The Dead Need Right To Delete Their Data So They Can't Be AI-ified, Lawyer Says 71
Legal scholar Victoria Haneman argues that U.S. law should grant estates a time-limited right to delete a deceased person's data so they can't be recreated by AI without their consent. "Digital resurrection by or through AI requires the personal data of the deceased, and the amount of data that we are storing online is increasing exponentially with each passing year," writes Haneman in an article published earlier this year in the Boston College Law Review. "It has been said that data is the new uranium, extraordinarily valuable and potentially dangerous. A right to delete will provide the decedent with a time-limited right for deletion of personal data." The Register reports: 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 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 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 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."
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 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 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."
Now THAT is a headline! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It is more like likeness rights of the deceased for the estate. It is not unreasonable at all unless you think likeness rights are unreasonable. I don't but I know cases can be made for that.
AI-ified isn't like just continuing to circulate or publish old content they posted while living and therefore implicitly licensed, it is creating new content using their likeness.
Re: (Score:2)
Your point about likeness rights is valid.
But if that's the point, why a specific "right to delete"? Likeness rights don't prevent people or businesses from having images of a (famous) person, they don't require those image-holders to delete everything they have. Rather, they prevent people and businesses from distributing and profiting from those images.
AI-ified is your face and someone else's words (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's already been happening for a while. We had digitally recreated dead actors, digitally recreated dead musicians doing concerts (I think it was Abba? but there were probably others). In case that seemed harmless, there was also a 'comedy skit' done using George Carlin's voice a while ago. There was also an AI video of a bunch of celebrities including Scarlett Jonahson appearing to speak in support of Israel.
Re: (Score:2)
My mistake about Abba, they're all alive, but there was a concert with their avatars as they were in the 1970's.
Re: (Score:2)
Jimi Hendrix.
He's easily mistaken for Abba.
Re: (Score:2)
To them you (your data) is owned by the corporation now and forever.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Arguments about rights after death have been a thing for dead Hollywood for literally decades. Same shit, different marketing.
We still measure the energy under the hood of an electric car in fucking horses, which is like finding the new car price in pennies, with a warranty measured in fortnights.
Sometimes we humans don’t know how to progress, but we still pretend really well and smile when we do it.
Write your will (Score:4, Insightful)
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, findable, readable, etc. by the folks you expect to deal with it. Some people love digging through family cruft, but most don't. How interested do you think your folks are in your unedited directory of 40K photos?
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people love digging through family cruft, but most don't. How interested do you think your folks are in your unedited directory of 40K photos?
Lets not forget we’re talking about AI here. Best not assume a who would be burdened with 40K photos. It’ll more be a what doing that job. Facial recognition was AIs learning to walk a decade ago. So it’s pretty good at it now. Probably better than human error looking through 40k photos.
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?
Re: (Score:1)
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?
a) They aren't asking for more rights. power of attorney is extremely limited mainly to only cover assets, and they want to expand that power to cover defamation as well.
b) If the person that died has no legal right to have information deleted, neither will their power of attorney. If the person that died DID have a legal right to have that information deleted however, power of attorney does not currently cover for this, and your executor has no legal standing.
So no, you absolutely CAN have your informati
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You're full of shit. As usual.
Example [hofstra.edu]. Don't bother reading it. It's beyond your extremely limited intellect.
I did read it. It doesn't state that the dead have rights. It's an argument that they should. And it'll go nowhere. It's not going to turn over centuries of legal standards.
The dead have no rights. Their successors who hold their estate have rights, but not the dead themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright doesn't, and this is basically a copyright issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, copyright explicitly does *not* cover AI-generated art or text, regardless of whether the subject of that AI output is alive. https://www.wired.com/story/ai... [wired.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Given the acceptable public harassment during the emergency-authorized COVID vaccination rollouts, America has a LONG fucking way back up privacy mountain with regards to HIPAA. Seems no one gave a shit about privacy back when society was practically demanding to zee your vaccine kard in order to participate.
Not to mention today’s countless APIs into your medical history, all waiting to represent the lowest level of cybersecurity effort with the Next Big Hack. Hacking your medical history is now pro
About 5-10 years ago someone suggested... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The first thing every company will do it to write into its ToS that you are okay with adding "Company has a unlimited non-exclusive right to use the record for an indefinite time" and then nothing changes at all. And it's silly to expect the company wanting to give you the right to monetize it. They monetize it, possibly even with you as the person paying for it. They have little interest in you making money of the data they got from you.
Re: (Score:2)
They wouldn't if such contracts were made illegal. As witj HIPAA, the only way to protect people's right to their own personal data is through force of law.
Re: (Score:2)
Like asking your buddy to delete your porn folder. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The dead don't need rights, their "wishes" can be put in their will if they so choose.
Cool. So I kill you and get off scott free - NOT murder because you have no rights now - and bonus, I can legally take all your shiat because you no longer have any rights.
5 seconds. You could have paused for 5 seconds and thought this one through.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is reading comprehension one of your weak points?
Assertion included nothing about timing or context of death.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AC displaying ignorance as AC
Much brave. So ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
really he is pointing out your sheer idiocy of your statement.
Not "my" statement. Is lack rationality and comprehension the latest fad?
murder is an act committed against a living person
Yet, apparently, once you're dead you're no longer entitled to said rights so death is a magical cut-off switch
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
however if I was alive my rights as a LIVING person do not allow you to murder me.
Yet once you're dead - according to some - you have no such protections so too bad.
Re: (Score:2)
you commited a crime against a living person. so it very much is murder.
Did "I" say it wasn't murder?
Again, reading comprehension isn't a super-power. It's a necessity.
Disney (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the Carrie Fisher thing is a little different case though. The footage of her in "Rise of Skywalker" was largely shot before her death and the script reworked to fit what they had, with some CGI cleanup and a flashback scene filmed with her actual daughter (Billie Lourd). The CGI version of Leia in Rogue One was something she was aware of and had actually seen. It's a lot different than totally creating footage that was never shot or making a digital puppet of someone say things they never said o
Death isn't the handicap it used to be (Score:4, Funny)
It doesn't screw your career up the way it used to!
Red Dwarf, Future Echoes, February 22, 1988
Re: (Score:2)
...wait until people start spending a few years dead... for tax purposes.
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
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about money, as usual. They want the family of a deceased person to get a check in case their likeness is used after death. Which sounds like bullshit, but I can imagine getting highly personalized popup ads featuring the photo of a loved one, and then deciding to never do business with that company.
Re: (Score:2)
For good or ill all the real driver behind this is likeness rights issues. This is about if you can have Fred Astaire selling vacuum cleaners during the Super Bowl and who gets paid, for what if you do.
Really it is all pretty much settled law, unless you grant the AI some kind of agency. "What I did not make this commercial by clipping together hold content, no I asked AI-Fred if he wanted to do and he said yes" kinda nonsense.
We also know some predatory marketing companies like (probably Meta) will combine
Re: (Score:2)
the right of the family to bury they're loved ones
Their. They're is a contraction of "they" and "are" so this reads as "bury they are loved ones"
Re: (Score:2)
I've always been curious as to the motivation of people like you who do not read english to understand the meaning being expressed but instead to seek out possible spelling or grammatical errors and point them out. The internet is filled with such mistakes but the vast number of people read it, possibly not even notice it, but regardless just keep reading on since the gist of the post is clearly understandable.
English is not computer code, it's a highly flexible communication method and as long as the mean
It is very simple .... (Score:2)
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)
What data is that exactly? (Score:2)
This whole concept of "privacy for the dead" seems iffy to me, and I'm also not sure why the author singles "AI" as the particular scenario that raises concerns. People have been writing histories, newspaper articles, obituaries about dead people since forever. They wrote biographies, painted pictures or carved statue of dead people, they made movies/biopics about them, wrote "tell-all" or other unauthorized biographies without needing the estate's approval and sometimes facing explicit opposition from the
Mod the parent up, please (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This whole concept of "privacy for the dead" seems iffy to me, and I'm also not sure why the author singles "AI" as the particular scenario that raises concerns.
Was your beloved mother or matriarchal grandmother particularly attractive back in the day? Like let’s-put-them-in-threesome porn hot?
As we sit and ponder the impact screwing with the dead can have on the still-living, let me know what other technology the author should be targeting. Because as far as I know, the entity capable of making your worst porn nightmares come true is either that bastard AI or that bitch AI. Depending on what gender you’d like to give it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because as far as I know, the entity capable of making your worst porn nightmares come true is either that bastard AI or that bitch AI.
Well, it's weird that your first thought was porn, but this is really one of the worst examples you could have chosen. First, all you need to make smut about some person is a name and a few photos, or maybe only one - and even the name is optional. Your putative malicious porn maker doesn't need any of the data the lawyer in the article targets. Your argument doesn't have any legs.
Furthermore, are you so naive as to think that AI is the only way to make porn? Do you think there was no "look-alike" porn bef
Hold on! (Score:1)
The dead do not care (Score:2)
Maybe people do stupid things with the data after their death, but the only person that is not affected by it at all is the dead person. They have literally nothing to lose anymore.
Re: (Score:1)
The "Randish" American focus on individual agency is neither culturally common nor a moral high-point.
Novel idea... (Score:2)
I asked several dead people (Score:2)
None of them expressed an opinion either way.
Battle lost before it started (Score:2)
So where is the issue? (Score:2)
I mean, OK, doing public things with my likeness is a problem, but we are talking about a simulation. The simulated being is not me, it's a simulation. It's at best, a copy of me. Nothing that happens to it has any meaning to me. It's like when I get a copy of a movie and burn it, that doesn't harm the movie itself in any way.
Don't Archaeologists do this? (Score:1)
Little known fact: (Score:1)