You Can Inherit Facebook Content Like a Letter or Diary, German Court Rules (qz.com)

A German court ruled Thursday that Facebook content can be passed onto heirs like letters, books, or diaries. The ruling comes after the parents of a teenager who died in 2012 after being hit by a train argued Facebook should allow them to access her account, including her private messages, to determine whether she committed suicide. "This would also help determine whether the driver of the train should be entitled to compensation," notes Quartz. From the report: Currently, Facebook's policy is to "memorialize" an account when the site is informed of someone's death. If a user has a "legacy contact" (here are instructions on how to set one up), Facebook grants them limited access to the user's account, allowing them change the user's profile picture, accept friend requests, or pin posts to the top of the user's profile. They can also ask the platform to delete the account. Recently, Facebook told Quartz, the company revised its policy to allow parents or guardians of minors to become legacy contacts after their child has died. In rare cases, the company says, authorized people, like family members, can request information from a deceased person's account, if they have a court order. But there's no guarantee they will get what they need.

A Facebook spokesperson said in a statement the company disagreed with the German ruling: "These questions -- how to weigh the wishes of the relatives and protect the privacy of third parties -- are some of the toughest we've confronted. We empathize with the family. At the same time, Facebook accounts are used for a personal exchange between individuals which we have a duty to protect. While we respectfully disagree with today's decision by [the court], the lengthy process shows how complex the issue under discussion is. We will be analyzing the judgment to assess its full implications."

Comments

Now what about on-line purchases?

[sandbagger]

I know that iTunes and everyone else has the stock answer of 'buy it again' but what do the courts say?

Re: Now what about on-line purchases?

[guruevi]

Those are rentals. They are not purchases.

Re: Now what about on-line purchases?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. They're a purchased license of copyrighted material. I suspect the terms of that license (probably mentioned in the TOS) explicitly state that it isn't a transferable license, thus it cannot be inherited.

Re: Now what about on-line purchases?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if the TOS says it can't be inherited, the courts can overrule it if the law allows.

For example, if you sign a contract saying you will be a sex slave, you can overrule it in court because sex slavery is illegal (at least in the US). Law can overrule any contract/TOS, even if you signed it, because what you signed or agreed to was illegal.

I don't know of a case, but I think with a good lawyer you could in fact inherit it. For example, on Google Play, there is an obvious difference between rentals and purchases. When you purchase a rental, it is very clear that you can only watch it within 48 hours, etc., and the wording is very clear with always calling it a rental.

With a purchase of a movie, it is also very clear that you are purchasing it, not renting it, and that you will have it in your account indefinitely.

While many people will argue that you are purchasing the rights to view, not to own, this isn't clear, and I think a good lawyer (i.e., expensive) could win the rights to inherit the purchases made of digital content. It depends on if you have the money and time.

Intellectual property goes to the estate

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how corporations don't have a problem dealong with IP when it comes to business operations. But since FB seems to think they own your account and its contents this isn't a surprise.

Privacy and last will

[JaredOfEuropa]

Maybe just add another privacy option or two: "Do you wish your legacy contact to have access to your private conversations / contact list / ability to post or send messages on your behalf? [yes/no]". I'm not 100% sure if this is in line with current privacy laws, but it will at least make it easier for the relatives to accept what they are or aren't getting from the account.

Re: Privacy and last will

[guruevi]

The inheritors basically get full rights over your account, including control over those switches, unless you have specified in your will otherwise (which a minor in this case cannot do unless declared an adult by a court which depends on age, competence of the minor, circumstance and jurisdiction).

Just because a landlord (in this case FaceBook) thinks your property should be private doesn't make it so after you die, they do not get to make the decision whether your papers are to be shared with your heirs.

Re: Privacy and last will

[Entrope]

The appeals court ruling on this, that the parents could not access their dead daughter's account, always seemed wonky to me. Dead people don't usually have enforceable rights -- those devolve to the person's heirs. I'm glad the higher court corrected the error.

Re: Privacy and last will

[JaredOfEuropa]

Just because a landlord (in this case FaceBook) thinks your property should be private doesn't make it so after you die, they do not get to make the decision whether your papers are to be shared with your heirs

It's not FB making that decision; it's the last will of the deceased. Whether or not FB can withhold access even if explicitly ordered to do so by the account owner depends on the law of the land, I expect these to vary even within the EC. Over here, I can give a document to my notary for safekeeping, with instructions to destroy it when I die. Perfectly legal. In this case, the notary (like FB) acts as a custodian of your data. Your landlord is not a custodian of your stuff, he isn't even allowed (in most countries) to enter the property without permission except in emergencies.

Re: Privacy and last will

[mysidia]

Just because a landlord (in this case FaceBook) thinks your property should be private doesn't make it so after you die

Facebook is Not a landlord. Facebook is not a custodian with a duty to keep any of your property. Facebook is a service provider that you provided a copy of information ---- The Information may be your intellectual property, BUT Facebook is under no obligation to use their resources to distribute a copy of that information or even to store it or continue storing it; For example: Mandatory deletion after an article is 6 months old, or after an account is Inactive for 90 days, or Immediately upon death of the account holder would all be reasonable policies --- And Facebook has no obligation to deliver a free service to a successor OR permit a successor to continue free use of their services falsely pretending to be you ---- particularly since Facebook's compensation for providing the service specifically requires effective User individual-targeted advertising, and one that is not contracted to keep any property for you - Users don't even pay them for hosting -- Usually Facebook will keep everything or almost everything you post there for the life of your account, but Facebook aren't contractually obligated to anybody to retain anything - Even if you choose to rely on them keeping important information (By failing to make a local backup of your data) -- Anything anyone posts to FB can be deleted by FB from Facebook's servers at any time, and there's no agreement to the contrary.

