebook certainly isn't public.

    5. Re:zip it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      zip up the profile and stick that up? I mean if the messages were that important, maybe someone should've copied them? They did have six months to do so.

      Speak for yourself. It doesn't matter. In this case, there is "someone" requesting them to delete the profile (and FB admitted it). That is the point.

    6. Re: zip it? by houghi · · Score: 1

      The account and the accessabilty that it brings could be seen as value in and off itself. The fact that Facebook is not public does not mean the public has no rights there.
      Many public accessible spaces have limitations. As everybody can get an account at Facebook, it can be seen as a public accesible space, like a mall. There will be restrictions and laws that do not apply to e.g. your own home.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  3. Damned if you do, damned if you don't by Entrope · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Between GDPR and this case, how is a company like Facebook supposed to know whether it should preserve or delete data?

    1. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      GDPR requires you identify yourself, a random person can't delete your stuff whether you are alive or dead.

    2. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      how is a company ... supposed to know whether it should preserve or delete data?

      It's easy. You do both, just like it says.

      OH, but you BROKE the law? FINE then :-) , sucks to be you. We've got to help pay our salaries, legal system, and country, don't you know? Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

      What? There's an inconsistency somewhere? Don't worry, we'll add in another law to "help out".

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    3. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by belthize · · Score: 1

      It's a tough problem but I suspect one that is solvable with $10B USD,.leaving them a fair amount of net profit for whatever they want.

      https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/....

    4. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by Entrope · · Score: 0

      That doesn't mean anything. Once you die, do your GDPR rights disappear? If not, who gets to request deletion of your data? Whether you're dead or not, what prevents an impersonator from requesting your data be deleted? Is there any exception from the requirement to delete your data that allows the data processor to preserve information about your request to delete all your data, so that a company can answer demands like the one in this lawsuit?

    5. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Can it, shill.

      Most organisation require a copy of the death certificate before taking any action.

      So, either facebook could require a copy of the death certificate, or facebook could simply do absolutely nothing, and tell the next-of-kin to simply reset the password suing the associated email account. Oh, you don't have access to the associated email account? Show the death certificate to the email provider - not facebook's problem.

    6. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If not, who gets to request deletion of your data?

      The executor of the will and/or legal next of kin who has the death certificate, dipshit.

      Have you never had to deal with the death of a family member? Oh, you haven't, then how about you stop asking stupid fucking questions and go educate yourself.

    7. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All thinking people know that you need to delete data when appropriate and save it when appropriate.

    8. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of the legal next of kin says they did not request it, I'd be pretty sure the company has to divulge who made the request - and the court agrees with that assessment. Note FB did not say they don't know who made the request, they just refuse to say who it was and obviously this was way before GDPR came in effect.

    9. Re: Damned if you do, damned if you don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but Facebook is like an emergency service for so many people. It needs to be regulated like 911 and hospitals!

    10. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean I guess I understand why parent was modded down, but GP is a picture-perfect example why we need a "-1, Stupid as hell" mod. This shit has been settled for ages already.

    11. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by caviare · · Score: 1

      caviare now does impersonation of Kripke from The Big Bang Theory.

      "And how that's my pwobwm, no wait, that's not my pwobwm."

      But seriously, if facebook and similar companies fell off the face of the earth, after an initial shock, who would mourn?

    12. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by Entrope · · Score: 1

      You'll note that neither article nor summary say the executor of his estate asked Facebook for the info. Rather, they suggest -- by saying the dead guy's "partner" was "sure" neither a friend nor family member asked -- that more than one party might have legitimately made the request.

      And of course it hasn't been "settled for ages" whether GDPR rights are extinguished by death, because GDPR itself hasn't been settled for ages.

    13. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      Not in the EU and GDPR asside I think as a general mater yes you should loose are your rights at time of death. You body should be considered the property of either your next of kin or whoever you will it to.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    14. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When articles like this say a person is "sure" of something it always sets off my looking-for-a-payout alarm.

    15. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      Facebook doesn't have any idea who requested the deletion. It could have been any member of the public or their own staff. They just don't have that tight of a lock down on server access, period. That's why they're keeping silent; this would look very bad for them if people started to realize they had no control over their own staff, let alone the monster they've created.

    16. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by Entrope · · Score: 1

      How do you know they didn't do that in this case? The lady who filed this complaint was the guy's girlfriend. She doesn't claim to be his next of kin or executor or anything like that.

    17. Re: Damned if you do, damned if you don't by jaa101 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah but Facebook is like an emergency service for so many people. It needs to be regulated like 911 and hospitals!

