You Can Inherit Facebook Content Like a Letter or Diary, German Court Rules (qz.com) 119
A German court ruled Thursday that Facebook content can be passed onto heirs like letters, books, or diaries. The ruling comes after the parents of a teenager who died in 2012 after being hit by a train argued Facebook should allow them to access her account, including her private messages, to determine whether she committed suicide. "This would also help determine whether the driver of the train should be entitled to compensation," notes Quartz. From the report: Currently, Facebook's policy is to "memorialize" an account when the site is informed of someone's death. If a user has a "legacy contact" (here are instructions on how to set one up), Facebook grants them limited access to the user's account, allowing them change the user's profile picture, accept friend requests, or pin posts to the top of the user's profile. They can also ask the platform to delete the account. Recently, Facebook told Quartz, the company revised its policy to allow parents or guardians of minors to become legacy contacts after their child has died. In rare cases, the company says, authorized people, like family members, can request information from a deceased person's account, if they have a court order. But there's no guarantee they will get what they need.
A Facebook spokesperson said in a statement the company disagreed with the German ruling: "These questions -- how to weigh the wishes of the relatives and protect the privacy of third parties -- are some of the toughest we've confronted. We empathize with the family. At the same time, Facebook accounts are used for a personal exchange between individuals which we have a duty to protect. While we respectfully disagree with today's decision by [the court], the lengthy process shows how complex the issue under discussion is. We will be analyzing the judgment to assess its full implications."
A Facebook spokesperson said in a statement the company disagreed with the German ruling: "These questions -- how to weigh the wishes of the relatives and protect the privacy of third parties -- are some of the toughest we've confronted. We empathize with the family. At the same time, Facebook accounts are used for a personal exchange between individuals which we have a duty to protect. While we respectfully disagree with today's decision by [the court], the lengthy process shows how complex the issue under discussion is. We will be analyzing the judgment to assess its full implications."
Re: (Score:1)
And they've been doing so well lately. Every day sets a new record: most days a united Germany hasn't invaded France.
Let's not do anything that will break that streak.
Now, if I only knew how to do that ...
Re: (Score:2)
Apple wasn't around yet. They would have provided the Waffen SS with phones that had uncrackable security. All IBM sold was punched card equipment.
Yeah, with punch cards designed specifically for concentration camps [wikipedia.org].
Is there a German and/or Neo-Nazi running around downmodding anything related to the holocaust, or what? This whole thread has been buried hardcore as offtopic, but it really couldn't get any more relevant.
Now what about on-line purchases? (Score:2, Interesting)
I know that iTunes and everyone else has the stock answer of 'buy it again' but what do the courts say?
Re: Now what about on-line purchases? (Score:4, Insightful)
Those are rentals. They are not purchases.
Privacy and last will (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Privacy and last will (Score:4, Insightful)
The inheritors basically get full rights over your account, including control over those switches, unless you have specified in your will otherwise (which a minor in this case cannot do unless declared an adult by a court which depends on age, competence of the minor, circumstance and jurisdiction).
Just because a landlord (in this case FaceBook) thinks your property should be private doesn't make it so after you die, they do not get to make the decision whether your papers are to be shared with your heirs.
Re: Privacy and last will (Score:5, Insightful)
The appeals court ruling on this, that the parents could not access their dead daughter's account, always seemed wonky to me. Dead people don't usually have enforceable rights -- those devolve to the person's heirs. I'm glad the higher court corrected the error.
Re: Privacy and last will (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There are literally centuries of case law on how to handle privacy and copy rights in personal letters and similar communications. Your question has been answered many, many times.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's only in England and the USA where we use English Common Law. Many European nations use Roman Law which is different
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think civil-law countries never face the same question? They don't have binding precedent in the way common law countries do, but a convincing argument usually remains convincing.
Re: (Score:2)
Then both the sender and receiver should make it so. Eg. encrypt the communication or specify in a will what to do with the 'stuff'. In most countries, an executor of the will has to follow those guidelines.
Still figuring it out (Score:2)
There are literally centuries of case law on how to handle privacy and copy rights in personal letters and similar communications. Your question has been answered many, many times.
Yeah the problem is that all this online stuff adds a bunch of new wrinkles to the problem that have not yet been fully litigated and the laws surrounding it are still being worked out. In many cases the old rules should work just fine but not in every case. There are important differences and as a society we need to think through which of these difference matter. Facebook is at the forefront of this problem. You can say the contents of a Facebook account are functionally similar to a diary but are they
Re: (Score:2)
I don't necessarily agree, the only thing that has changed is the medium. It's like going from papyrus and quills to paper and pens to typewriters to computers, doesn't make the 'thing you're doing' (communication) any different.