Facebook is available to you free of charge, BUT you must commit to terms to use their services --- one of the terms is you use Only your Individual Name for your account -- Another required rule is you aren't allowed to Share or Transfer access to your account to anyone else - Facebook makes money from advertising to you based on personal data they collect about you

Re: Privacy and last will

[mysidia]

Whether or not FB can withhold access even if explicitly ordered to do so by the account owner depends on the law of the land,

Facebook has the right protected in their Terms of Service to shut my account off at ANY time while I am still alive, and they can delete all my data if they want -- Facebook DOES NOT have to provide me back a copy of any information that I had posted to it or that my friends had posted to me.

It would be VERY STRANGE for a court to claim that my successors have more rights than I do to force Facebook to provide access to ANYTHING on the account by name, even if I hadn't ordered for FB to Not allow my successors access upon death ---- Let alone if I had.

Especially given Facebook's Real Name and No Sharing Access to account policies.

Re: Privacy and last will

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the people they communicated with? Do they not have privacy rights?

Does the deceased family get to read their private communications?

Re: Privacy and last will

[jgdnavy]

If you accept the comparison to letters and diaries, then it wouldn't be any different than finding a shoebox full of letters. The sender of those letters had no say in whether or not you read them.

Re: Privacy and last will

[Entrope]

There are literally centuries of case law on how to handle privacy and copy rights in personal letters and similar communications. Your question has been answered many, many times.

Re: Privacy and last will

[known_coward_69]

I think that's only in England and the USA where we use English Common Law. Many European nations use Roman Law which is different

Re:Privacy and last will

[Anonymous Coward]

Simplistic ideas don't work in the real world with GDPR, Safe-Harbor treatise, and a slew of other conflicting laws and regulations. FB has to trend lightly and go to court for everything. Being ordered is a good cover to hide behind. Whereas providing a option opens one up to serious litigation.

Re: Privacy and last will

[Anonymous Coward]

But we can do better.

In the old days, your heirs might get a box of private letters that the sender had only intended to be seen by the deceased person. Because they're physical objects, there was no way around that.

Nowadays, it's possible for Facebook to preserve the privacy of the sender and not allow the heirs to access the messages. This may be what both the sender and the deceased person want.

Re: Privacy and last will

[Entrope]

Do you really think civil-law countries never face the same question? They don't have binding precedent in the way common law countries do, but a convincing argument usually remains convincing.

Re:Privacy and last will

[houghi]

That will not be legal. Even what you write in your will can not be legal. The content on Facebook is seen as an asset, just like a bank account, a house and debt. There is no reason to treat it differently, just because it is "On the Internet". This is not a patent.

And even a will might not be enough. A will is a bit stronger than just saying "I would like this to happen", but it does not overturn the law.

What happens in most (all?) EU countries is the following.

They (often a notary) will determine who gets what depending on the law. They will look at the whole estate, meaning everything.
This includes the assets and the debts and that will be divided as stated in the will AND according to the law.
In case of the kid dying, the assets will go to the parents. This includes all the wealth AND debt and goods the kid has.

As the FP content is seen as an asset, FB can not refuse the access, as that content is now owned by the parent. They can not be refused access to their own asset. That would be like a bank saying you do not get access top the money on a bank account.

You can ask people not to do it, but as they are the rightful owners, it is up to them if they follow up on that request or not.

Re: Privacy and last will

[AmiMoJo]

Privacy rights continue after death in the EU. Otherwise it would affect your behaviour while alive, a chilling effect.

Re:Privacy and last will

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook has duty to protect??? wtf hahahaha, facebook and privacy ....biggest joke of the day

Re: Privacy and last will

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem like a very smart person who knows what he is talking about and is able to distinguish between right and wrong.

I'm sorry, I was being nice, and your whole reply is just bollocks.

Please report to the recycling facility so you can be turned into soylent green and serve humanity in more productive ways.

Re: Privacy and last will

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is on Facebook you'd see both sides of the conversation. That could completely change the context of the replies.

Re:Privacy and last will

[nmo.marques]

Sounds troubling to send a message on behalf of a deceased person. Possible prosecution for identity theft. Dead peoples data should be destroyed.

Re:Privacy and last will

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe a dead man's switch which shreds the account when Facebook gets the deceased notice.

Re: Privacy and last will

[drinkypoo]

That is not a correction. The last thing I want to happen after I die is my shitty family that has never given a shit about me to be in control of my online identity. The idea that they could slap their parting message on my content is horrifying. My father's obituary was nothing but lies (like "loving father") and I'd rather avoid that when I go. Not that I'll care then, but I find the prospect offensive now.

