

Google launches tool to determine data use after death - drucken
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22119227


======
kintamanimatt
I get the impression that Google determines death based on a certain period of
inactivity. What if the account holder didn't die but, for example, went to
jail and ended up with their account deleted or had "data from some or all of
their services" sent to people while they were still alive but AFK? The
failsafe of texting a number and emailing a backup address doesn't seem
sufficient.

~~~
goldfeld
If they have selected for their data to be sent to someone in their close
trust, how is this a problem? The trustee will know they are not actually
dead, and may in fact need to intercede, e.g. with the mail trying to reach
the unavailable person.

Now for data to be simply erased there's no easy solution, but it's not an
option I would ever pick. I mean, at any point in time there may be people
depending on me through email, sometimes in remote locations, who would have
little way of knowing if anything happened to me. The least I can do is to
have a setup that would have someone notify them if I died. I once bought a
product from an eBay seller, and upon inquiring on the lateness to ship it,
was notified by his brother that he had passed away a few days ago. It
happens.

------
pgsandstrom
In a few decades, the majority of accounts on facebook or g+ would belong to
dead people, if they were not cleaned up. A strange thought.

~~~
Void_
Makes me wonder if there will be Facebook or Google in a few decades.

I imagine in a few years, when some of the big companies will bankrupt, people
will realize they want control over their internet lives.

Their data will probably stay in the cloud, but I hope they will be in open
format, and maybe people will keep a copy in an implant or something like
that.

Fun to think about what will be in a few decades. It's unimaginable.

~~~
BHSPitMonkey
There are already people who want control over their online lives today. What
makes you think that slice of the population will grow significantly?

I don't predict the percentage of "technical" people (or rather, people with
strong feelings about the issues behind the technologies they use) to ever
really change. Most people are simply and unchangeably uninterested in DRM or
locked bootloaders or data mining or closed source or how much technical
privacy they have.

------
trumbitta2
I set up mine a second ago.

I think it's an "ok" solution to a problem we heard of quite a couple of times
in the recent past.

I also hope this will open the way for more complete solutions, maybe also
backed by international regulations.

~~~
bergie
Yep. One such issue to solve would be "ownership" of digital assets.

I don't really have anything that important on Google, but I'd like to have
for example my code on GitHub and my photos on Flickr to live on after I kick
the bucket.

------
modernerd
Does deleting a Google account also remove non-public data that you haven't
openly shared, such as search records and Android-related GPS data?

~~~
crymer11
Another commenter's reply (which has been marked dead) brought up a great
point about the value of this information for people in the future.

I want and expect privacy now and for the near future, but when my (future)
grandchildren's grandchildren are gone (hell, not even that far from now),
that information being aired publicly won't hurt me and could reasonably
provide the future some benefit.

------
xedarius
I quite like this idea and it brings us closer to the concept of a digitally
fingerprinted will. Which I'd much prefer to the one that is stored in my
solicitors filing cabinet, somewhere.

------
mrgriscom
I've lately been thinking about what would happen to all my digital data if I
died unexpectedly, so I find this post quite timely. However, I wanted a
scheme that did not rely on any single provider. Instead, I split up my master
password using secret sharing and distributed the shares to trusted parties. A
quorum of them could recover the password and thus my data -- not just gmail,
but all my online accounts. I wrote up the details here:
[http://mrgris.com/blog/2013-03-27-survivorship-in-the-
digita...](http://mrgris.com/blog/2013-03-27-survivorship-in-the-digital-age/)

~~~
freehunter
That's an interesting solution, but it really only works if you never change
your password. Which isn't a great practice...

------
marban
Not available for Apps Accounts.

~~~
bergie
Kind of makes sense, given that Apps accounts are usually business, not
personal. In which case the companies probably already have a policy on what
to do with the accounts when a person leaves. And they have admins that can
manage the accounts, unlike with the personal ones

~~~
ben1040
Maybe more so going forward now that the free option is gone, but there are
still a lot of us who are using grandfathered free Google Apps accounts so we
can have custom domains.

------
millerc
GMail, 2004: "keep giving people more space forever", in stark contrast to
Hotmail and all other providers who delete your data after a few months of
inactivity.

GMail, 2013: "You can tell us what to do with your Gmail messages and data
from several other Google services if your account becomes inactive for any
reason", and only offers to safeguard your data for a year: "after three, six,
nine or 12 months of inactivity". Sprinkled with some fear of digital privacy
after your death, for good measure.

So as of today, the only difference between the old Hotmail policy and the new
GMail, is whether that checkbox is ticked or not.

I'm willing to bet that feature will shortly by enabled by default.

~~~
ender7
Really? _Really?_ Has Hacker News become this childish? I'm sorry, but this is
getting a little out of hand. I know people are still upset about Reader's
cancellation but _come on_.

If we're at the point where everyone just shits all over whatever Google does,
regardless of whether it's a good thing or not, then that really doesn't say
much about us as a community. If Google does bad things, let's point that out,
but if, on the other hand, they come out with a product that is _clearly of
benefit to users_ , respects their wishes, and offers a feature that _no other
service providers do_ , then perhaps we should recognize that Google might
have done something good for once.

~~~
millerc
I could say the same about being enamoured with Google's "Don't be evil" motto
to the point as to disregard general management... and accusing me of being
childish for recording predictions publically. But hey... if we can't have an
adult debate on this entreprenerial forum, you might be right when you say it
"doesn't say much about us as a community".

So, coming back to the topic at hand, no this is not "clearly of benefit to
the user". If I want my succession to be handled properly, I'll take care of
it myself. There's nothing good about breaking a promise they made when they
opened the service; that's called bait-and-switch. And breaking promises, to
me, is a cardinal sin.

Have they made it the default? I don't know. Will they? I know even less.
Neither do you. So please, stay civil if you're going to defend them.

------
jayjay1010
Hacking Google for position 1 results:

There’s an interesting hack being in Google.co.uk results for the term
'electronic cigarette' where a black hat approach has worked to fool Google
into allowing a bunch of sites to dominate the results.

It's quite an interesting blackhat approach combining techniques and relying
on a few oddities at Google for it to work.

1) So every few weeks Google cycles take place with filters and 'new sites'
will have penalties applied (sandbox), allowing new sites to gain a bunch of
links quickly then rank very fast between these cycles

2) The sites are cloaking their results serving up different results a) for
Google bots, b) for people coming directly from Google, c) for anyone going
directly to their site. They are doing this because they have affiliate links
which they wish to hide from Google, while the traffic coming directly from
Google will see affiliate links, c) anyone going to them directly is treated
suspicious so they show them a blank page saying the site is closed. "This
website is no longer available.": <http://fabelectroniccigarette.co.uk/> If
you go there from a Google search you will see affiliate links
[https://www.google.com/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fabelectron...](https://www.google.com/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fabelectroniccigarette.co.uk)
The cache page shows Google Bot without the affiliate links
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IhEEuWP...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IhEEuWPbYpoJ:www.fabelectroniccigarette.co.uk/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a)
If you look at the cookies for the site you will see the refer link being
captured wptt_referrer The back links to the site are all black hat links:
<http://www.black-x.de/gaestebuch.php>

They are running a churn and burn system with a bunch of sites
www.fabelectroniccigarette.co.uk www.electroniccigarettegold.co.uk/
www.ecigaretteco.co.uk www.superb-ecigarette.co.uk/ www.smoking-electronic-
cigarette.co.uk/ www.electroniccigarettehealth.co.uk/
www.wickedelectroniccigarette.co.uk/ www.ecigswow.co.uk/
www.awsomeecigarettes.co.uk

Interesting

~~~
ok_craig
I don't understand how this is relevant to the article.

~~~
mkr-hn
Some kind of bizarro spammer.