Re: (Score:2)
> What about the people they communicated with? Do they not have privacy rights?
>
> Does the deceased family get to read their private communications?
Actually, the parents had allowed the daughter to have a Facebook account only on the condition that they have the password. So they were listening in, with her knowledge, while the daughter was alive.
But Facebook has this thing called "memorializing", where they lock down the account once they find out the account-holder is dead. As soon as Facebook w
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy rights continue after death in the EU. Otherwise it would affect your behaviour while alive, a chilling effect.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what chilling effect means at all.
Re: Privacy and last will (Score:4, Interesting)
That is not a correction. The last thing I want to happen after I die is my shitty family that has never given a shit about me to be in control of my online identity. The idea that they could slap their parting message on my content is horrifying. My father's obituary was nothing but lies (like "loving father") and I'd rather avoid that when I go. Not that I'll care then, but I find the prospect offensive now.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
SOMEBODY will be the heir.
What will be and what should be are not necessarily the same thing.
I would refer to things like Facebook as "offloaded identity". Data that is stored in storage such as DropBox is one thing, but social networking tools are technological extensions to a person's identity. My point is that social media is personal, and the person shares what they want with who they want while they are alive.
I loathe social media, but I'd defend the right for people who don't to use it without the worry that when they di
Re: (Score:2)
SOMEBODY will be the heir. If you do not want it to be your family, you need to contact a lawer (and potentally a notary) right away to see what your options are.
Depending on where you live, it could well be that what you want is not legally possible. Imagine that it is possible where you live, then it will most likely be the state who receives your assets (including debts, assets, FB account and what not).
It's definitely possible in most, if not all, of the United States (and I would assume other similar countries). You can write a will that leaves all of your assets to a charity of your choice, and your family would get nothing.
Re: Privacy and last will (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The last thing I want to happen after I die is my shitty family that has never given a shit about me to be in control of my online identity.
I'm willing to bet when you're actually dead you won't have such a strong opinion on the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I'll care then, but I find the prospect offensive now.
The last thing I want to happen after I die is my shitty family that has never given a shit about me to be in control of my online identity.
I'm willing to bet when you're actually dead you won't have such a strong opinion on the matter.
There, fixed the quotation for you. It's called chilling effects, look it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh LOL. Something that you realise you won't care about, yet get worked up already being classified as a "Chilling Effect" despite the fact that the result would be perfectly inline with every other legal basis that already exists is a bit off the rails, even for you Mr Poo, even for you.
Now please don't devalue the term "chilling effects" with your misstuned and clearly non-functional tin foil hat.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not just the privacy of the deceased, but also that of anyone who messaged them. Any private messages received by the deceased will now be readable by the parents - just like letters, but they may not have been aware or desired that outcome.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because a landlord (in this case FaceBook) thinks your property should be private doesn't make it so after you die, they do not get to make the decision whether your papers are to be shared with your heirs
It's not FB making that decision; it's the last will of the deceased. Whether or not FB can withhold access even if explicitly ordered to do so by the account owner depends on the law of the land, I expect these to vary even within the EC. Over here, I can give a document to my notary for safekeeping, with instructions to destroy it when I die. Perfectly legal. In this case, the notary (like FB) acts as a custodian of your data. Your landlord is not a custodian of your stuff, he isn't even allowed (in
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not FB can withhold access even if explicitly ordered to do so by the account owner depends on the law of the land,
Facebook has the right protected in their Terms of Service to shut my account off at ANY time while I am still alive, and they can delete all my data if they want -- Facebook DOES NOT have to provide me back a copy of any information that I had posted to it or that my friends had posted to me.
It would be VERY STRANGE for a court to claim that my successors have more rights than
Re: (Score:2)
They do have the right to shut off your account for any reason and delete everything in it, that however doesn't change the fact that when you die, whatever you 'own' on Facebook gets transferred to your estate. Your successors have the same rights you have, your successors have the same rights to your 'stuff' after you die as if they were you.
Re: (Score:2)
change the fact that when you die, whatever you 'own' on Facebook gets transferred to your estate.
However.... you own "nothing" on Facebook; your Estate is a temporary legal entity for administering deceased's property until it
is probated and the assets are distributed, But it can only manage property you legally own, and no matter what: the people managing your estate
don't have a right to lie or misrepresent to Facebook that you are still alive. Meanwhile, in your Personal Preferences/Opt
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, we didn’t establish anything. You asserted and I hold that your assertion is legally wrong. Facebook’s TOSs have nothing to do with this. They are null and void if they do not conform to all legal standards including those that designate what happens to your stuff after you die.
