Prof. Calls Out Facebook, et al. For Hoarding Dead Peoples' Digital Remains
September 27, 2012 6:20 PM
comment(s) - last by
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
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 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.
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."
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 "
" in the North Carolina Law Review sharing his thoughts on the matter.
University of Illinois [press release]
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
RE: This is where reading the Terms of Agreement become important...
9/29/2012 7:33:02 PM
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.
"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)
Twitter Senior VP: "Diversity is Important, But We Can’t Lower the Bar"
November 9, 2015, 9:59 AM
CNN Resorts to Internet Censorship to Promote Clinton Over Senator Sanders
October 15, 2015, 2:47 PM
Breaking Bad: How to Crash Google's Chrome Browser With Just 8 Characters
September 23, 2015, 11:08 AM
Quick Note: Amazon UK Offers £10 Back on Any Order £50 or Over
August 3, 2015, 12:05 PM
Editorial: Reddit Allows Itself to be Hijacked as a Hate Platform For Racist Bigots
July 21, 2015, 6:32 PM
Mozilla and Facebook to Adobe: It's Time to Kill Flash
July 20, 2015, 6:30 PM
Latest Blog Posts
Sceptre Airs 27", 120 Hz. 1080p Monitor/HDTV w/ 5 ms Response Time for $220
Dec 3, 2014, 10:32 PM
Costco Gives Employees Thanksgiving Off; Wal-Mart Leads "Black Thursday" Charge
Oct 29, 2014, 9:57 PM
"Bear Selfies" Fad Could Turn Deadly, Warn Nevada Wildlife Officials
Oct 28, 2014, 12:00 PM
The Surface Mini That Was Never Released Gets "Hands On" Treatment
Sep 26, 2014, 8:22 AM
ISIS Imposes Ban on Teaching Evolution in Iraq
Sep 17, 2014, 5:22 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information