4 ms·

Why do you think she "surely wrote messages to people that she didn't want to share with her parents"? Seems like a pretty big assumption. >On the other hand,

• 1_800_UNICORN 8y ago
  It's not as clear cut as you're making it sound, there are a wide variety of opinions about how much a person's right to privacy extends beyond their death.
  • windows_tips 8y ago
    After a person dies, they don't exist. It is counterfactual to posit that they have 'rights'.
    • nkrisc 8y ago
      Rights exist only so far as they are granted. If we, as a society, choose to grants rights to the dead then the dead shall have rights. Right are a completely arbitrary construction of organized society so it's strange to suggest there are any absolute rules that govern 'rights.'
      • thomasfedb 8y ago
        ihsw2: there are well documented records of societies that cut the beating hearts out of children in ritual sacrifice, built towers or of skulls, etc. It's not a dichotomy between absolutism and nilism - there are happy middle grounds.
        • deleted 8y ago
          [deleted]
        • ihsw2 8y ago
          Those uncivilized societies were rightfully left to the dustbin of history -- they embody the nihilism I am referring to.
          • nkrisc 8y ago
            But they had their rules too. Are you suggesting their rules were somehow "wrong"? Funny how the societies left to the dustbin of history are never the "right" ones. It's almost as if the survivors are the ones who choose who was wrong.
            • ameister14 8y ago
              Yes, their rules were wrong. The survivors don't have to choose who was wrong - the wrong ones don't survive. It's like when a people revolt against their government. This is wrong to do, unless they win; then it was always correct.
              • thomasfedb 8y ago
                I think it's very hard to make a logical case for the equivalence between success and rightness, which you seem to be suggesting. There are many people who succeeded in our time who are viewed by many rational people as being very wrong. Corrupt Russian oligarchs, policy-anulling health insurance bosses, Bitcoin thieves... Having the power, or cunning, to get away with something doesn't make it right to do so!
                • ameister14 8y ago
                  Individually, when operating within a greater society that views your actions as wrong, then you are correct. But as a society? Within its own framework? Sure it does. Another society can view it as wrong, and maybe they will go to war over it - what they used to call an 'appeal to God.' The ultimate winner is the right one. Why do you think what's 'right' can change over time?
      • ihsw2 8y ago
        There are absolute rules that we should adhere to, to imply that they are a social construction is to embrace nihilism and anarchy. There is a set of universal standards and expectations have existed for millennia in many forms. There has always been an implicit set of common rules -- common across all cultures and generations -- that we as a species live by. Implying that everything is a social construction mental laziness and a desecration of our fore-bearers at best and malicious destruction of the bonds of society at worst.
        • icebraining 8y ago
          "A is true because bad things will happen if not" is not a valid argument. To the specific point, I struggle to find any set of rules which is common across all cultures and generations; care to name a few?
          • ihsw2 8y ago
            One is that empathy and self-control are the internal enforcers of the civilizing process. A lack of one or both is the sign of an uncivilized society or individual. Another is that parents' authority over children is sacred, as well as the bonds of marriage and friendship.
            • nkrisc 8y ago
              These are very commonly recurring rules indeed, but that does not make them absolute nor are they universal.
            • icebraining 8y ago
              Empathy and self-control are not rights. They may inform rights, but different cultures see those as creating very different rights. parents' authority over children is sacred That's completely false, many societies (ours included) have imposed restrictions on how parents can raise their children, and sometimes in quite extreme ways (e.g. the Agoge[1]). And the child protection services in our modern Western societies take away plenty of children. The rights of parents over children are more like the authority of the king in the Little Price - absolute, as long as they only use it in certain ways. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agoge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agoge
      • ameister14 8y ago
        That's an interesting argument, but not one that I agree with. Rights exist without being granted. In an unorganized society, theoretically you have all possible rights. Society limits your rights, it doesn't grant them.
        • nkrisc 8y ago
          Six of one, half a dozen of the other. The outcome is the same as far as I can see. It's an interesting distinction to make, however.
          • ameister14 8y ago
            It's important because you won't fight to preserve rights you don't think you possess, and there is no conflict if the government decides to take control of something if you don't have an acknowledged right to it given by the government. Essentially, in the scenario where you only have the rights the government grants you, the default uncharted behavior is illegal or immoral. In a scenario where you have all the rights not limited by the government, you can do new things and have the right to engage in new behavior without fear.
      • windows_tips 8y ago
        >Right are a completely arbitrary construction of organized society so it's strange to suggest there are any absolute rules that govern 'rights.' Are you familiar with the United States Declaration of Independence [0]? >We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. It seems to me that 'rights' could exist without an 'organized society'. But, so far, I don't think any 'organized societies' really recognize 'rights of a dead person' (chiefly, I think, because there is no longer a 'person' to have rights). Do you know of a law that grants rights to dead persons? [0] http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/ http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/
        • toast0 8y ago
          Some states (Florida and California, I believe) have laws prohibiting release of photos of corpses -- granting the dead a limited right to privacy. Laws prohibiting the disturbance/mistreatment/abuse of corpses are common, but not universal.