You own the posts on Facebook since you own the copyright to them, you give Facebook an unlimited right to reproduce them but Facebook at no point “owns” and it is very dubious to think they woul
Re: (Score:2)
You own the posts on Facebook since you own the copyright to them
False. The only copy you "OWN" is what is on your computer (If you kept a copy) --- the post itself, that is the records stored on Facebook's servers are Facebook's property. Ownership of the copyright to a work does not provide ownership of a copy that is in anybody else's possession -- once you hand a copy to someone else, the only right you retain are the rights listed in the copyright If I allow you to come to my house and type
but if you give NO instruction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you give NO instruction to destroy documents, then the "landlord" here facebook, has no right to state he won't give the docs due to privacy of the deceased. Which is exactly why german judge told them "nope, it is part of the inheritance(Erbe) jsut like any other document".
Actually, I would argue the opposite:
Barring specific instructions left by the deceased, Facebook should by default maintain the privacy of the deceased, until ordered to do otherwise by the court.
To put it another way:
Facebook is not the landlord, Facebook is the guardian of the data -they have a responsibility to maintain confidentiality until given a legal order to violate that confidentiality.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Facebook wants to become the guardian of anyone's data, that my friend is an entirely different legal construction and they would have to take on that role before the person dies.
The parents are the guardian of the child while its alive or when its dead, your successors become in a sense the guardians of your 'stuff' (whether that is documents, electronic, bank accounts, property) when you die.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because a landlord (in this case FaceBook) thinks your property should be private doesn't make it so after you die
Facebook is Not a landlord. Facebook is not a custodian with a duty to keep any of your property. Facebook is a service provider that you provided a copy of information ---- The Information may be your intellectual property, BUT Facebook is under no obligation to use their resources to distribute a copy of that information or even to store it or continue storing it; For example: Man
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously they are not landlords, landlords are also not custodians. Landlords have no duty to keep any of your property when you fail to pay the rent for a period of time (dependent on jurisdiction and contracts). But if you die and as long as your estate pays the 'bill' (whether the bill is $0 or $10,000/month), they are the proper inheritors and owners of whatever it is you have in there.
Facebooks terms of service have nothing to do with it. Yes, they provide a service for a certain fee (again, courts do
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, in this case, the executors are the parents. In most cases (in most Western law), unless there is a will, the inheritors become the executors of the estate.
Re: (Score:2)
Yah, no one really cares about minors here it's the application to adults that upsets people.
Ultimately one *can* set things up so it gets destroyed but one might have to jump through crazy hoops like establishing a trust and paying some reputable trust manager to manage the trust
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Compensation from whom? (Score:2)
From whom? The family of the dead girl?
I understand it's tragic to be the guy driving the train, whether it's an accident or a suicide, but who exactly has wronged the driver in this case?
Re: (Score:2)
The family of the dead girl?
Yes, similar case from a few years ago [thelocal.de].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems reasonable that if the they committed suicide and therefore intentionally subjected the driver to the stress of being an unwilling participant in their death.
No, the intent was to commit suicide. The driver was just an innocent bystander, but your wording here makes it sound like they were a target.
Re: (Score:2)
They were. Google "intent follows the bullet," i.e. transferred intent. The suicide intentionally threw themself in front of the train. The train was a target. If there's one thing that you either know or should know, it's that trains have drivers. Accordingly, the driver was a target.
Whether the suicide thought about the consequences to the driver is not relevant. You don't need to intend the damag
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a more graphic example to illustrate the problem: Should the victims of a suicide bomber be reimbursed from the assets said bomber had?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a terrible analogy. A suicide bomber intentionally and directly harms those victims. A person who committed suicide does not harm another intentionally or directly.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it reasonable to expect someone ready to kill themselves to properly evaluate the impact of their actions on others, and is it reasonable to use their assets as compensation for that
Re: (Score:2)
It may not even have anything to do with using 'their' assets. If you're, say, a city bus driver, and you plow into a pedestrian who is, in a legal manner, crossing the road, you're a criminal who deserves no compensation. If you're a city bus driver who is harmed on the job through no fault
Re: (Score:2)
Someone who throws themselves in front of a train almost certainly isn't doing it in order to harm someone
They intend to harm at least one person, or what's the point?
Re: (Score:2)
A person who commits suicide by throwing themselves in front of a vehicle being piloted by somebody else most certainly has intentionally harmed said driver.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand it's tragic to be the guy driving the train, whether it's an accident or a suicide, but who exactly has wronged the driver in this case?
