Security vs. Sympathy 3

[DoubleD]

teles,
My condolences to you for your loss.

I'm a private person, my personal life stays personal, but I agree with teles and Stella740pl. If Yahoo wants the accounts secured in this way, at least prompt the new user to select whether their account is allowed to be accessed upon their death. Right, wrong or indifferent most people don't read the TOS in full. I would bet that the majority of people surveyed would answer that they believe their family would be able to access their email account if they died.
As a soldier with an expectation to deploy to the Middle East in 2006, I would absolutely want my email available to my family if I die.
I understand the concerns for the privacy of the deceased, but to be blunt, They're Dead. The executor of their estate should handle their email account as they see fit.

If it were me, I would be fighting this legally.

I am what I am based on the decisions I have made.

DoubleD

 

[Onyxpurr]

DoubleD - The person that owned the account you're trying to gain access to may be dead, however...

the people to whom they sent their emails to and received from are not!

You're not only talking about invasion of privacy of the person who passed, but the people who haven't with which they have corresponded.

This is not an issue that only pertains to the person who is no longer here, it pertains to possibly every person they communicated with via email. Living persons. With a right to privacy.

 

[Stella740pl]

So what would be a normal course of actions if some estate administrator got hold of some real, paper letters from some living person to the dead person? They would normally be found among other posessions of the deceased. Can the same rules be applied to e-mail?

 

[DoubleD]

Onyxpurr,
I don't argue that there is a question of invasion of privacy. But let's face it, if you really want it to be private, don't put it in an email, mail it in a letter, or record it on videotape. As we've seen to many times already, we live in a society where it is nearly impossible to retain complete privacy.
It's why I stated it should be handled by the Executor of the estate. When executing an estate, the representative should be expected to have a certain amount of moral obligation. This includes judiciously handling personal matters such as correspondence.
I understand and appreciate your point, I just don't agree with it.

I am what I am based on the decisions I have made.

DoubleD

 

[icrf]

I agree that physical correspondences like paper letters would be opened and read without question or thought. There's not much that can be done about that. With "secured" electronic correspondence, something can be done, and really, I think it should. The electronic age gives us a great many more options for how we do the things we do, and privacy has been its bane.

It would be a little morbid to ask everyone applying for a free account how the account would be handled opon their death. It's not a high-risk action and shouldn't be brought to the forefront. Yahoo has in thier TOS how they handle it, and using the "no one reads those" excuse doesn't change matters.

And the fact that's it's nearly impossible to retain privacy doesn't mean we should give up. Maybe this event can increase awareness and anyone who wants their email released will keep their password somewhere accessable.

If my brother died tomorrow, I wouldn't want to read his email. I really don't understand the perceived benefit.

________________________________________
Andrew

I work for a gift card company!

 

[teles]

mrdenny mentioned one reason why access to an deceased's email account is a good thing: notifying that person's friends of what has happened.

This is what I have been doing. Some of my son's online friends were in his contacts list. Others weren't, so I looked for people he'd corresponded with in the past 6 months and sent notices to them as well. (An arbitrary cutoff date, I know, but it seemed workable.)
Personally, I would NOT want my son's email friends to believe that he had just started ignoring them.

Another reason is admittedly hypothetical, but does have it's source in snail-mail letters I have seen. The decedent writes something like "I'd like you to have ...". To me (and this is just me) that is morally equivalent to a will bequest, and an obligation to discharge.

Terry.

 

[icrf]

Okay, I understand, more for the contact list within the account than the messages themselves. Maybe Yahoo would have less issue with releasing that information, specifically?

I don't know, I don't imagine dealing with possessions and notifications of the recently departed could ever be easy. Thus far, I've been lucky enough never to be responsible for it. Best of luck and have a happy holiday.

________________________________________
Andrew

I work for a gift card company!

 

[Onyxpurr]

I think people need to start taking responsibility for their impending departure then, and make a list of everyone they know to be notified.

I know most people don't like to think about it, but happens to all of us eventually. I don't think a list of people and a possible "I wish you to have" in passing clarifies as good enough reason to invade someone's privacy, whether they've passed or not.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

 

[sleipnir214]

Here is a later article on the question of Corporal Ellsworth's email at Yahoo.

It sounds like Yahoo is going to let a court decide this issue.


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[jsteph]

This is not a tough one at all. Yahoo is doing the right thing, period. A policy is to be kept to, regardless of what emotions may be in play on one side or the other.

Not to sound cynical, but there are so many things that could be different than what they seem. Suppose this was not email, but a bank account. Suppose the son had a great deal of money and was estranged from his parents because of, say, abuse or whatever reason there may be. The son dies, and the family makes an impassioned plea to the state for his bank account. (the son is over 21 and had no will). Should the state just 'make an exception' here and hand over the money? Hell no, even if the family could prove there was a good relationship prior to death. Neither should yahoo hand over the email account.

I'm not suggesting that was the case here or in any of such similar cases. But a law is a law and a policy is a policy for good reasons, and a company can't just make arbitrary exceptions due to emotional pleas. I'm sure we can all find similar analogies where it would be highly ufair or improper to hand over an email account to a 'family member' because they claim they have some emotional right to it.

Maybe email accounts and other such electronic records be put in one's Will to account for such eventualities as death--just as is the case with bank account's and other personal property.
--Jim

 

[teles]

jsteph, that is not a good example.

In the absence of a will, the Next of Kin doesn't have to make "an impassioned plea", they just need to file with the courts an "Application to be appointed administrator of an estate" (or whatever the equivalent in your home province/state is).
Then, open a estate account with a bank and transfer all the decedents assets into that account.

If there is no NoK and no will, chances are good the state will get any or all assets. So if you are estranged from your blood kin and are living with someone, MAKE A WILL or your MOTAS will pretty likely get frozen out of everything.

Terry.

 

[jdhilljr]

Although I feel for the family, having been a Marine myself I know that prior to entering a combat area everyone is taken through the steps of making a will and making their wishes known for handling matters like this upon their death including durable powers of attorney. Without a power of attorney from their son, Yahoo has acted correctly.
Perhaps they could ask Yahoo to set an auto response letter drafted by the family to all incoming future emails.

Semper Fidelis

Jim

 

[wmichael]

As I read what's been written, I wonder what, if any, the implications are if the individual who has passed on is a minor.

In the U.S., a minor cannot legally own stuff. In the case of an adult passing away, I have to side with Yahoo's decision to not disclose. If the subject were a minor, it should be fairly routine to obtain the information, provided the credentials of the requestee can be legally verified.

~wmichael

"small change can often be found under seat cushions

 

[mrdenny]

If I remember correctly from scanning the yahoo and msn UELAs a minor can't be an account holder. The account must be signed up by a parent as legally the minor can't agree to the EULA as it's a contract between two parties, and a minor in the US can't sign a contract.

(I know this from when I had a paper route in highschool. My parents had to sign the contract for me to get the gig.)

Denny

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

http://www.mrdenny.com

(My very old site)

 

[Stella740pl]

My minor daughter (in high school, to be exact) and her friends all have free e-mail accounts. I don't remember her coming to me asking to sign up anything for that purpose. To clarify, I did urge her myself to get her own account, instead of riding mine every time she needs it. But I'm pretty sure not all the parents do. It's not a permission slip from school that you have to sign. It's just that they don't even actually read when it says "you must be 18 or older" or something to that effect, or don't take it seriously. Would words "you must be 18 or older" prevent them from having an e-mail account? No. Would it make an agreement invalid? May be. Would it make a parent an actual owner of an account? I don't know.

As for other contracts, I did have to sign a permission in order for her to get a work paper. I didn't have to sign anything when she actually got a temp job; and I was present just in case but didn't have to do anything when she opened a bank account.

wmichael,

No, I don't think there were implications that the individual was a minor, but in a general course of discussion a possibility of that case was also considered.

 

[mrdenny]

The subject of the article wasn't a minor.

Lance Cpl. Justin M. Ellsworth, 20

Even with out his age listed, the US Military requires you be 18 before joining (unless you lie to them and present false paperwork).

Denny

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

http://www.mrdenny.com

(My very old site)

 

[Stella740pl]

He wasn't. But it seems we were discussing not only the case of that particular person, but security vs. sympathy in general. Or weren't we?

 

[DoubleD]

Even with out his age listed, the US Military requires you be 18 before joining (unless you lie to them and present false paperwork).

Not quite true. You can actually enlist while you are 16, but you have to complete your Basic and Advanced Individual Training less than two years from your enlistment date.

There are many areas on the web where there is a button or link that says: "Click here if you are over 18." When's the last time that stopped a minor from clicking it? So we know minor's can get e-mail accounts, among other things. So let's take it a step farther.
A minor signs up for an email account (by themself). Does the legal guardian now have the right to request access to that account if the minor is still alive?
If the contract is not binding due to the fact a minor agreed to it, is the email company still bound to the privacy agreement?

I am what I am based on the decisions I have made.

DoubleD

 

[jdhilljr]

You can enlist in the military at 17 years old with parental consent, however you must be 18 years old to be sent to a combat zone. In regards to minors agreeing to a contract as soon as it is discovered a minor entered into an agreement the contract is null and void.

Jim

 

[RCorrigan]

The military apart .... Security v Sympathy

As has been mentioned - people who enlist & go to war make wills.
People who go on holiday or take a gap year and travel don't (necessarily).

How are Yahoo, Hotmail etc etc etc going to cope following the recent tragedy of the tsunami ?????

Many young people go travelling and their only real channel of communication is a web-based email account & cyber cafe's the length and bredth of the world.
It wouldn't be high on the agenda to make a will, seal passwords etc in an envelope & leave for Mum, Dad, Brother or Sister ...... many do not have the luxury of a laptop, PDA etc & a pop3 mailbox ...... their whole history is in the hands of whoever controls the web-based mail.

As as been mentioned, who reads every last word of the agreement when they sign up for web-mail, then get it checked by legal, inform Mum & Dad, sign consent forms, leave them in safe storage ?????

My Mum got an xmas card from a cousin, as an after thought was written "Speak in the New Year - we're off to Phuket for Xmas" ........ I don't suppose she thought of a will, of leaving a password for the house sitter to access mail and reply regarding saftey or worse, or never even speaking to people in the New Year.

Will a natural unforeseen disaster be dealt with any differntly by Yahoo, Hotmail & the rest?

<Do I need A Signature or will an X do?>