The Dead Need Right To Delete Their Data So They Can't Be AI-ified, Lawyer Says
- Reference: 0178647206
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/08/11/2248200/the-dead-need-right-to-delete-their-data-so-they-cant-be-ai-ified-lawyer-says
- Source link:
> A living person may have some say on the matter through the control of personal digital documents and correspondence. But a dead person can't object, and US law doesn't offer the dead much data protection in terms of privacy law, property law, intellectual property law, or criminal law. The Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA), a law developed to help fiduciaries deal with digital files of the dead or incapacitated, can come into play. But Haneman points out that most people die intestate (without a will), leaving matters up to tech platforms. Facebook's response to dead users is to allow [3]anyone to request the memorialization of an account , which keeps posts online. As for RUFADAA, it does little to address digital resurrection, says Haneman.
>
> The right to publicity, which provides a private right of action against unauthorized commercial use of a person's name, image, or likeness, covers the dead in about 25 states, according to Haneman. But the monetization of publicity rights has [4]proven to be problematic . Haneman says that there are some states where it's theoretically possible to be prosecuted for libeling or defaming the deceased, such as Idaho, Nevada, and Oklahoma, but adds that such prosecutions have declined because they tread upon the constitutional right to free expression. [...] A recent California law, the Delete Act, which took effect last year, is the first to offer a way for the living to demand the deletion of personal data from data brokers in one step. But according to Haneman, it's unclear whether the text of the law will be extended to cover the dead -- a possibility think tank Aspen Tech Policy Hub [5]supports [PDF].
>
> Haneman argues that a data deletion law for the dead would be grounded in laws governing human remains, where corpses receive protection against abuse despite being neither a person nor property. "The personal representative of the decedent has the right to destroy all physical letters and photographs saved by the decedent; merely storing personal information in the cloud should not grant societal archival rights," she argues. "A limited right of deletion within a twelve-month window balances the interests of society against the rights of the deceased."
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/09/dead_need_ai_data_delete_right/?td=rt-3a
[2] https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/10.70167/YOEQ2314
[3] https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/651319028315841?locale=br_FR
[4] https://perma.cc/J8MA-HMYU
[5] https://aspenpolicyacademy.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/phosthmous-data-privacy-v6.pdf
Write your will (Score:2)
Seems like a straightforward thing to write into your will.
In related news, most people should write a will way earlier than they usually start thinking about it. If you have enough to worry about it being taken, it is enough for people to fight about.
You absolutely should think about your digital ephemera left behind. I don't just mean encrypting your porn directory and not leaving that key in your list. If you have data you think your family or whoever should have interest in, make sure it is curated,
Re: (Score:2)
All your will can do is give someone the authority to make a request. It can't compel some third party to take action based on that request.
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, you should put it in a power of attorney, so that your authorized person can take action while you're still alive. A will makes them wait until you're dead.
the dead have more rights than the living? (Score:2)
If you cannot have your information deleted while you are living, why should your estate have more rights after you pass away? And why is AI being used for this sham justification?
Most privacy rights end at death (Score:3, Informative)
Most privacy rights evaporate with death, as do Constitutional rights, like free speech, voting, and due process. One exception is HIPAA, which protects the privacy of health records for 50 years after death.
About 5-10 years ago someone suggested... (Score:2)
A kind of a "struct" data format for every interaction that a person does online. They would own it, could move it from place to place, monetize it, and delete it they wanted to. I think it is time to re-visit that idea.
Like asking your buddy to delete your porn folder. (Score:3)
Dead people don't care if you actually did delete their porn folder *or* if you AI-ified them though. You know why? Because they're fucking dead.
Disney (Score:2)
Disney likely in multiple ways is going to set the path here. Already with Carrie Fisher's posthumous CGI appearance in the Star Wars sequels. But I am also curious if AI'd versions of Walt Disney will be the onus for a whole new set of IP laws.
Death isn't the handicap it used to be (Score:3)
It doesn't screw your career up the way it used to!
Red Dwarf, Future Echoes, February 22, 1988
The dead have no rights (Score:2)
What is really being argued for here is the right of the family to bury they're loved ones with dignity and about the rights of the Estate, not the dead.
The dead don't care if you resurrect a low fidelity simulacrum of them, they're dead. But the pain such a recreation could cause the family - that's the crime that needs to be protected against. They should have some control over this being allowed.
I also suspect this about setting a legal foundation for preventing 3rd parties from recreating public figur
It is very simple .... (Score:2)
If you store someone else's data, you should ask what should happen to it if they die (or cancel their contract).
Then you should do what they said.
If the customer and supplier are in different countries, then the presumption should be that the Client's country legal system applies.
In all cases, with no option for the customer to be bullied out of this by large companies.
the dead don't have needs (Score:2)
This is about family members, not the dead. The dead have no needs.
Now THAT is a headline! (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at that shit, even a decade, 5 years ago, even 5 years ago that would be a wild headline. The future is here, and stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also made up. "AI-ified" doesn't actually mean some kind of AI resurrection. It's more like demanding that all digital images of a person be destroyed after death, only in this case, the "images" are speech patterns and maybe voice tone. These people make it sound like the AI version is almost a real person. It's not.