What moral issues do you think are raised by this article? Are there issues of property, privacy, etc.? And, what do you think is the right thing to do?
The moral issues that jump out at me are the right to privacy and the assumption of a persons digital identity after death. Even though a person dies, they still should be protected by the fourth amendment. In 1967, the supreme court ruled that, "a person has a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy". This has come to apply to digital information as well.
Legally, things are a little tricky with Alison Atkins because she was not an adult when she died. With that aside though, I believe that Ms. Atkins had a right to keep the information on her Macbook Pro private, and unless she wished otherwise, it should have stayed private. I also thought the Atkins sister went way too far in assuming control over her dead sisters identity. If your family member had you blocked on facebook when they were alive, what gives you the right to change that after they die? Death doesn't give you the right to do things with a persons digital identity that you wouldn't do if they were alive.
The bottom line here is that people really need to think about how they want their digital property managed after death. If not, family and friends are going to do what they think is right. Alison Atkins Mother sums this up very well when she said, "She was my child, I felt I had a right to know."
The moral issue at hand would be an invasion of privacy. When the sister tried to gain access to her digital accounts, she went too far. She was taking over Alison’s identity and therefore invading her privacy. She may have done it out of good intentions, but still, she never got Alison’s permissions. How did she know if Alison wants her sister to access her accounts? Passwords are put in place to protect unauthorized accesses. If Alison wants to share her files/pictures/life publicly, then she can do so and a password would not be needed. When a person passed away, his/her properties/possessions are passed on to family, but not his/her identity. Properties and valuables can change ownership, but a person’s identity should remains as if he/she is still alive. A person’s life, including digital life is unique and private. It should never be claimed by other people. The sister should respect the privacy of Alison, and left the accounts alone. Her sister didn’t need to gain access to keep Alison’s memory alive.
There are a lot of issues with this article. Privacy of the deceased is not even considered by the family members. There was a dark secret on the deceased's Facebook, just like many others. I believe the family delved way too deep into her life and took her intellectual property as their own. I believe the right thing to do would have been to discuss what to do before the deceased has passed and let them decide their digital life's fate. If they want everything closed and deleted,then so be it. If not, leave it open just for the family. No friends. Only people that are stuck like Krazy Glue to each other.
If I were in the family of an accused criminal or a suicide, I would want their Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Pinterest and any and all e-mails. I would only want this information so I could put rumors and speculation to rest, as well as prove others wrong or right for that matter. I would not keep the page up permanently, however, because it leaves the door open for Identity Theft and various other digital crimes stemming from ID theft.
This is a great topic to discuss and I hope we discuss it more in the days to come.
What moral issues do you think are raised by this article?
The conflict problem between privacy law and the feeling of family who lose their loved one. And the type of right to deal with digital property of deceased that family or kin have.
Are there issues of property, privacy, etc.?
Yes, there are a lot of issues;
- There are issue in different standard in each online service that have method or procedure to deal with deceased's property after died. - The term of service that conflict with the intention of deceased's family. - The intention of deceased that may want to keep some data/information as secret VS the intention of family that may want all deceased's data/information is disclosed, or the privacy of deceased when they died VS family's right to deal with deceased's property after died. - The proper law that will protect deceased's property and privacy, and the procedure to deal with deceased's property and privacy after that.
And, what do you think is the right thing to do?
There are many aspects to concern;
- Establish standard for all online service to have same method or procedure to deal with deceased's digital property and privacy after died to create as digital law properly. - The term of service that enforced by law. - The respect in deceased's digital property and privacy except only for court order in some case that involved with investigation. - The deceased's family can reach deceased's property that is public but not as private. - The family right to collect the deceased's public property and the period of time to deal with it. - The termination procedure of deceased's service account or digital property due to privacy and right of deceased.
All above is just my opinion that I think as it should be.