Re: Privacy and last will

[logicnazi]

Yah, no one really cares about minors here it's the application to adults that upsets people.

Ultimately one *can* set things up so it gets destroyed but one might have to jump through crazy hoops like establishing a trust and paying some reputable trust manager to manage the trust

Re: Privacy and last will

[houghi]

SOMEBODY will be the heir. If you do not want it to be your family, you need to contact a lawer (and potentally a notary) right away to see what your options are.

Depending on where you live, it could well be that what you want is not legally possible. Imagine that it is possible where you live, then it will most likely be the state who receives your assets (including debts, assets, FB account and what not).

So you need to act now. You do not even have to inform anybody about it, although that would make things easier.

That said, the obituary has nothing to do with any of it. There is nobody forbidding me to say "Loving slashdoter" when you die.

I love you, man! (Grouphug!)

Re: Privacy and last will

[mr.mctibbs]

Then write a will. What's important here is not that the parents got the rights, but the finding that the rights are transferable. That they fell to the parents in this case was because the child in question was a minor, but any rights so transferable can be made by will to escheat to the state if you don't like your family.

Re: Privacy and last will

[houghi]

Difference within the EC? There are differences in the SAME fucking country, depending where you live in that country. (I have two parents dead within a year, and a sister. We live all over Europe. I know whay too much about this. At this moment, after 1.5 yers, 5 countries are involved.)
It can even be different depending on where the heirs live.

And if it can be destroyed when you die will depend on how it is seen. If it is seen as an asset, you can not demand it. Just like you can not demand to burn down your house when you die, because when you die, it is not your house anymore. It belong to the heirs and the notary (most likely) will decide who that is.

In my parents will there where things that we as kids WANTED to honour, but where unable to do, because it was illegal. Even though it was writen in their will and done via a Notary. All the notary did with the will is took nota of it and put it in a public place to be accessed when they died.

Re: Privacy and last will

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just the privacy of the deceased, but also that of anyone who messaged them. Any private messages received by the deceased will now be readable by the parents - just like letters, but they may not have been aware or desired that outcome.

Re: Privacy and last will

[Entrope]

That's not what chilling effect means at all.

Re: Privacy and last will

[Anonymous Coward]

> The last thing I want to happen after I die is my shitty family that has never given a shit about me to be in control of my online identity.

So write a fucking will!

If you had a paper diary, your shitty family wouldn't automatically inherit that unless you neglected to write a will, the same goes here. Either will your facebook to someone, or direct that the executor delete it.

Re: Privacy and last will

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say then, that you and a penpal had been sending a notebook back and forth, each adding to it each time.

Re: Privacy and last will

[PsychoSlashDot]

SOMEBODY will be the heir.

What will be and what should be are not necessarily the same thing.

I would refer to things like Facebook as "offloaded identity". Data that is stored in storage such as DropBox is one thing, but social networking tools are technological extensions to a person's identity. My point is that social media is personal, and the person shares what they want with who they want while they are alive.

I loathe social media, but I'd defend the right for people who don't to use it without the worry that when they die, people who they didn't share details with will have them.

Re: Privacy and last will

[Anonymous Coward]

First, (not trolling) sorry for your pain.

Say you had manuscripts, notebooks you cared about how they were treated after you're dead. (destroy, distribute, donate, etc) You call that out for your executor to sort.

On line content should be no different.

The question is, if you do NOT call that out, do the TOS win over centuries of western law. In your case, if you're single in fact or legally, should your parents get to decide what to do with your manuscripts. In the past, what'd happen in reality, is whomever had access to your apartment / house, would riffle through your stuff not called out in your will, and keep / toss / donate as they saw fit. No one would know. My slimy uncle did this when he got access to my grandmothers safe deposit box. There were actual bonds and stock certificates which he cashed in.

In the FB case, it's actually reasonable they do not just default to giving the heirs access.

Re: Privacy and last will

[Dragonslicer]

SOMEBODY will be the heir. If you do not want it to be your family, you need to contact a lawer (and potentally a notary) right away to see what your options are.

Depending on where you live, it could well be that what you want is not legally possible. Imagine that it is possible where you live, then it will most likely be the state who receives your assets (including debts, assets, FB account and what not).

It's definitely possible in most, if not all, of the United States (and I would assume other similar countries). You can write a will that leaves all of your assets to a charity of your choice, and your family would get nothing.

Re: Privacy and last will

[guruevi]

Then both the sender and receiver should make it so. Eg. encrypt the communication or specify in a will what to do with the 'stuff'. In most countries, an executor of the will has to follow those guidelines.

Re: Privacy and last will

[knorthern knight]

> What about the people they communicated with? Do they not have privacy rights?
>
> Does the deceased family get to read their private communications?

Actually, the parents had allowed the daughter to have a Facebook account only on the condition that they have the password. So they were listening in, with her knowledge, while the daughter was alive.

But Facebook has this thing called "memorializing", where they lock down the account once they find out the account-holder is dead. As soon as Facebook were informed about her death, the account was locked down, and the parents couldn't get in, even with what had been the valid password.

BTW, this is used by by malicious assholes to make life difficult for people...