      No, People need to be trained that Facebook has no obligation to host their content. And doubly none once they're dead. It's a free service; you get what you pay for. Want to publish content? Pay for hosting somewhere.

    18. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Whether data should be kept or deleted will be in the conditions of use. Now taking into account the current we don't give a fuck, dick brained attitude of typical programmers, bugs are normal features of all their programs. There 100% will be a clause something along the lines of, 'Your data we warrant it not, not in the least, not only will we not bother to protect it, we wont bother to preserve it, we don't give one fuck about it, WATCH THIS AD INSTEAD'.

      Why are they bothering with court, they don't wont to remind end user how few fucks are given about their data, watch this ad instead, we know you want it, we know you like it, watch the ad. They serve ads, that is all they warrant they will do, the rest is bait to get you to the ads. Could you seriously imagine any of them ever warranting the protection of your data for 'ENTERNITY', wake the fuck up.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    19. Re: Damned if you do, damned if you don't by houghi · · Score: 1

      If the data is seen as goods, like a car or money or a house, the next of kin might or might not have the right to hsve it removed. It depends on the inherritance, the will and the law about it.
      Kust because she is the spouse does not automatically means she becomes the owner.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    20. Re: Damned if you do, damned if you don't by houghi · · Score: 1

      A death certificate only might mean nothing. E.g. with a bank account it merely blocks the account. The miney is not given (or debits asked) till it is certain who owns it. That might or might not be the spouse.

      To me what should be done by FB and others, lik YouTube is that at the official notification of death to block the account, meaning not accesible, till it is clear who owns it.
      Yes, this couls end up in legal battle between severral parties, but all the companies need to do is follow the already established laws and only hand over the goods to the (group of) rightfull new owners.

      Inn Belgium if a rightfull new owner can not be found, the money goes to a special bank account. It does not belong to the bank. Yes, there is more to it than just that, but that is the gist of it.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    21. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Most organisation require a copy of the death certificate before taking any action.

      WTF? No, not at all. In fact a good chunk of the GDPR is about not requiring someone to die before their data is deleted. There are a myriad of laws now that require data to be removed. The only question is why is Facebook not complying with an attempt to expose someone who fraudulently had the data removed.

    22. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by realxmp · · Score: 1

      Once you die, do your GDPR rights disappear?

      Yes, they do indeed disappear, similar to how you cannot be sued for defaming or libelling the dead.

    23. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Privacy rights extend beyond death in the EU, because if people knew that they didn't it would affect them while they were alive. Also, the privacy of their families and anyone else involved has to be considered too.

      I like the EU's default privacy stance. All violations of privacy should require consent or strong justification.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    24. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Technically Facebook have no contractual relationship with the estate, the executor or the legal next of kin. They can do whatever the fuck they want with the data within the constrains of the law, including deleting it forever.

    25. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by JohnStock · · Score: 1

      By reading the wording of the laws concerned by chance? It's not rocket science

  4. Who needs nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    People angry at Facebook before today: HOW DARE YOU RETAIN INFORMATION ABOUT US

    People angry at Facebook today: HOW DARE YOU NOT RETAIN INFORMATION ABOUT US

    1. Re:Who needs nuance by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, they just want to know what happened. Who requested the deletion and why. Facebook should be able to answer that. For some reason they don't want to.

    2. Re:Who needs nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the fucking summary, you retard. Jesus Christ this place has gone downhill.

    3. Re:Who needs nuance by Entrope · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Arbitrary disclosure of that kind of information would run afoul of the GDPR. They may need a court order to be legally allowed to release the info.

    4. Re: Who needs nuance by houghi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even before the GDPR it would have been illegal to do so. I have told the police several times "no" when they requested info.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    5. Re: Who needs nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here

    6. Re:Who needs nuance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In communist UK, Facebook deletes you!

    7. Re: Who needs nuance by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I can see that.

  5. Phew. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, what's that smell?

  6. Neo-Euro colonialism by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    They're trying to regain power over their former colonies thru lawfare.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:Neo-Euro colonialism by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Facebook isn't a former colony. HTH.

    2. Re:Neo-Euro colonialism by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      Facebook isn't a former colony. HTH.

      Did anyone else hear the whoosh?

      Facebook is based out of California. In 1821 Mexico (including Alta California) gained its independence from Spain. In 1846 Alta California rebelled against Mexico and formed the California Republic. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) granted ownership of that land to the USA (which was an English colony before declaring independence in 1776). California gained statehood in 1850.

