In her article, “Post-mortem privacy 2.0: theory, law, and technology,” Edina Harbinja unfurls the complexities of post-mortem privacy, explaining its relevance to human autonomy and testamentary freedom, and commenting on the recent moves companies have made to respect privacy after death. Harbinja defines post-mortem privacy as “the right of a person to preserve and control what becomes of his or her reputation, dignity, integrity, secrets or memory after death.”
Harbinja cites theorists such as Kant and Nissenbaum to explain the relationship between privacy and a sense of autonomy. Autonomy is established to be generally agreed upon by western philosophers and theorists as a crucial piece to the puzzles that are social and ethical theories, and Harbinja explains that privacy defines the confines of this autonomy. Although many disagree with the concept of total privacy and autonomy, Harbinja wholeheartedly believes in their significance to society.
Like with privacy and autonomy, Harbinja uses the works of theorists and philosophers on testamentary freedom to rationalize her argument that privacy should be respected post-mortem.
Her views on post-mortem privacy are met by arguments that no real harm befalls the deceased and that legal life expires on death. Nonetheless, many users have professed their interest in knowing what happens to their online information upon their death, and despite legal life expiring on death, wills are an obvious example that exceptions have been made.
Finally, Harbinja explains how Google and Facebook are, in response to an act put forward by the US’s Committee on Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets, attempting to improve post-mortem privacy. Google created its “Inactive Account Manager,” and Facebook their “Legacy Contacts” feature, which allows users to designate where their data is transferred and who gains control of their account. Despite some legal drawbacks, Harbinja sees them as a welcome sight.
In their summary, GU states that protecting information after death is futile because once it has been uploaded to the internet it stays forever. While I agree that what is on the internet remains there forever, I do not believe protecting information is futile. Companies can create new features to limit the reemergence of unwanted content.
____________________________________________________________________
Edina Harbinja (2017) Post-mortem privacy 2.0: theory, law, and technology, International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 31:1, 26-42, DOI: 10.1080/13600869.2017.1275116