* Photoshop a fake obituary notice from a newspaper
* Inform Facebook, file-attaching the fake obituary
* The account is "memorialized", and even the account holder is locked out of their own account.
* It can take weeks or months of email exchanges with semi-literate "Mike in Mumbai" to revert the memorialization, and restore access to the account holder.

Re: Privacy and last will

[thegarbz]

The last thing I want to happen after I die is my shitty family that has never given a shit about me to be in control of my online identity.

I'm willing to bet when you're actually dead you won't have such a strong opinion on the matter.

Re: Privacy and last will

[Anonymous Coward]

Which rests with the recipient. Now the parents are suing to get the book.

Re: Privacy and last will

[guruevi]

They do have the right to shut off your account for any reason and delete everything in it, that however doesn't change the fact that when you die, whatever you 'own' on Facebook gets transferred to your estate. Your successors have the same rights you have, your successors have the same rights to your 'stuff' after you die as if they were you.

Re: Privacy and last will

[guruevi]

Obviously they are not landlords, landlords are also not custodians. Landlords have no duty to keep any of your property when you fail to pay the rent for a period of time (dependent on jurisdiction and contracts). But if you die and as long as your estate pays the 'bill' (whether the bill is $0 or $10,000/month), they are the proper inheritors and owners of whatever it is you have in there.

Facebooks terms of service have nothing to do with it. Yes, they provide a service for a certain fee (again, courts don't care whether it's free or not), and as long as you pay that fee and don't violate the terms or become inactive, the service remains on and available where You = your estate/inheritors after you die.

Re: Privacy and last will

[Anonymous Coward]

You sayin' the child was communicating with Saint Zuck? You must be a bit bad in the head.

Re: Privacy and last will

[Anonymous Coward]

Username checks out.

Re: Privacy and last will

[Anonymous Coward]

Crazy Zuck and his anonymous defenders on teh Interned can believe any fiction they come up with.

Hence the courts, which can bring y'all back to reality.

Re: Privacy and last will

[drinkypoo]

Not that I'll care then, but I find the prospect offensive now.

The last thing I want to happen after I die is my shitty family that has never given a shit about me to be in control of my online identity.

I'm willing to bet when you're actually dead you won't have such a strong opinion on the matter.

There, fixed the quotation for you. It's called chilling effects, look it up.

Re: Privacy and last will

[thegarbz]

Oh LOL. Something that you realise you won't care about, yet get worked up already being classified as a "Chilling Effect" despite the fact that the result would be perfectly inline with every other legal basis that already exists is a bit off the rails, even for you Mr Poo, even for you.

Now please don't devalue the term "chilling effects" with your misstuned and clearly non-functional tin foil hat.

Re: Privacy and last will

[mysidia]

change the fact that when you die, whatever you 'own' on Facebook gets transferred to your estate.

However.... you own "nothing" on Facebook; your Estate is a temporary legal entity for administering deceased's property until it
is probated and the assets are distributed, But it can only manage property you legally own, and no matter what: the people managing your estate
don't have a right to lie or misrepresent to Facebook that you are still alive. Meanwhile, in your Personal Preferences/Options with
Facebook, while still alive you had established a preference setting/choice telling Facebook you want them to Permanently disable your account upon death and not allow anyone access to it.

While you were alive: there was a non-transferrable agreement for service from Facebook to you as a natural person --- this agreement is not a piece of property, or at least not a type of property that can be distributed or transferred to a corporation, trust, or estate, And while you were alive you have a privilege, but not a right to access and use the service while the agreement is active, And upon your death, you designated the agreement to terminate, so the instant Facebook discovers your death: they will exercise their right as service provider to at their discretion permanently disable your account.

Your successors have the same rights you have,

I thought we already established that is you have No actual rights to your Facebook account, so your successors should also have No actual rights?
Facebook can delete your information at any time. Facebook can turn your account off at any time.
Facebook can keep your information and keep your account permanently disabled, for any reason or no reason.
Even if Facebook keeps your information: you don't have a right to make them send it to you or allow you to access it....
none of the ToS allows for that.

Facebook upon learning their death exercises the right held in their agreement to Block access to your account and Terminate the agreement.

At that point... what possible legal basis could there possibly be for any "Estate" to force Facebook to allow any kind of access or turn over any kind of information (Against Facebook's policies and against the Preference settings established by the deceased person when they configured their account to ensure No Access after death) ?

Re: Privacy and last will

[guruevi]

First of all, we didn’t establish anything. You asserted and I hold that your assertion is legally wrong. Facebook’s TOSs have nothing to do with this. They are null and void if they do not conform to all legal standards including those that designate what happens to your stuff after you die.

You own the posts on Facebook since you own the copyright to them, you give Facebook an unlimited right to reproduce them but Facebook at no point “owns” and it is very dubious to think they would want to own (and as a result hold responsibility for) your posts.

When you die, legal agreements don’t just vanish because you or the other party designated them to, whether they are in writing or orally or by practice established. Both assets, debts and property continue to exist with your estate until they are distributed to your heirs. The issue of death is just another life event like you getting married or being born, it has the same legal meaning as being incapacitated due to medical reasons, those you designated take care of you and your stuff until you get better which in this case you never do. Otherwise everyone going into a coma would have their Facebook cancelled in your world.

