![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
a little snark before breakfast
Dec. 22nd, 2004 10:12 amOkay, I'm going to air a potentially unpopular opinion here.
Have you heard about this family that is trying to force Yahoo to give them access to their son's email account? He was killed in Iraq recently and they want his email archives to remember him by. Yahoo says no and will presumably delete his account, and all his saved email, after 90 days of inactivity per their policy. (In case my summary of the story doesn't satisfy, here's an article that also talks about all the people who have offered to help the family fight Yahoo.)
I have the utmost sympathy for this family. However -- and brace yourselves because I very rarely say this -- I think Yahoo is in the right here.
First of all, witness the following from Yahoo's terms of service:
Now, maybe the merely legal/policy argument doesn't sway you. But to me, privacy is privacy; just because the guy is dead doesn't change his right to privacy in his email. It would no more be right to read his email than to read his journal (I mean a paper journal, not an LJ or similar which by its nature is intended to be read). This is of course a matter of opinion; some feel that it's perfectly okay to read someone's private journal or email after he's dead. I don't. Listen, the guy went off to war. He knew there was a chance that he would be killed. If he wanted to ensure that his email would be available to his family, he could have told someone his password. Sure, that's not exactly the first thing on people's minds when they get shipped off to Iraq, but the fact remains -- in the absence of any action taken by him that proves he DID want his family to access his email, we must assume that he did NOT want that.
Furthermore, I would submit that if Yahoo allows themselves to be convinced by public opinion and sentiment to violate their own TOS, it would open a MAJOR can of worms. Everyone who had ever gotten in trouble for violating the TOS -- or everyone who had ever contemplated violating it -- would have a perfectly valid case to say, "hey, if you guys don't have to stick to it, why do I?" Folks, big internet companies like Yahoo have TOSs for a reason. We may not agree with everything in it, but the fact is, when you sign up with them, you explicitly agree to that TOS, and it is a contract between you and that company. If either party breaks the contract, it's not a good thing.
Just my opinion, obviously. Anyone is free to disagree. But one thing's for sure -- I'll be following this story with great interest.
Have you heard about this family that is trying to force Yahoo to give them access to their son's email account? He was killed in Iraq recently and they want his email archives to remember him by. Yahoo says no and will presumably delete his account, and all his saved email, after 90 days of inactivity per their policy. (In case my summary of the story doesn't satisfy, here's an article that also talks about all the people who have offered to help the family fight Yahoo.)
I have the utmost sympathy for this family. However -- and brace yourselves because I very rarely say this -- I think Yahoo is in the right here.
First of all, witness the following from Yahoo's terms of service:
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.That seems pretty clear to me.
Now, maybe the merely legal/policy argument doesn't sway you. But to me, privacy is privacy; just because the guy is dead doesn't change his right to privacy in his email. It would no more be right to read his email than to read his journal (I mean a paper journal, not an LJ or similar which by its nature is intended to be read). This is of course a matter of opinion; some feel that it's perfectly okay to read someone's private journal or email after he's dead. I don't. Listen, the guy went off to war. He knew there was a chance that he would be killed. If he wanted to ensure that his email would be available to his family, he could have told someone his password. Sure, that's not exactly the first thing on people's minds when they get shipped off to Iraq, but the fact remains -- in the absence of any action taken by him that proves he DID want his family to access his email, we must assume that he did NOT want that.
Furthermore, I would submit that if Yahoo allows themselves to be convinced by public opinion and sentiment to violate their own TOS, it would open a MAJOR can of worms. Everyone who had ever gotten in trouble for violating the TOS -- or everyone who had ever contemplated violating it -- would have a perfectly valid case to say, "hey, if you guys don't have to stick to it, why do I?" Folks, big internet companies like Yahoo have TOSs for a reason. We may not agree with everything in it, but the fact is, when you sign up with them, you explicitly agree to that TOS, and it is a contract between you and that company. If either party breaks the contract, it's not a good thing.
Just my opinion, obviously. Anyone is free to disagree. But one thing's for sure -- I'll be following this story with great interest.