          • windows_tips 8y ago
            I highly doubt California has such a law. It would not be constitutional[0] if it did: >SEC. 2. (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press. Also of interest to this thread is: >SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. How does a dead person enjoy life and liberty? Acquire, possess, protect property? [0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&division=&title=&part=&chapter=&article=I https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x...
            • toast0 8y ago
              Some of the provisions in health safety code prohibit disturbance of remains, except where specifically authorized. [1] There are other sections that require the written wishes of the deceased regarding the remains to be followed without undue delay if they are clear and properly funded. Upon further looking, I can't find anything to back up my claim on photos. There have been various efforts to provide these from time to time, but it doesn't look like any of them resulted in passed laws, or case laws. There's some case law around heir's right to privacy with regard to photography of the deceased, but that doesn't seem well settled either. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&division=7.&title=&part=1.&chapter=2.&article= https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x...
    • detaro 8y ago
      It's also counter to many legal systems to say that they generally do not have rights.
    • thomasfedb 8y ago
      And yet we still extend certain dignities to their body and possessions. The deceased are treated by society in a way that suggests that they are not simply inanimate objects owned by their descendants - at least not for our practical day-to-day, non-philosophical purposes.
  • 627467 8y ago
    There may be different opinions but legal and customs shows that (in most jurisdictions), unless the deceased has made legal arrangements otherwise, their property is inherit by next of kin, including letters, diaries, etc. Why would content on Facebook be any different?
    • michaelt 8y ago
      Because in the modern age, electronic messages are partly like letters or diaries (which would be passed on to next of kin) and partly like phone calls or in-person conversations (which would not be passed on to next of kin).
      • bloak 8y ago
        That's very succinct and I agree. It does make me wonder, however, about the case of a psychiatrist or psychoanalyst who keeps paper notes on what his private patients have spoken about, and then dies suddenly in an accident together with his immediate family, so his next of kin and heir turns out to be a distant cousin, who happens to be an irresponsible teenage drug addict, say. Could anything be done to block the transfer of those paper notes in a case like that? Perhaps a self-employed psychiatrist ought to have appointed a law firm as their executor and left instructions that patient notes should be destroyed rather than transfered to the next of kin, but if they'd forgotten to do that?
        • 1_800_UNICORN 8y ago
          Doctor-patient privilege applies even after death, and while I couldn't easily find anything online, my assumption is that there's a process in place to handle scenarios like this so that patient data doesn't end up in unauthorized hands.
          • bloak 8y ago
            I've not heard of "doctor-patient privilege". Is that a US thing? I was thinking of a private practitioner of complementary medicine, who might not be officially qualified or officially registered or officially anything at all, at least in England, where professions are not usually regulated. I'm fairly certain privacy would nevertheless be expected... I've just asked someone who knows a bit more about English law than me. Apparently there's a common-law tort of breach of confidence, which would probably prevent an heir from revealing what's in the (pseudo)therapist's notes and might allow someone to get an injunction to stop the papers from being inherited in the first place. Interestingly, data protection probably wouldn't have much to do with this hypothetical case, nor with the hypothetical case in which a random person finds a box of confidential notes/letters in a hedge.
  • xg15 8y ago
    Yes, there are also a wide variety of opinions on climate change.
  • lostlogin 8y ago
    A famous example is Anne Frank, and how her father treated her diary, privacy and controversial content. It’s not at all straight forward.
• stef25 8y ago
  The dead still deserve privacy
  • optimuspaul 8y ago
    Do they really? I don't think the dead have any expectations at all let alone the expectation of privacy. But also, she was a minor and therefore no real privacy rights with respect to her parents.
    • lostlogin 8y ago
      Why are they buried with clothes on, often in a literal black box? Their possessions are generally controlled by an executor, privately. The dead expect, again literally, their will to be followed.
      • JoeAltmaier 8y ago
        Of course the dead expect nothing. But the living expect that their wills will be respected after they are gone. To preserve confidence, we must (make a show of) respect the dead.
    • stef25 8y ago
      One would hope that whatever we leave behind when we die gets treated with some dignity.
• LeifCarrotson 8y ago
  It can be helpful to change your frame of reference regarding rights, contracts, etc. of people who are deceased to not try to imagine that it is the dead person who has a right or status in the present (they do not) but the living person who had a status regarding the future before they died (they did). That future is now our present. The anticipation of that right being fulfilled can inform your actions as a living person - you might, for example, have a long-term goal (while you're alive, obviously, dead people don't have goals) and set up a trust to accomplish that goal after you die. It can also inform you what may be or not be private after your death, so if you don't want family to read secrets you share with friends then don't put them on Facebook.
  • akuji1993 8y ago
    I know what you're trying to get at, but I really don't think any person works this way. It's not just about Facebook. If parents or relatives own everything I write in online form, I cannot write anything online if I don't want them to read it in case I die. I can also not write it down in a diary since they will own that too. So really the only way I can safely share my secrets is in speech to friends. Some people cannot meet with friends, I myself have friends I have never seen in real life. So should I just not talk about my secrets at all then? Possibly making my life worse because of it.
• akuji1993 8y ago
  So you share everything you share with your trusted friends with your parents? You don't have any conversation online that you would not want to share with your parents? I think that's a pretty big assumption.