The person who made them an unwilling party to their suicide. I'm a firm believer in the right to end one's own existence, but not by forcing others to be involved in their death. That's abusive to others.
Shoddy reporting by Quartz (Score:1)
The parents who sued Facebook up to Germany's highest court had their deceased daughter's login data, so she probably didn't mind them looking at her account. German inheritance law, and I'm sure that of other countries as well, states that everything a deceased person owned should be transferred to the legal heirs, including letters or diaries. The highest German court ruled that electronic correspondence in any shape or form is to be treated the same way as e.g. letters, according to German law, and they
Possession does not equal consent (Score:2)
The parents who sued Facebook up to Germany's highest court had their deceased daughter's login data, so she probably didn't mind them looking at her account.
Mere possession of a login does not equal consent by the owner of the login for others to use it. Doesn't matter if the people are parents or not though if she was a minor the rules might be different to account for that circumstance. In any case for consent to be clear there would have to be other documentation proving consent such as a will or other written correspondence.
German inheritance law, and I'm sure that of other countries as well, states that everything a deceased person owned should be transferred to the legal heirs, including letters or diaries.
The question is (obviously) how to legally treat Facebook content created by an individual. It's reasonable to treat it in a manner
Just be ready (Score:2)
It's a fricking social network account. If it may be important (hint: it's not that important) for a third party to have access to the fricking account, just leave the password somewhere where it can be retrieved.
It's not like Facebook is notified instantly of your death. Oh wait, they probably know it moments after it happened, but because of false positives they can't shut it down anyway. Heck, I just checked for someone who died 10 months ago, and he's still alive on Facebook
Beyond the grave... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
And so are paper letters and email (Score:2)
A diary, a paper letters, and an email account would all fall under the germany law as "Erbe". You have no right to privacy once you are dead, and the still live individual sending you the email has no right to the message once sent. just because it is facebook does not mean it suddenly get more right to hide/refuse to give to the living memeber access. D
Say what?? (Score:2)
Facebook accounts are used for a personal exchange between individuals which we have a duty to protect.
If anyone abuses the "personal exchanges, it is FacePalm itself. Can they really say this out loud without laughing?
So... Facebook seems to treat your data... (Score:3)
So they'll share your data with (Score:2)
Cambridge Analytica and various others but a family had to take them to court to get access to data for their daughter...
Glad they have their priorities straight.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't "share" the data with Cambridge Analytica, they sold the data. Key difference. FB can't be seen giving data away, or it would undercut their business.
So your estate (Score:2)
Online internet banking go the same way?
Indeed (Score:2)
“ At the same time, Facebook accounts are used for a personal exchange between individuals which we have a duty to protect. ”
Indeed. We might share them with 1500 advertisers and political groups and Russia but we protect them from the parents of the dead.
Why FB doesn't like the ruling (Score:2)
It establishes that FB is not the sole owner of the content, or more specifically that others have rights to accessing it. This ruling will make it more difficult for FB to justify blocking account holder's access to their account for business reasons in future.
Trust Of Friends (Score:2)
The right way to handle this is to have some easy way to transfer (WHILE ALIVE) ownership of your digital data on shared platforms like facebook to a trust of your friends/relatives you are willing to let via some joint process determine who and when people can access your data should you be dead, incompetent or unavailable.
This solves a bunch of problems not even raised in the original situation.
Suppose I'm exposed to some kind of neural toxin that renders me incompetent but I was working on my magnum opus
Security keys in the will (Score:2)
If I want someone to get into my online accounts when I die, I will leave them the password or other access in my will. I don't need Facebook to share that shit unilaterally.
Re: (Score:2)
Make sure to file it privately if you include those sort of details. When I lived in Arizona I found public records of wills and prenuptials that contained such things as Social Security numbers and even bank account information.
It was interestingly scary. I went so far as to send an anonymous letter to one person because the info available was basically an identity theft guide.
Arizona also was exposing residential addresses (I'm fine with that) AND alternate addresses which were usually out of state or b
Re: Security keys in the will (Score:2)
I don't have anything I'm concerned about, but my thinking has always been to keep that sort of thing in a safety deposit box, then simply put the box in the will.
Tough situations for FB? (Score:1)
What's tough about this? It's facebook. Does anyone out there expect whatever they put into facebook to be kept like a state secret or something?
Whatever I put out there I expect to be public. I'm never disappointed.
I had a little window pop up recently that appeared to be a private message window to that other person. Nope, it was just another window to another post.
Seems someone's head at FB is real big.