数字遗产:财产还是隐私?

IF 1.6 Q1 LAW
Michael Birnhack, Tal Morse
{"title":"数字遗产:财产还是隐私?","authors":"Michael Birnhack, Tal Morse","doi":"10.1093/ijlit/eaac019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How should the law treat digital remains, namely, digital personal information of deceased people? Two rival conceptions compete over the best framing: property and privacy. Under property framing, digital remains are just another form of assets, subject to succession law; under privacy framing, digital remains are personal data, and upon death, are not part of the estate. However, whether privacy rights survive death is contested. This article distinguishes between four legal categories of digital remains (intangible items, information about property, intellectual property and personal data), unpacks the two rival framings, and argues that the property framework captures the first three categories of digital remains, but not the last. The article examines the argument for posthumous privacy and concludes that at most, the law should protect reasonable expectations of the living regarding their post-mortem condition, subject to balancing them with competing interests and rights of the living.","PeriodicalId":44278,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law and Information Technology","volume":"285 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Digital remains: property or privacy?\",\"authors\":\"Michael Birnhack, Tal Morse\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ijlit/eaac019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"How should the law treat digital remains, namely, digital personal information of deceased people? Two rival conceptions compete over the best framing: property and privacy. Under property framing, digital remains are just another form of assets, subject to succession law; under privacy framing, digital remains are personal data, and upon death, are not part of the estate. However, whether privacy rights survive death is contested. This article distinguishes between four legal categories of digital remains (intangible items, information about property, intellectual property and personal data), unpacks the two rival framings, and argues that the property framework captures the first three categories of digital remains, but not the last. The article examines the argument for posthumous privacy and concludes that at most, the law should protect reasonable expectations of the living regarding their post-mortem condition, subject to balancing them with competing interests and rights of the living.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44278,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Law and Information Technology\",\"volume\":\"285 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Law and Information Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaac019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law and Information Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaac019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

法律应该如何对待数字遗骸,即死者的数字个人信息?两个对立的概念争夺最佳框架:财产和隐私。在财产框架下,数字遗骸只是另一种形式的资产,受继承法的约束;在隐私框架下,数字遗骸属于个人数据,死亡后不属于遗产。然而,隐私权是否在死亡后仍然存在争议。本文区分了数字遗存的四种法律类别(无形物品、财产信息、知识产权和个人数据),分析了两种对立的框架,并认为财产框架涵盖了前三类数字遗存,而不是最后一类。这篇文章考察了关于死后隐私的争论,并得出结论,法律最多应该保护死者对其死后状况的合理期望,并在平衡他们与死者的相互竞争的利益和权利之间取得平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Digital remains: property or privacy?
How should the law treat digital remains, namely, digital personal information of deceased people? Two rival conceptions compete over the best framing: property and privacy. Under property framing, digital remains are just another form of assets, subject to succession law; under privacy framing, digital remains are personal data, and upon death, are not part of the estate. However, whether privacy rights survive death is contested. This article distinguishes between four legal categories of digital remains (intangible items, information about property, intellectual property and personal data), unpacks the two rival framings, and argues that the property framework captures the first three categories of digital remains, but not the last. The article examines the argument for posthumous privacy and concludes that at most, the law should protect reasonable expectations of the living regarding their post-mortem condition, subject to balancing them with competing interests and rights of the living.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Law and Information Technology provides cutting-edge and comprehensive analysis of Information Technology, Communications and Cyberspace law as well as the issues arising from applying Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) to legal practice. International in scope, this journal has become essential for legal and computing professionals and legal scholars of the law related to IT.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信