    3. Re:Neo-Euro colonialism by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      There's no whoosh. Even if the EU had complete control over everything Facebook did, they'd still have no control over America. It's simply a dumb idea.

    4. Re:Neo-Euro colonialism by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      There's no whoosh. Even if the EU had complete control over everything Facebook did, they'd still have no control over America. It's simply a dumb idea.

      Vinegar Joe was saying that the EU is trying to control former colonies (such as the US) by regulating what US-based companies must do.

  7. Deleted... suuuure. by GrBear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does anyone actually believe Facebook deletes profiles? The account is likely only flagged to not show. I bet the information is still all there, ripe for matching against other profiles.

    1. Re:Deleted... suuuure. by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Of course it's still there. But will Facebook explain who deleted it or will they claim it was a "bug" and then simply reactivate it?

    2. Re:Deleted... suuuure. by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      I'm gonna bet on the latter, unless this guy somehow set up a timed script to delete the profile himself posthumously. Then things will get weird.

    3. Re:Deleted... suuuure. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      In the EU they have a legal obligation to delete that data, so even if they didn't they have to pretend they did or face a massive data protection investigation/fine.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Deleted... suuuure. by johnsie · · Score: 1

      And that's why I don't use facebook and use blockers to block their cookies/scripts on other sites. They still have their shadow profile of me of course and all the details of my friends and family, but at least it's a bit less info for them. The fact that they moved millions of people's data out of Ireland just to avoid adhering to privacy protection legislation was the final straw.

  8. Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed

  9. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, cre!mer is asked to explain the deleted views on his youtube channel. Rumors are he is running a click-bot...

  10. "Greg Callus from the law firm 5BR confirmed..." by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    Is this law firm being run out of a McMansion?

  11. Neither of them were Facebook customers by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

    Facebook provides a free service to people like Sabados and Krupalija while they sell advertising. She paid them nothing, I don't understand why anyone expects facebook to do anything other than what is in their own interest. Responding to this request is a huge pain for Facebook with no upside. I can see why they might not want to help. If someone dies and you have a deep connection with their facebook profile then download it and store it yourself!

    1. Re:Neither of them were Facebook customers by houghi · · Score: 2

      Facebook provides a free service to people like Sabados and Krupalija while they sell advertising. She paid them nothing, I don't understand why anyone expects facebook to do anything other than what is in their own interest. Responding to this request is a huge pain for Facebook with no upside. I can see why they might not want to help. If someone dies and you have a deep connection with their facebook profile then download it and store it yourself!

      Just because yopu paid nothing does not mean you do not have any rights. So let's look at these rights (IANAL)
      The laws give or take away the rights.
      As there is no contract signed, that part of the law does not apply. A EULA can not take away any rights, just add to them. Further in Europe it is seen that the data belongs to the person, not the company holding it. The GDPR is an extention of already existing laws.

      So the data on Facebook and other websites, like YouTube belong to me. The content might also belong to me. Content is seen as an asset and thus will be owned by the content holder, me.

      When I die there are laws about who will own the assets after I die. e.g. in a bank it does not mean just because I have a shared account with my (imaginary) wife that she will get that money. This will depend on the law first and testament second.

      The same would need to go with the asset "Facebook account". To show you what should happen is comparing it with a bank account and what happens there.
      If I have a bank account and I die, the moment the bank is officially notified of my death (Normally with a death ceryificate, but other ways are possible) they will block the account. They do not close it, they just block it. This untill it is determined who the new owner of that money is. That could be my spouce, my kid(s) or my cat.

      The fact that this could result in a lot of fighting in the family is not the problem of the bank.
      It could well be that there is an undevisible amount that needs to be shared. e.g. when my last parent died, we had an uneven amount of shares that needed to be devided and we had to determine who got 1 share more than the other. Once that was clear, the issue was solved (Not really an issue, just an email) for the bank.

      If we would have started a lawsuit over that, not the banks problem.

      The same could be done here. The account goes to the person/s who is/are legally the people who have that right. It could be seen as undivisable and only one person can have access to the account.

      OTOH if there is a rule that says that only a living person can own the Facebook account, like with a bank account, then the data should be handed over and the account and all the rest needs to be deleted.

      Most of the time this could be handing over the data to a Notary who does the division of all the assets or to any other person who deals with the will.

