[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Full-Disclosure] RE: Yahoo Email Policy "Debate"

Some important issues I think that a lot of people are overlooking in this case is that not everything that a person "owns" can be considered estate to be passed on to their next of kin, especially in the case of emails, letters, and other mediums of communication. One of the key differences between standard estate (for example, my computer :P), and communication is that the ownership of my computer is clear-cut, there are few (if any) other legalitys regarding its ownership - where as emails and letters are not "your property" just because they have been sent to you, both morally and legally.

For example, if I send an email to somebody close to me that outlines personal material which I would consider "for their eyes only" - if that someone happened to pass away I (and I am sure most people in the same position) would not like that information to be given out to whoever their family/next of kin was - even if they were trustworthy I simply do not know them.

As for legally, many documents/emails are marked "for the recipient listed only" as they contain information that only that person - NOT their next of kin or anybody else - is meant to see. For example, an employee may be handling client information for the company they work for through email (whether it be a personal or company email address). My mother is a counsellor and does a lot of online email correspondence with her customers. If god-forbid she passed away, do I have the right to know the mental issues of her patients (people who I may also know) just because she passed away? The point to this is that with property estate such as bank accounts, computers, pet fish, etc, the only person who would be affected by the transfer of the estate is deceased - and most likely wouldnt mind. HOWEVER, correspondence is most often the "property" by more than one person and a transfer of estate of such would breach the rights of others in most cases.
I realise that in the currently publicised issue the soldier(?) most likely didn't have anything other than personal letters in his account - but unless he was writing all of them to himself the are other issues legally and morally surrounding a transfer of ownership.

I do realise that the family of the deceased wishes to read whatever words he has written - and I would feel the same were I in their position. That doesn't however mean that it should happen.

This discussion isn't really they type of material that is supposed to be being posted in Full Disclosure, so sorry to anybody this response has annoyed :P

Just an opinion.
-Panther


J.A. Terranson wrote:

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Exibar wrote:



Yes I am aware that the laws differe from state to state. This would be a
federal case, a US Federal case, if it ever got that far, it won't.



You wanna explain how you came to this brilliant conclusion?  How is an
estate issue federal?



No
IANAL, but have first hand knowledge of a case very similliar to this.



Stop watching TV.



Digital property and physical property are considered the same in cases like
this. It is something owned by the deceased. It becomes the property of
the inheritor.



I hope your "consulting practice" doesn't hand out opinions like this.




No I cannot cite case law to back up my statements.



Then you are making this shit up as you go.




If someone were to die without a will, and their
parents/wife/husband/kids/ etc are the legal hiers, wouldn't they also
inherit that person's ameritrade stock broker account, or at least
everything inside said account? Why is e-mail different?



So, here you are asking questions that show you don't have a clue, after
telling us how you *know*...  Just stop trying to be the One Source Of
Knowledge, and STFU when you don't know what you're talking about.



Exibar







_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html