Security vs. Sympathy 3

[carrr]

I find this interesting:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/12/21/soldier.email.ap/index.html

Is Yahoo! to be commended for sticking to their guns, or chastised for a lack flexability?

Tired of waiting for an answer? Try asking better questions. See: faq222-2244

 

[CajunCenturion]

Tough call either way. You can't blame Yahoo for sticking to its guns when you consider privacy laws, identify theft, and such. I guess that I'm leaning slightly in Yahoo's favor. Better safe than sorry.

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Onyxpurr]

I'd have to go with Yahoo here. Certain things are private and if the soldier mentioned wanted to share his email, he would've shared his password.

I guess in a way, this would be a good thing for anyone seeking privacy after their death. Frequently when someone passes away, everyone else goes pawing through their personal effects like letter and diaries and there is not much you can do to avoid that. However, if you keep your documents electronically on an account such as Yahoo's you can be safe in the knowledge that when you pass away, others cannot read your personal information.

Actually this sounds like the ideal solution to me!

 

[CajunCenturion]

Actually this sounds like the ideal solution to me!

A fair point. The downside, at least for now, is that "Yahoo! policy calls for erasing all accounts that are inactive for 90 days.". The permanent record is lost.

How much history, for example, have we leared from Thomas Jefferson's private letters? Or from Plato's diary?

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[mkov]

That is a tough one.

 

[carrr]

I tend to side with Yahoo! myself. A security policy is a security policy, and not much use if left to flex and flow situationally.

I think Cajun Centurion makes a good point with the reference to Jefferson and Plato, but there's always the chance, too, of opening Pandora's box. When a person maintains notes in privacy, there's often a reason.

Tired of waiting for an answer? Try asking better questions. See: faq222-2244

 

[lionelhill]

Perhaps for the future, we need a check-box on signing up: do you want your account to be deleted or opened on your death? And to whom should it be opened?

 

[sleipnir214]

Would the contents of the account represent intellectual property that can be legitimately considered part of Cpl Ellsworth's estate? If I were the executor of the estate, I'd have Yahoo in front of a judge and be arguing that very thing.


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[mrdenny]

I was just thinking along the same lines as sleipnir214. The family should petition the court to order a stay in deleting the mailbox, pending filling a request with the court that the contents of his mailbox be transferred to his next of kin.

My wife's mother passed away recently. Having access to her email made it much easier to get in touch with a bunch of people that she was friends with online only, to let them know. In this case we didn't need a password to get to the emails, as they were downloaded onto the home pc.

If we had needed to go to Yahoo and request access to the emails, and had been turned down, the family would have been devastated. Out first stop would have been to a county judge to make sure that Yahoo didn’t delete the messages in the account until we could get a court order to have the account transferred into someone else’s control.


Denny

--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)

http://www.mrdenny.com

(My very old site)

 

[carrr]

In seeing the 90 day timeline mentioned, I tend to think that this account was a "free" one. I wonder (this is not my area of expertise) if the debate changes if/when the account is a paid account...?

Tired of waiting for an answer? Try asking better questions. See: faq222-2244

 

[icrf]

Interresting thought. If paid for, then it's a monetary investment that goes with the estate. I don't think you can cash in on the investment of the Cpl's viewing of ads for a free account.

Still, a diary is personal, emails are interpersonal. Things said to and from living individuals could be exposed, which is the privacy box Yahoo doesn't want opened. Yahoo's doing the right thing. Potential benefit does not outweight the potential risk.

________________________________________
Andrew

I work for a gift card company!

 

[teles]

No, Yahoo is NOT doing the right thing and they are NOT handling it correctly.

Unfortunately, I have had recent experience with a similar situation. My son died last month. He had a Hotmail account.
I contacted MSN, and they have temporarily deactivated the account. They asked me for a formal request for access, to be supported by a copy of the death certificate and proof that I and my wife are the administrators of his estate.
This was and is a very painful and sucky situation. MSN, whatever you may think of them, have treated me with dignity and respect and have been very clear in what they need to legally give us access to our son's email. MSN is helping, not hindering.

Yahoo needs to rethink their actions and attitudes.

Terry.

 

[greyted]

teles[/]:

My condolences to you and your family.

It is heartening to hear that MSN have been so helpful at such a terrible time and treated you with dignity and respect.



Ted

"The difference between a misfortune and a calamity is this: If Gladstone fell into the Thames, it would be a misfortune. But if someone dragged him out again, that would be a calamity."
Benjamin Disraeli.

 

[Stevehewitt]

Hi Terry,

Sorry to hear about your son, but I can't agree with you on this topic.