      So yes, it might be a pain for Facebook, but just because people did not pay anything is not an issue. And downloading data does not mean you get it all, nor that you have the rights to delete it. It could be in the will of the person that it is to be deleted. Does not mean that that will happen, but that he wants that to happen.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  12. huh? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

    Does Facebook have some contractual obligation here? They can delete anyone's account anytime they want, can't they?

    If they are magically a public utility now, we'll have to have words with them about many, many more things than just this,

    1. Re:huh? by zaax · · Score: 1

      Does Facebook have some contractual obligation here? They can delete anyone's account anytime they want, can't they?

      If they are magically a public utility now, we'll have to have words with them about many, many more things than just this,

      As so many pople use them, like the Post office and Teleco's, I think they are a public service, and therefore they DO have a public obligation.

    2. Re:huh? by locofungus · · Score: 2

      Indeed they (probably) can.

      And a Norwich Pharmacal Order is an order that the court can make of an *innocent* third party to force them to disclose the identity of someone that appears to have wronged someone else so that the someone else can sue the someone.

      Usually the plaintiff has to pay the defendants costs and indemnify them (although the plaintiff can then recover those costs from the eventual target of their action)

      The original case was Norwich Pharmacal v HMCE. NP had evidence their patent was being infringed - the chemical in question was being imported - but they couldn't tell who was infringing their patent so they asked customs and excise for the information they had on the importer and manufacturer.

      Based on the news reports, it appears in this case that the person who asked for the facebook account to be deleted didn't have the right to do so. Obviously nobody can *know* that because we don't know who it is. It's also possible that facebook know that they did have the right - and this order will protect facebook who otherwise, quite properly, would refuse to release this information.

      Nobody is blaming facebook for anything at this point. It appears facebook is merely following the law of the land.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    3. Re: huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop being so reasonable, you're letting us all down

    4. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's explained in the summary that Facebook isn't considered to be at fault. The investigation is over who told Facebook to delete the profile, and Facebook is simply being required to provide information to help figure that out.

  13. if its truly deleted... by OppMan29 · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure the NSA still has a copy

  14. Facebook will destroy itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the end Facebook will destroy itself. In the end social sites can never be all things to all people in the whole world. Too many different views on privacy, content, advertising, and political and personal opinions. It all adds up to a mess to try and make everyone happy. Eventually everyone starts to question everything and wants you to do something about it.

  15. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What will happen if Facebook tells the UK to fuck off?

  16. Why would Facebook keep profiles of dead people? by atrex · · Score: 1

    Not that I'm a fan of Facebook, but, dead people don't use Facebook and view advertisements, so I don't see what value Facebook gets out of maintaining their profiles. Even living people, FB has no actual obligation to host their content and profiles. They do so because they gather the advertising dollars and sell the consumer analytics.

  17. Explain what? The stuff belongs to Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Judge: Why was this content removed?
    FB: Well, you see, in the T&A it says you give us the data, and we give you ads in exchange for putting your posts in front of your friend's eyeballs while we give them ads in return of them looking at your data and clicking little like buttons.
    Judge: So why delete the data?
    FB: Because it's ours... not yours. You gave it to us, so we can do what we like. You gave us the data. You did not loan us the data.
    Judge: So why isn't it there?
    FB: If you own a car, you can take the tires off, and not put new ones on if you want to. You still have the car, but you can't functionally drive it. It's our data now, so we did what we want with it. Are we done here?

  18. Simle summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So someone put data on someone elses server. And that someone else decided to delete it. And the suprise is ?

    As soon as you put your data in someone elses hands it is no longer yours, you no longer control it, and if it gets deleted it's your problem/tough luck..

    Is this trivially simple concept too hard for people to grasp ?

    "The Cloud"/Faecesbook/YouTube/Whatever = SOMEONE ELSE'S SERVER.

    Sympathy level = 0

  19. Re:Why would Facebook keep profiles of dead people by laie_techie · · Score: 1

    Not that I'm a fan of Facebook, but, dead people don't use Facebook and view advertisements, so I don't see what value Facebook gets out of maintaining their profiles. Even living people, FB has no actual obligation to host their content and profiles. They do so because they gather the advertising dollars and sell the consumer analytics.

    My father passed away 2 years ago. he had a shared Facebook account with my mother (still living and primary heir of his estate). We've maintained the Facebook account because it documents his life. My dad literally touched tens of thousands of lives. We've downloaded what we can, but his account is still active and serves as a memorial. My grandmother passed away 1 year ago (in fact, it was on the 1 year anniversary of my dad's death). My aunt (the executor of my grandma's will) maintains the Facebook account as a memorial.