Re: Privacy and last will

[mysidia]

You own the posts on Facebook since you own the copyright to them

False. The only copy you "OWN" is what is on your computer (If you kept a copy) --- the post itself, that is the records stored on Facebook's servers are Facebook's property. Ownership of the copyright to a work does not provide ownership of a copy that is in anybody else's possession -- once you hand a copy to someone else, the only right you retain are the rights listed in the copyright If I allow you to come to my house and type something on my typewriter that turns out to be a valuable manuscript;
you may own the copyright because you created it, but you don't gain ownership of my typewriter, or the page it is printed on, or the ink that the text is formed from: without an explicit agreement to the contrary, I'm under no obligation to allow you access to come back and re-inspect it to see what you had written, and I can save it forever out of your reach, or shred it if I want --- my choice.

This is similar to the situation with Facebook, where the ToS provides by sending something to their servers -- posting something to Facebook you give Facebook itself an Unlimited Royalty Free License to your work, and you agree Facebook can cut off your access at any time they wish for any reason, or for no reason, So you have no right to inspect those database records --- only a temporary privilege while Facebook voluntarily decides to permit you to.

there is no "Right to Access" or "Right to Disseminate" that a copyright owner holds --- If you go to a bookstore and see a legitimate copy of a book you wrote inside a glass case; without permission from the venue, you have no right to get access to the book and look at its pages.

When you die, legal agreements don’t just vanish because you or the other party designated them to, whether they are in writing or orally or by practice established.

Facebook never provided you a legal agreement to allow you to own or assure you the right to review or see again posts sent by you or sent towards you on their servers --- No right to the paper, no right to the ink.

Facebook's account for you terminates under any number of conditions at your will, or at their will.
So they can terminate the account with you at their own will because of something You requested, should certain circumstances arise, and that would be an exercise of their rights to close your account, Not your rights to close your account (Even though the original request came from you).

Furthermore, Facebook's legal agreement is careful to not provide you any rights... it's solely to protect Facebook.

Otherwise everyone going into a coma would have their Facebook cancelled in your world.

What happens when someone goes into a coma: is their Facebook account becomes inactive, because the terms of use provides that only the named person can use that identity to access Facebook services, and if Facebook learns that credentials have been shared, then Facebook can block the account as per Terms of Use.

Re: Privacy and last will

[jgdnavy]

I've known of people who made a copy of their side of the correspondence so they could keep track of the context themselves. This would be no different. And from a privacy standpoint, arguably the family has more right to the deceased's side of the correspondence than to the letters received by the deceased.

Compensation from whom?

[Wrath0fb0b]

whether the driver of the train should be entitled to compensation

From whom? The family of the dead girl?

I understand it's tragic to be the guy driving the train, whether it's an accident or a suicide, but who exactly has wronged the driver in this case?

Re:Compensation from whom?

[grumbel]

The family of the dead girl?

Yes, similar case from a few years ago.

Re:Compensation from whom?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be surprised of the train operator had some psychological issues after hitting a girl with his train. Especially seeing the girl and not being able to do a damn thing about it. If your going to commit suicide, try not to drag unrelated third parties into it, like train operators or police officers.

Re:Compensation from whom?

[Opportunist]

Here's a more graphic example to illustrate the problem: Should the victims of a suicide bomber be reimbursed from the assets said bomber had?

Re:Compensation from whom?

[Entrope]

That's a terrible analogy. A suicide bomber intentionally and directly harms those victims. A person who committed suicide does not harm another intentionally or directly.

Re:Compensation from whom?

[N1AK]

His analogy was no further out than your carte blanche statement. Someone who throws themselves in front of a train almost certainly isn't doing it in order to harm someone, but has all the information required to know that what they are doing could well be traumatic for the driver and I would consider that as doing harm.

Is it reasonable to expect someone ready to kill themselves to properly evaluate the impact of their actions on others, and is it reasonable to use their assets as compensation for that harm are fair questions to ask.

Re: Compensation from whom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Larry Silverstein made 100 million off of Building 7's obvious demolition so yes, more money for everyone. ae911truth.org

Re:Compensation from whom?

[Going_Digital]

Seems reasonable that if the they committed suicide and therefore intentionally subjected the driver to the stress of being an unwilling participant in their death. The driver should have the option of being compensated from the assets of the deceased due to their inconsiderate act. It is one thing to kill yourself it is quite another to involuntarily involve another person, that will have a significant impact on them.

Re:Compensation from whom?

[Anonymous Coward]

I need compensation for having read your post.
It induced vommiting and almost gave me a brain hemmorage.
You should be ashamed for subjecting me to such unjust and undue punishment.

May Allah have mercy on you and your family.

Re:Compensation from whom?

[drinkypoo]

I understand it's tragic to be the guy driving the train, whether it's an accident or a suicide, but who exactly has wronged the driver in this case?

The person who made them an unwilling party to their suicide. I'm a firm believer in the right to end one's own existence, but not by forcing others to be involved in their death. That's abusive to others.

Re:Compensation from whom?

[SuiteSisterMary]

A person who committed suicide does not harm another intentionally or directly.

A person who commits suicide by throwing themselves in front of a vehicle being piloted by somebody else most certainly has intentionally harmed said driver.