The moral issue that i think of is that hacking into the private account of a dead person is considered be a foray of privacy. When the sister gained access to her digital account. She was hacking through Alison’s identity and private life and therefore maybe be considered invading her privacy. If Allison wanted people to access her account before her death , she would have written that or tell them before she died in a form of a will. The only reason a persons digital world can be accessed is when he/she died of a criminal case. When somebody dies, the person who is responsible for taking care of the individual’s asset is supposed to be complying with what the individual wanted and protecting the individual.There may certainly be cases where the person who died would not have wanted anyone to get anywhere near the person’s account. If somebody access his/her account ,it is then considered illegal digital invasion without his/her permission
Alison Atkins was a lovely girl who was struggling with her disease from young age. It is hard to know the date when and how you can leave this world and what will be left after you. She was very active and established many accounts on different social websites such as face book and many other. Her family could live with the thought that Alison is gone and what she left after herself. They wanted to keep her diaries and memories on the face book even she was no longer alive. How it can be done and how memories about Alison can be kept forever-that was the question for her family members. Her sister broke her password to get her Mac book pro account with only one goal to have more understanding and information about her sister. Is this was legal or illegal? To answer these questions we have to look somehow at the circumstances how Alison died and why, and that was the force to push her sister to broke her computer account and get access to her face book account. I think I would do the same in her situation if my brother or sister dies. It is illegal for the Face book to open her account again and post some posting if the owner of the account is nolong exist but how it can be done if no other ways are available. We have so many protections from sites where you post your information and in some cases only you as the owner of this account can share any valuable information. Who can give an answer what is right or wrong when someone without your permission can change your social site information just for fun and post some negative notes. It could be done when your account is hacked and no one can guaranty protection of your sensitive information. Why we have so many laws and rules when there is no 100% security for anyone. It is easy for website figures to cancel and block your account when someone whom you loved left some thoughts for you and not for website restrictions and regulation. I strongly agree to have some changes in rules and laws and have family member to have an approach to their relative's information on social websites even if they no longer alive.( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324677204578188220364231346.html)
The moral issues that jump out at me are the right to privacy and the assumption of a persons digital identity after death. Even though a person dies, they still should be protected by the fourth amendment. In 1967, the supreme court ruled that, "a person has a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy". This has come to apply to digital information as well.
ReplyDeleteLegally, things are a little tricky with Alison Atkins because she was not an adult when she died. With that aside though, I believe that Ms. Atkins had a right to keep the information on her Macbook Pro private, and unless she wished otherwise, it should have stayed private. I also thought the Atkins sister went way too far in assuming control over her dead sisters identity. If your family member had you blocked on facebook when they were alive, what gives you the right to change that after they die? Death doesn't give you the right to do things with a persons digital identity that you wouldn't do if they were alive.
The bottom line here is that people really need to think about how they want their digital property managed after death. If not, family and friends are going to do what they think is right. Alison Atkins Mother sums this up very well when she said, "She was my child, I felt I had a right to know."
The moral issue at hand would be an invasion of privacy. When the sister tried to gain access to her digital accounts, she went too far. She was taking over Alison’s identity and therefore invading her privacy. She may have done it out of good intentions, but still, she never got Alison’s permissions. How did she know if Alison wants her sister to access her accounts? Passwords are put in place to protect unauthorized accesses. If Alison wants to share her files/pictures/life publicly, then she can do so and a password would not be needed.
ReplyDeleteWhen a person passed away, his/her properties/possessions are passed on to family, but not his/her identity. Properties and valuables can change ownership, but a person’s identity should remains as if he/she is still alive. A person’s life, including digital life is unique and private. It should never be claimed by other people. The sister should respect the privacy of Alison, and left the accounts alone. Her sister didn’t need to gain access to keep Alison’s memory alive.
There are a lot of issues with this article. Privacy of the deceased is not even considered by the family members. There was a dark secret on the deceased's Facebook, just like many others. I believe the family delved way too deep into her life and took her intellectual property as their own. I believe the right thing to do would have been to discuss what to do before the deceased has passed and let them decide their digital life's fate. If they want everything closed and deleted,then so be it. If not, leave it open just for the family. No friends. Only people that are stuck like Krazy Glue to each other.
