Print 18 comment(s) - last by cmdrdredd.. on Sep 30 at 3:19 AM

Law professor argues that the data could later be used in exploitative fashion, such as to create holograms of stars

"Virtually no law regulates what happens to a person's online existence after his or her death," warns University of Illinois College of Law Professor Jason Mazzone.

I. Facebook: Bring Out Your Dead (Well, Their Data, at Least)

"This is true even though individuals have privacy and copyright interests in materials they post to social networking sites.  The current situation is that there’s very little law involved.  Social networking sites determine on their own what, if anything, to do with a deceased user's account and the materials the user posted to the site. And their policies are not likely to reflect the collective interests that exist with respect to copyright law. It’s a little bit like letting the bank decide what to do with your money after you die."

So what is all this noise?

Well Professor Mazzone is referring to the fact that web giants like Facebook often archive your data post-mortem.  Facebook opts for a tasteful solution publicly, closing the user's page and offering a memorial wall for friends to post memories.

Facebook memorial
Facebook seemingly offers a tasteful memorial, but it secretly saves the hidden digital "remains" of the dead, possibly for future profits.

But as the professor points out, behind the scenes Facebook is believed to be squirreling away the person's pictures, posts, and other content -- all things that could be of value if the site decided to act exploitively in the future.  And people might not even realize Facebook had breached the privacy of the deceased, as it could in theory discretely sell the information to third parties.

Jason Mazzone
Prof. Jason Mazzone, Univ. of Illinois Law School [Image Source: U of I College of Law]

He warns, "I suspect that Facebook thinks that there's going to be some future value to having all of that content locked away, either because it will have historical significance, or because Facebook thinks there will be something they are going to do with that content down the road. There are already pretty crude avatars being built based on their email exchanges and Facebook posts, so it’s conceivable that there could be things like holograms that are developed 100 years from now thanks to the mining of all of this data. But Facebook doesn’t know that for sure, and that’s why they see the value in holding on to all of this."

II. HIPAA Equivalent Needed for Digital Remains?

Professor Mazzone sees that as a major legal and privacy issue affecting social networking and blogging sites.  And he feels that only the federal government has the power to enforce clear guidelines regarding dead peoples' "digital afterlife" on sites that span and do busines across multiple U.S. states.

"[I]t would be very difficult for any particular state to set up a legal regime that would adequately regulate Facebook, which not only operates all across the U.S. but also all over the world. Some states have enacted legislation in an effort to protect their own citizens, but it’s not at all clear how it would affect Facebook as a whole", he comments, "In order for this type of law to be effective, we have to turn to the federal government."

Medical records
Prof. Mazzone wants a HIPPA-like law to protect peoples' post-mortem digital data.
[Image Source: Pennock Health]

He points to Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Pub.L. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936) -- commonly referred to as "HIPAA law(s)" -- as a comparable mandate.  HIPAA laws make it illegal for doctors from sharing patient information without explicit permission and impose restrictions on medical record-keeping to protect privacy.

Prof. Mazzone, who has written books on the topic, has published a legal research article/editorial called "Facebook’s Afterlife" in the North Carolina Law Review sharing his thoughts on the matter.

Sources: University of Illinois [press release], SSRN [abstract]

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By 91TTZ on 9/28/2012 10:53:13 AM , Rating: 2
When you accept the terms....and then add content to that system....All content then falls under the agreed TOA. People need to accept the actions they take and understand the consequences of that decision. Time to grow up. Only a fool would think anything they post to the WWW would just disappear when they pass on. Wake Up and face the situation with clear lenses. It seems people more and more these days CHOOSE to be ignorant and thus feel they are not accountable for thier own decisions in life.

In my opinion the problem is that more and more companies are making you sign your rights away in order to use their products... rights that were originally granted to citizens precisely to protect them against this sort of thing. It's becoming a lawyer's dream and a citizen's nightmare.

In the good old days (as in just a few years ago), you could buy a product without having some crazy EULA attached to it. Now it seems that everything has some associated contract. These contracts don't just spell out common-sense things such as "act civil, obey the rules, use common sense"; they increasingly contain language stating that you agree to give up certain rights that you currently have, such as "even if you get hurt due to the Company's negligence, you agree not to sue the Company'

How long will it be before food has some similar contract?"
"By eating GloboChem's inORGANIC Corn Puffs, I agree not to take legal action against GloboChem in the event that sickness or death results from defects in the food product"

When only one or two companies has these EULAs then I agree that someone is an idiot if they sign their rights away instead of going with better options. But when all companies jump on this bandwagon you're not left with any options.

By simsony on 9/29/2012 7:33:02 PM , Rating: 2
The terms in a contract are not necesarily enforceable just because it has been signed.

Taking an extreme example, you cannot sign a contract with someone where they agree to be murdered by you. Just because a contract exists and has been signed, it does not mean that the actions it allows are legal.

This is the same principle that would apply, where in giving up rights may not be necessarily legal. Globalchem cannot sell food that can kill you, when they are aware of the same.

By cmdrdredd on 9/30/2012 3:19:34 AM , Rating: 1
In my opinion the problem is that more and more companies are making you sign your rights away in order to use their products... rights that were originally granted to citizens precisely to protect them against this sort of thing. It's becoming a lawyer's dream and a citizen's nightmare.

Then don't use the fucking product or service. It's your choice. Did you forget about choice? Yeah that's right you don't ever have to use facebook. It's completely optional and I know many who don't touch it.

"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki