Protecting Post-Mortem Privacy: Reconsidering the Privacy Interests of the Deceased in a Digital World

L. Edwards, Edina Harbinja
{"title":"Protecting Post-Mortem Privacy: Reconsidering the Privacy Interests of the Deceased in a Digital World","authors":"L. Edwards, Edina Harbinja","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2267388","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Post-mortem privacy is not a recognised term of art or institutional category in general succession law or even privacy literature. It may be termed the right of a person to preserve and control what becomes of his or her reputation, dignity, integrity, secrets or memory after their death. While of established concern in disciplines such as psychology, counselling and anthropology, this notion has till now has received relatively little attention in law, especially common law. We argue that the new circumstances of the digital world, and in particular the emergence of a new and voluminous array of “digital assets” created, hosted and shared on web 2.0 intermediary platforms, and often revealing highly personal or intimate personal data, require a revisiting of this stance. An analysis of comparative common and civilian law institutions, focusing on personality rights, defamation, moral rights and freedom of testation, confirms that there is little support for post-mortem privacy in common law, and while personality rights in general have greater traction in civilian law, including their survival after death, the primary role taken by contract regulation may still mean that users of US-based intermediary platforms, wherever they are based, are deprived of post mortem privacy rights. Having establshed a crucial gap in online legal privacy protection, we suggest future protection may need to come from legislation, contract or “code” solutions, of which the first emergent into the market is Google Inactive Account Manager.","PeriodicalId":167594,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Privacy Law & Policy (Topic)","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"34","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IRPN: Innovation & Privacy Law & Policy (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2267388","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 34

Abstract

Post-mortem privacy is not a recognised term of art or institutional category in general succession law or even privacy literature. It may be termed the right of a person to preserve and control what becomes of his or her reputation, dignity, integrity, secrets or memory after their death. While of established concern in disciplines such as psychology, counselling and anthropology, this notion has till now has received relatively little attention in law, especially common law. We argue that the new circumstances of the digital world, and in particular the emergence of a new and voluminous array of “digital assets” created, hosted and shared on web 2.0 intermediary platforms, and often revealing highly personal or intimate personal data, require a revisiting of this stance. An analysis of comparative common and civilian law institutions, focusing on personality rights, defamation, moral rights and freedom of testation, confirms that there is little support for post-mortem privacy in common law, and while personality rights in general have greater traction in civilian law, including their survival after death, the primary role taken by contract regulation may still mean that users of US-based intermediary platforms, wherever they are based, are deprived of post mortem privacy rights. Having establshed a crucial gap in online legal privacy protection, we suggest future protection may need to come from legislation, contract or “code” solutions, of which the first emergent into the market is Google Inactive Account Manager.
保护死后隐私:重新考虑数字世界中死者的隐私利益
在一般的继承法甚至隐私文献中,死后隐私并不是一个公认的艺术术语或制度范畴。它可称为一个人在死后保持和控制其名誉、尊严、正直、秘密或记忆的权利。虽然这一概念在心理学、咨询和人类学等学科中得到了广泛关注,但迄今为止,这一概念在法律界,特别是在普通法中受到的关注相对较少。我们认为,数字世界的新环境,特别是在web 2.0中介平台上创建、托管和共享的大量新“数字资产”的出现,往往会泄露高度个人或亲密的个人数据,需要重新审视这一立场。对侧重人格权、诽谤权、精神权利和作证自由的普通法和民法制度的比较分析证实,在普通法中几乎没有对死后隐私的支持,虽然人格权一般在民法中有更大的牵引力,包括其在死后的存续权,但合同条例所起的主要作用可能仍然意味着,美国中介平台的用户,无论他们位于何处,被剥夺了死后的隐私权。在建立了在线法律隐私保护的关键差距之后,我们建议未来的保护可能需要来自立法,合同或“代码”解决方案,其中第一个出现在市场上的是谷歌Inactive Account Manager。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信