ReplyDeleteIf I were in the family of an accused criminal or a suicide, I would want their Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Pinterest and any and all e-mails. I would only want this information so I could put rumors and speculation to rest, as well as prove others wrong or right for that matter. I would not keep the page up permanently, however, because it leaves the door open for Identity Theft and various other digital crimes stemming from ID theft.
This is a great topic to discuss and I hope we discuss it more in the days to come.
What moral issues do you think are raised by this article?
ReplyDeleteThe conflict problem between privacy law and the feeling of family who lose their loved one. And the type of right to deal with digital property of deceased that family or kin have.
Are there issues of property, privacy, etc.?
Yes, there are a lot of issues;
- There are issue in different standard in each online service that have method or procedure to deal with deceased's property after died.
- The term of service that conflict with the intention of deceased's family.
- The intention of deceased that may want to keep some data/information as secret VS the intention of family that may want all deceased's data/information is disclosed, or the privacy of deceased when they died VS family's right to deal with deceased's property after died.
- The proper law that will protect deceased's property and privacy, and the procedure to deal with deceased's property and privacy after that.
And, what do you think is the right thing to do?
There are many aspects to concern;
- Establish standard for all online service to have same method or procedure to deal with deceased's digital property and privacy after died to create as digital law properly.
- The term of service that enforced by law.
- The respect in deceased's digital property and privacy except only for court order in some case that involved with investigation.
- The deceased's family can reach deceased's property that is public but not as private.
- The family right to collect the deceased's public property and the period of time to deal with it.
- The termination procedure of deceased's service account or digital property due to privacy and right of deceased.
All above is just my opinion that I think as it should be.
The moral issue that i think of is that hacking into the private account of a dead person is considered be a foray of privacy. When the sister gained access to her digital account. She was hacking through Alison’s identity and private life and therefore maybe be considered invading her privacy. If Allison wanted people to access her account before her death , she would have written that or tell them before she died in a form of a will. The only reason a persons digital world can be accessed is when he/she died of a criminal case. When somebody dies, the person who is responsible for taking care of the individual’s asset is supposed to be complying with what the individual wanted and protecting the individual.There may certainly be cases where the person who died would not have wanted anyone to get anywhere near the person’s account. If somebody access his/her account ,it is then considered illegal digital invasion without his/her permission
ReplyDeleteAlison Atkins was a lovely girl who was struggling with her disease from young age. It is hard to know the date when and how you can leave this world and what will be left after you. She was very active and established many accounts on different social websites such as face book and many other. Her family could live with the thought that Alison is gone and what she left after herself. They wanted to keep her diaries and memories on the face book even she was no longer alive. How it can be done and how memories about Alison can be kept forever-that was the question for her family members. Her sister broke her password to get her Mac book pro account with only one goal to have more understanding and information about her sister. Is this was legal or illegal? To answer these questions we have to look somehow at the circumstances how Alison died and why, and that was the force to push her sister to broke her computer account and get access to her face book account. I think I would do the same in her situation if my brother or sister dies. It is illegal for the Face book to open her account again and post some posting if the owner of the account is nolong exist but how it can be done if no other ways are available. We have so many protections from sites where you post your information and in some cases only you as the owner of this account can share any valuable information. Who can give an answer what is right or wrong when someone without your permission can change your social site information just for fun and post some negative notes. It could be done when your account is hacked and no one can guaranty protection of your sensitive information. Why we have so many laws and rules when there is no 100% security for anyone. It is easy for website figures to cancel and block your account when someone whom you loved left some thoughts for you and not for website restrictions and regulation. I strongly agree to have some changes in rules and laws and have family member to have an approach to their relative's information on social websites even if they no longer alive.( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324677204578188220364231346.html)
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure Allison doesn't care about her facebook page anymore.
ReplyDelete