a little snark before breakfast

[mamajoan]

Okay, 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:

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.

Comments

[lunaris1013.livejournal.com]

I'm right there with you. The last thing I'd want my mother to read after my death is my email. I think finding the slash would send her to the grave right behind me!

While this soldier may or may not have had anything in there that his family would find surprising or change their opinion of his character, the fact exists that privacy policies are there to protect all of us. I'm sorry for their loss, but I'm quite sure he left other mementoes behind for them.

[sydb42.livejournal.com]

When I first read that story, I thought, for about 3 seconds, about how unreasonable Yahoo was. Then I got to thinking about the privacy issues, and that he does deserve privacy even after death, and there may be things on his account he didn't want his family to know. So, I have to side with Yahoo on this one too.

As for reading a private journal...well, I have to admit that I'd have a hard time passing up reading one after someone is dead if I found it, but you're right, the same privacy rules apply. But, if they didn't want anyone reading it, wouldn't they have made efforts to hide it or otherwise dispose of it? A friend of mine used to keep a journal (for all I know, still does) and when she filled a book, she burned it. After all, as Mae West (I think) said, if you keep a journal, someday it'll keep you. ;) Also, I think most people keep journals for posterity, so I guess that's why it also feels different to me.

[mamajoan.livejournal.com]

Yeah, you're right, the paper journal isn't a perfect analogy. It doesn't have a password, for one thing; and its purpose is different.

Another significant difference is that when you read someone's email you're actually violating TWO people's privacy -- the sender and the receiver. One could certainly argue that it's okay as long as you have one party's permission -- but if you have neither party's permission, I don't think it's okay at all, even if both parties are dead.

[victoriacatlady.livejournal.com]

I think you just totally convinced me with this last argument, that you'd be violating two people's privacy. I was wavering just a little before that, but you drove it home with that.

It occurs to me, also, that quite often people get anonymous e-mail accounts on Yahoo or Hotmail or what *because* there are things in there that they don't want anyone else to see. Yes, Yahoo should stick to its guns.

[ww1614.livejournal.com]

OMG, I so agree with you. It freaks me out that people would read my private email after my death. It freaked me out enough when people read it during my life. What if there was something potentially hurtful, taken out of context? I wouldn't be there to reassure the person what I meant.

I'm with Yahoo, too.

reminds me...

[lightningrose.livejournal.com]

of a scene in ER when a baby doc told the wife of a guy who had died of a heart attack that his last words were her name -- except the name, of course, wasn't that of the wife, but her sister, with who the dead guy had been having an affair.

We all have secrets. Some of which can be harmless, some petty, and some out and out painful. I think yahoo needs to stick to its guns. I mean, they recieved the e-mails he meant to share with them. The rest should be held private.

I wonder if we can send a statement of support to them, or something.

[xochiquetzl]

What you said.

[retch.livejournal.com]

that's not snarky, you are right, they shouldn't turn over his files just because he has died. Even if he wanted them to, that isn't the agreement that he had with yahoo.

[frightened.livejournal.com]

You're right. If I wanted my family to read my private emails, they'd have the password. That doesn't change if I die.

[spiralled.livejournal.com]

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.

I completely agree, and I hope Yahoo don't cave.