If the user agreed and acknowledged that upon his death his family would not be able to have access to his account, then not only are Yahoo! doing the right thing by standing by the contract agreed with the user, but the family should let it be. Why should they have any overrulling over a contract agreed with by the now deceased user.
The will gives no right over his property that is excluded in either a seperate contract or excluded in the will.

The family should stop and understand the fact that Yahoo! have a moral and legal obligation to prevent access to the account other than the account holder as agreed with the now deceased account holder.

MSN's policy and contract that were agreed with your son when he signed up to the hotmail service may have been very different to the policies and contract than Yahoo! have in place.

 

[teles]

Here's the relevant section from Section 25 of the Yahoo TOS:

No Right of Survivorship and Non-Transferability. You agree that your Yahoo! account is non-transferable and any rights to your Yahoo! I.D. or contents within your account terminate upon your death. Upon receipt of a copy of a death certificate, your account may be terminated and all contents therein permanently deleted.

Section 1 of the TOS also says that Yahoo can update the TOS "from time to time without notice to" the client.

- - -
Steve, we must agree to disagree. I view that particular clause as immoral, wrong and bull-headed.

On a purely technical note, can Yahoo actually *prove* that the client read the TOS in full? They should be able to show at least, whether that clause of the TOS was in effect when the client signed on, but they cannot prove that it was read.

I'd be interested in knowing why Yahoo put that clause in the TOS. Genuine need or CYA?

Terry.

 

[Stevehewitt]

They can prove that the customer agrees and normally has read the TOC by that little tickbox that you have to tick before it will let you continue to sign up. Because we have 'read' the TOC that Yahoo! has published saying they can edit the TOC without notice, it then becomes our (the user / customer) responsibility to check the TOC.
Sucks, but I suppose that's business contracts.

I'd imagine that Yahoo! have the clause to CYA and to save on the paperwork etc. Saying that I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how the IP laws work with regards to this.

Again, sorry to hear about your loss Terry and no offence intended. Ageed to disagree.

Thanks,

Steve.

 

[Stella740pl]

If the user agreed and acknowledged that upon his death his family would not be able to have access to his account...

The users of free e-mail accounts often can be too young to even think of the possibility of death while still having that account, some of them being minor, some of them young adults, college students, etc., much less of how they want their their estate to be handled upon their death. Most of them didn't thoroughly read the agreement, and those who did often made fun of it. If, at least, they had to fill out a short separate document on how they want their account to be handled upon their deaths, then maybe - only maybe - they would at least think of it for a second.

Again, some may not want to share a password with the family while alive, but probably wouldn't mind to do this after death. Just most people, especially young, didn't even think yet of writing a will and sharing an e-mail password in it.

But think of a different scenario (and cases similar to this did happen). A minor girl (or even a young adult) has an e-mail account, then disappears. Would her account be opened in order to find some clues (she still may be alive)? If she, however, found dead, having previously checked that she doesn't want her account to be opened upon her death, but it is necessary in order to find the murderer, would it be opened? I guess it would, upon police request or something alike.

So Yahoo's blanket CYA clause just doesn't do it.

This is not to say that an individual doesn't have a right to privacy. Just the rules should be more refined and flexible than that.

 

[CajunCenturion]

teles - I am very sorry, and please accept my condolences on your loss.

Why would Yahoo put that clause in place?. I can't speak for them, but two things immediately come to mind. The first reason, and perhaps the most obvious reason, is privacy, and compliance with the associated statutes.

The second reason is to help protect their customer from identify theft. Even MSN required that you
[ul][li]Make a formal request[/li]
[li]Provide copy of death certificate[/li]
[li]Provide proof that you are the estate administrator. Note, not a family member, but an estate administrator[/li][/ul]

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Onyxpurr]

teles - My condolences on your recent loss. No one should have to go through that.

Personally, I would not want my family to have access to my email (somewhat against my will) just because I passed away. I have very personal information that I would not want shared. It has nothing to do with doing something wrong, but I've had personal conversations with other people that if I had intended it to be read by someone else, then I would have sent it to them.

Plus, what about the privacy of those living. now you're not only exposing the communication from/to a person not existing anymore, but all those who are who have sent/received email from that person. It's just not about the privacy rights of the person who owns the account.

 

[icrf]

I agree 100% with Onyxpurr.

I apologize if I sound crass, but obtaining a warrant to get access to an account of a missing/deceased person for the purpose of find them or their killers is a completely different situation. There's tangible gain to be had. Life to be saved. Justice to be done.

The marine communicated with his family through that email account a great deal. They already have all the messages intended for them, what more is to gain? The messages he didn't intend for them to see? Why disrespect the privacy of the deceased?

Maybe I'd feel different if I had to personally go through a similar situation, but I really don't think so. I am a very private person.

________________________________________
Andrew

I work for a gift card company!