Re:Compensation from whom?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Is it reasonable to expect someone ready to kill themselves to properly evaluate the impact of their actions on others, and is it reasonable to use their assets as compensation for that harm are fair questions to ask.

It may not even have anything to do with using 'their' assets. If you're, say, a city bus driver, and you plow into a pedestrian who is, in a legal manner, crossing the road, you're a criminal who deserves no compensation. If you're a city bus driver who is harmed on the job through no fault of their own, you're entitled to compensation.

Re:Compensation from whom?

[CanHasDIY]

Seems reasonable that if the they committed suicide and therefore intentionally subjected the driver to the stress of being an unwilling participant in their death.

No, the intent was to commit suicide. The driver was just an innocent bystander, but your wording here makes it sound like they were a target.

Re:Compensation from whom?

[houghi]

These are two completely different things.
One is the inheritance. The other is compensation for an inconsiderate act.

You could say that you grand the person the compensation. That would mean that the person bedomes a debtor, just like all other debtors.

At the moment of death, the assets will belong to the heirs. They had nothing to do with it, so nothing to ask for there. And as the stress happened after the person is dead, nothing to get from that either.

And as we are talking inheritance, putting such a thing in law would open the posibilaty to take away inheritance money from those who you can not take it from in a legal way (e.g. the kids).
So no, not that good of an idea.

Re: Compensation from whom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the police.

But train drivers are cool.

Re:Compensation from whom?

[Going_Digital]

Not so, if someone committed fraud or murder before their death then their assets would be seised in order to pay compensation. In this case if it can be proved that the person made a deliberate decision to kill themselves on rail tracks and therefore force an innocent driver to be party to their death then they committed a crime against that person. If this was a premeditated act then the driver can be awarded compensation just as a fraud victim might. Any family due to inherit would only be entitled to what remained after all debts are settled, including court issued settlements.

Re:Compensation from whom?

[DRJlaw]

The driver was just an innocent bystander, but your wording here makes it sound like they were a target.

They were. Google "intent follows the bullet," i.e. transferred intent. The suicide intentionally threw themself in front of the train. The train was a target. If there's one thing that you either know or should know, it's that trains have drivers. Accordingly, the driver was a target.

Whether the suicide thought about the consequences to the driver is not relevant. You don't need to intend the damage, you merely need to intend the wrongful act.

Re:Compensation from whom?

[lgw]

Someone who throws themselves in front of a train almost certainly isn't doing it in order to harm someone

They intend to harm at least one person, or what's the point?

Shoddy reporting by Quartz

[Anonymous Coward]

The parents who sued Facebook up to Germany's highest court had their deceased daughter's login data, so she probably didn't mind them looking at her account. German inheritance law, and I'm sure that of other countries as well, states that everything a deceased person owned should be transferred to the legal heirs, including letters or diaries. The highest German court ruled that electronic correspondence in any shape or form is to be treated the same way as e.g. letters, according to German law, and they couldn't care less about whether Facebook agreed. If they do business in Germany, they are under German jurisdiction - especially where minors are concerned - no matter if they like it, or if their fine print says otherwise.

Re: Shoddy reporting by Quartz

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that their business is selling ads. They don't do business with the stupid who tell them their whole life using their service to post picture and exchange messages between members. So technically, they can do whatever they want with the data, and they don't want to share it "free" with anyone, including the family...

Re: Shoddy reporting by Quartz

[Anonymous Coward]

So technically, they can do whatever they want with the data

No, Zuck, that's not how reality works.

Two-faced book

[Anonymous Coward]

"At the same time, Facebook accounts are used for a personal exchange between individuals which we have a duty to protect." -- They didn't say this when they were letting Cambridge Analytica and hundreds of other companies trawl our accounts for personal exchanges.

Common sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Good to see some common sense in European court.

Your data is yours, even if after you put them on Facebook, or FB scraped it from somewhere else. Yeah, FB wanted to claim otherwise, but it seemed European judges aren't as easily bought as American ones.

What happens to your property after you died? It is common sense for it go to your closest relatives, such as your parents if you are not married and have no kids.

Just be ready

[stud9920]

It's a fricking social network account. If it may be important (hint: it's not that important) for a third party to have access to the fricking account, just leave the password somewhere where it can be retrieved.
It's not like Facebook is notified instantly of your death. Oh wait, they probably know it moments after it happened, but because of false positives they can't shut it down anyway. Heck, I just checked for someone who died 10 months ago, and he's still alive on Facebook

Beyond the grave...

[cre1mer]

Does this mean that my late father will stop trying to friend me on Facebook?

And so are paper letters and email

[aepervius]

"We empathize with the family. At the same time, Facebook accounts are used for a personal exchange between individuals which we have a duty to protect. "

A diary, a paper letters, and an email account would all fall under the germany law as "Erbe". You have no right to privacy once you are dead, and the still live individual sending you the email has no right to the message once sent. just because it is facebook does not mean it suddenly get more right to hide/refuse to give to the living memeber access. Don't like it facebook ? Don't allow german account, don't do financial transaction in germany (so no german advertiser). That can only german privacy a notch, and potentially make people think of meeting people as alternative. Win-win.

Say what??

[Errol backfiring]

Facebook accounts are used for a personal exchange between individuals which we have a duty to protect.

