
Facebook ruling: German court grants parents rights to dead daughter's account - cr1895
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44804599
======
akuji1993
I think I'm pretty conflicted about this. On one hand, in this particular case
it makes sense for the parents to get closure and find out if their daughter
was suicidal.

On the other hand, it's their daughter's privacy. She surely wrote messages to
people that she didn't want to share with her parents. And there might also be
messages on this account that the parents don't want to find. People with
psychological problems can write pretty dark stuff and she might also have
talked about her parents in those messages. I'm not sure the parents will only
get the closure they want, they might also dig up stuff, they later will wish
they hadn't found.

So in the end, I'm not sure I agree with the judges decision. I think I share
information with my parents the way I want to and definitely share other
information with my friends in a group and 1on1 in messages. And I'm also sure
I don't want my parents or another party not participating in some of those
message groups to ever read that content.

~~~
windows_tips
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, it's their daughter's privacy.

No, the daughter is dead, according to the title.

~~~
1_800_UNICORN
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
After a person dies, they don't exist. It is counterfactual to posit that they
have 'rights'.

~~~
nkrisc
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
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.

~~~
ihsw2
Those uncivilized societies were rightfully left to the dustbin of history --
they embody the nihilism I am referring to.

~~~
nkrisc
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
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
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
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?

------
mikejb
Whilst not applicable in this case (because the deceased is a minor), this
always reminds me of how important it is to also make arrangements for your
digital heritage.

Facebook allows you to set a legacy contact [1], who will have some basic
rights, or you can request to then have your account deleted. This has to be
initiated by someone/anyone after you pass away.

Google allows you to predetermine some basic actions [2], and share data from
your account with other persons. This is triggered by not using the account
for a set period of time (between 3 months and 1.5 years), so it activates
automatically, but likely some time after you pass away.

[1]
[https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=account&section=accoun...](https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=account&section=accoun..).

[2]
[https://myaccount.google.com/inactive](https://myaccount.google.com/inactive)

------
FactolSarin
As the court pointed out, diaries and letters would have gone to the parents
in the past (I mean, they still would if people wrote letters). However, the
magnitude of the data makes things a bit different. If I write something down
in my diary, I know someone else might crack it open one day. If I write a
letter to a friend, I know that that friend might give it to someone else or
let them read it. But this isn't just letters and diaries. This is every page
you liked, tons of post history, and every message you've ever sent.

Sure, the parents would have gotten letters she possessed, but in ye olden
days (ie, 20 years ago) those would have been letters _to_ her, not _from_
her. And it wouldn't have included letters she threw away. Or maybe hid
somewhere. This is _everything_. So it's a bit complicated.

In the end, I actually do agree with the courts... I think it's the most
reasonable course. But I also think platforms like Facebook should give us the
ability to delete data for this exact purpose, and we should use services like
Signal for things that are truly sensitive that we never want to get in anyone
else's hands.

------
madez
This is a good decision. Letters and journals of dead children also go to the
parents. I fail to see why online accounts should make a difference.

~~~
bloak
An online account is a different thing from a physical object like a letter or
journal, which can be freely transferred from one living person to another
living person. (The right to reproduce the contents of letters and journals is
another matter!) An online account is a contractual relationship. I don't know
about Facebook, but most online accounts are explicitly non-transferable. So
it's not at all obvious that Germany should make these things transferable on
the contractee's death regardless of what's written in the T&Cs, if that's
what's happened.

~~~
Tomte
A rent agreement or a gym membership are also non-physical, yet are being
inherited.

~~~
bloak
Sometimes they are inherited, sometimes not, depending on the T&Cs. If it's
not transferable while the contractee is alive then I wouldn't expect it to be
automatically transfered when the contractee dies.

------
nashashmi
Why wasn't this obvious to Facebook that they should give away a minor's
account to their next of kin? Unless there was a will written saying to the
contrary?

And it SO ARROGANT of Facebook to think they own the data to such an extent
where they can effectively deny access to the data from the person who
produced it, or in the case of death, to the next of kin.

------
nmridul
But this raises some questions inside me. Maybe some one can shed some light
here.

1\. The physical letters that I send to a friend are with my friend. So he is
now owner of it and when he dies, it goes to his legal heir. Though I am the
one who wrote them. Should it not belong to my heirs since I am the creator ?

2\. If we are mapping online to offline equivalents, who inherits the facebook
messages ? Is it the sender or receiver ? The messages contain both sent and
received items as in discussions.

~~~
5555624
I send a friend a physical copy of a letter and they own that copy. I still
have a digital copy -- I use a word processor for all my letters -- so I own
that copy. Does one take precedence? Can one of us "publish" the letter when
the other dies?

------
afroboy
Facebook should make it in the preference if i will allow my account to be
opened by my parents or any family member after i die, that will make it easy
for them. and definitely i will allow this.

~~~
hexadecimal7e
You can’t overrule an inheritance law by adding some preference. Maybe in the
USA, but in many country’s you can’t even write your children off their
rightful inheritance.

~~~
namibj
In Germany you can deny them specific property, as the minimum share
(Pflichtteil) only goes as far as monetary value goes, not some specific item.
I.e., as long as you have over 50% of your net worth in the form of money, you
are free to prevent your normal heirs/family from getting any physical assets
you posessed.

------
izzydata
Put your master password to a password manager in your will.