If anyone abuses the "personal exchanges, it is FacePalm itself. Can they really say this out loud without laughing?

So... Facebook seems to treat your data...

[QuietLagoon]

... like property when they sell it to third parties, but did not treat you data like property for inheritance purposes. That just makes Facebook's business model look all the more egregious.

Re:2-faced Germans

[Anonymous Coward]

In which case .... do you *really* want the Germans to spend 4% of their GDP on the Bundeswehr? Bullying the Germans into arming themselves seems like a recipe for disaster. Just saying.

Still figuring it out

[sjbe]

There are literally centuries of case law on how to handle privacy and copy rights in personal letters and similar communications. Your question has been answered many, many times.

Yeah the problem is that all this online stuff adds a bunch of new wrinkles to the problem that have not yet been fully litigated and the laws surrounding it are still being worked out. In many cases the old rules should work just fine but not in every case. There are important differences and as a society we need to think through which of these difference matter. Facebook is at the forefront of this problem. You can say the contents of a Facebook account are functionally similar to a diary but are they really? The answer to that isn't actually obvious and we need to think it through. Personal letters on paper have certain immutable characteristics that sometimes don't apply to electronic communications and vice-versa. You can't simply assume that old regulations, case-law, and statutes will seamlessly apply without alteration.

Re:Still figuring it out

[guruevi]

I don't necessarily agree, the only thing that has changed is the medium. It's like going from papyrus and quills to paper and pens to typewriters to computers, doesn't make the 'thing you're doing' (communication) any different.

but if you give NO instruction

[aepervius]

If you give NO instruction to destroy documents, then the "landlord" here facebook, has no right to state he won't give the docs due to privacy of the deceased. Which is exactly why german judge told them "nope, it is part of the inheritance(Erbe) jsut like any other document".

Re:but if you give NO instruction

[Local ID10T]

If you give NO instruction to destroy documents, then the "landlord" here facebook, has no right to state he won't give the docs due to privacy of the deceased. Which is exactly why german judge told them "nope, it is part of the inheritance(Erbe) jsut like any other document".

Actually, I would argue the opposite:

Barring specific instructions left by the deceased, Facebook should by default maintain the privacy of the deceased, until ordered to do otherwise by the court.

To put it another way:

Facebook is not the landlord, Facebook is the guardian of the data -they have a responsibility to maintain confidentiality until given a legal order to violate that confidentiality.

Re:but if you give NO instruction

[guruevi]

I don't think Facebook wants to become the guardian of anyone's data, that my friend is an entirely different legal construction and they would have to take on that role before the person dies.

The parents are the guardian of the child while its alive or when its dead, your successors become in a sense the guardians of your 'stuff' (whether that is documents, electronic, bank accounts, property) when you die.

Possession does not equal consent

[sjbe]

The parents who sued Facebook up to Germany's highest court had their deceased daughter's login data, so she probably didn't mind them looking at her account.

Mere possession of a login does not equal consent by the owner of the login for others to use it. Doesn't matter if the people are parents or not though if she was a minor the rules might be different to account for that circumstance. In any case for consent to be clear there would have to be other documentation proving consent such as a will or other written correspondence.

German inheritance law, and I'm sure that of other countries as well, states that everything a deceased person owned should be transferred to the legal heirs, including letters or diaries.

The question is (obviously) how to legally treat Facebook content created by an individual. It's reasonable to treat it in a manner similar to a diary or other letters but the legal framework around this is still being worked out. There are a lot of nuanced details that have to be thought through by lawmakers and courts before we'll have a final answer.

not quite

[Anonymous Coward]

The executor has the responsibility to dole those rights out. Your inheritors don't automatically get them. The executor can, as established centuries ago, dispose of the deceased personal letters, and mine certainly has been instructed to pass to my kids my paper letters kept, and since I horde data, pass the emails that have been archived (not in the idiot gmail sense) and trash the rest.

Re:not quite

[guruevi]

Yes, in this case, the executors are the parents. In most cases (in most Western law), unless there is a will, the inheritors become the executors of the estate.

So they'll share your data with

[mandark1967]

Cambridge Analytica and various others but a family had to take them to court to get access to data for their daughter...

Glad they have their priorities straight.

Re:So they'll share your data with

[lgw]

They didn't "share" the data with Cambridge Analytica, they sold the data. Key difference. FB can't be seen giving data away, or it would undercut their business.

Re:2-faced Germans

[drinkypoo]

That was IBM.
different US company

I don't recall IBM actually sending out blue-suited agents to steal from Jews. They did produce and maintain the concentration camp management machines. Well, IBM Germany did that, but the service contract was paid directly to IBM HQ in Armonk, NY, so IBM as a [w]hole can share the blame for that. But that's not quite the same thing; still loathsome, but not identical.

So your estate

[AHuxley]

may or may get something digital in Germany.
Online internet banking go the same way?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Indeed

[nospam007]

“ At the same time, Facebook accounts are used for a personal exchange between individuals which we have a duty to protect. ”

Indeed. We might share them with 1500 advertisers and political groups and Russia but we protect them from the parents of the dead.

Why FB doesn't like the ruling

[bagofbeans]

It establishes that FB is not the sole owner of the content, or more specifically that others have rights to accessing it. This ruling will make it more difficult for FB to justify blocking account holder's access to their account for business reasons in future.

Trust Of Friends

[logicnazi]

The right way to handle this is to have some easy way to transfer (WHILE ALIVE) ownership of your digital data on shared platforms like facebook to a trust of your friends/relatives you are willing to let via some joint process determine who and when people can access your data should you be dead, incompetent or unavailable.

This solves a bunch of problems not even raised in the original situation.

Suppose I'm exposed to some kind of neural toxin that renders me incompetent but I was working on my magnum opus which I was preparing through a series of facebook/reddit interviews/messages. The people I want choosing who should see what will often not be the people I want in charge of my finances or even my medical decisions.

Suppose you suddenly go missing but there is no evidence of foul play so the police issue no warrants. If I've specified friends and family to be a trustee they are the ones I want making the call about whether it's like me and if I'd want it kept secret.

Technically this wouldn't be hard and there are already provisions for trusts in law. I doubt it would take more than a technical implementation and some kind of legal document you click through assigning ownership to the trust. I mean ideally it would be something like ownership in common with survivorship but not sure if that applies to a non-person.

Security keys in the will

[reanjr]

If I want someone to get into my online accounts when I die, I will leave them the password or other access in my will. I don't need Facebook to share that shit unilaterally.

Re:Security keys in the will

[turp182]

Make sure to file it privately if you include those sort of details. When I lived in Arizona I found public records of wills and prenuptials that contained such things as Social Security numbers and even bank account information.

It was interestingly scary. I went so far as to send an anonymous letter to one person because the info available was basically an identity theft guide.

Arizona also was exposing residential addresses (I'm fine with that) AND alternate addresses which were usually out of state or blank. Where they existed, it identified the snowbirds who usually only live in Arizona in that house during winter. Basically just a robber's guide for houses to target.

This was a decade ago, I'm not sure of the current situation as I no longer live there.

Re: Security keys in the will

[reanjr]

I don't have anything I'm concerned about, but my thinking has always been to keep that sort of thing in a safety deposit box, then simply put the box in the will.

The girl was 15.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's shocking that Facebook actually denied this request of parents requesting access to a deceased minors Facebook account.

If she was 35 it might be a different story, but in most of the world 15 year olds don't have the expectation of privacy from their parents in such an extraordinary case of a potential suicide.

Also, Facebook should be the LAST one to talk about privacy. Sure, we'll sell off all your data to the highest bidder, but you want to determine what happened to your 15 year old daughter after she might have committed suicide? That's Private!

Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook accounts are used for a personal exchange between individuals which we have a duty to protect.

Funny coming from Facebook!

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Zuck wouldn't know duty if it bit him in the ass!

TOS makes all FB entries property of FB...

[Anonymous Coward]

...not the 'customer'. So how can parent inherit anything that the dead-child doesn't actually own, only 'operates'; when the real owner by agreement to FB TOS is FB? That is one reason I don't post/upload anything to FB...unreasonable TOS (unless they have changed in last couple years).

BeauHD showing his youth and inexperience again

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again, the millennial BeauHD sees the word "digital" in a headline and thinks the Digital Equipment Corporation logo is the right icon to use for the posting. Hey BeauHD, go look up DEC on Wikipedia and give yourself a little history lesson.

Kafka

[Anonymous Coward]

All of Kafka's writing was to be burned by his executor. His executor violated the final wishes of Kafka, and now we have to read things like "Metamorphosis", and get our mind blown when we realize it was the sister that went through the metamorphosis.

on-line purchases are not special

[Anonymous Coward]

Online purchases are generally no different than brick'n'mortar purchases. If you buy a bag of cookies from Amazon who mails it to you, vs drive to Whole Foods and carry it home yourself, your ownership of the cookies (or lack thereof, if you think that's possible) is identical.

I suspect from your mention of iTunes, you might have really meant to bring up not online, but intangible purchases, such as situations where you buy a file.

Re:So... Facebook seems to treat your data...

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook treats your data as *their* data. Nothing new, glad you're catching on.

Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Protect it from parents, but not Russians and Chinese. Advertisers, got it.
Germany got it exactly right.

It is property and not Facebooks.

Re: 2-faced Germans

[drinkypoo]

Apple wasn't around yet. They would have provided the Waffen SS with phones that had uncrackable security. All IBM sold was punched card equipment.

Yeah, with punch cards designed specifically for concentration camps.

Is there a German and/or Neo-Nazi running around downmodding anything related to the holocaust, or what? This whole thread has been buried hardcore as offtopic, but it really couldn't get any more relevant.

Tough situations for FB?

[ebvwfbw]

What's tough about this? It's facebook. Does anyone out there expect whatever they put into facebook to be kept like a state secret or something?
Whatever I put out there I expect to be public. I'm never disappointed.

I had a little window pop up recently that appeared to be a private message window to that other person. Nope, it was just another window to another post.

Seems someone's head at FB is real big.

Re:2-faced Germans

[eric_harris_76]

And they've been doing so well lately. Every day sets a new record: most days a united Germany hasn't invaded France.

Let's not do anything that will break that streak.

Now, if I only knew how to do that ...