|
Grex > Coop6 > #80: When who has used Grex dies | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 65 responses total. |
scg
|
|
response 25 of 65:
| 
Jan 14 02:23 UTC 1995 |
One thing that hasn't been brought up yet is how we verify that the person
who died really is the one who had the account. That somebody died is
easy to establish -- we get the death certicficate. But how would we make
sure somebody didn't falsely claim that a Grex account belonged to a dead
relative when it really didn't?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 26 of 65:
|
Jan 14 06:51 UTC 1995 |
The system went down while I was writing #22. I was surprised that it
got posted, rather than saved as an incomplete response, but I'll finish
it here:
of them responded with letters of sympathy, and reminiscences. They
were appropriate gestures in both directions.
Re #25: that's the role of the executor, who comes equipped with all
the necessary legal papers establishing their rights to effects of
the decedent.
Re #24: no, no matter *how* private effects are, the executor has
the right to inspect and act upon them appropriately. Only if the
will specifies that the effects (files) are to be discarded unopened
(and no one objects!), can they be discarded (legally). There are
many instances of people specifying that personal papers, etc, will
only be opened, or given to a particular person, after their death.
They *don't* make them accessible while they are alive.
I would suggest that in the event of a user's death, Grex treat
their files as they would those of anyone that stopped logging
in, until they are reaped according to the reap policy, or they
are requested by the executor, whichever comes first. (Prediction:
99/100 times (or more!), the former will occur.)
|
mdw
|
|
response 27 of 65:
|
Jan 14 07:51 UTC 1995 |
Now *THAT* makes sense. I really wasn't looking forward to the
possibility of one day mailing a complete source and object listing of
the Gnu C compiler to Mary Remmers.
|
scg
|
|
response 28 of 65:
|
Jan 14 07:59 UTC 1995 |
What necessary legal papers would the executor have to have to establish
their rights to a Grex account?
|
remmers
|
|
response 29 of 65:
|
Jan 14 13:32 UTC 1995 |
Re #27: Reports of my demise are distinctly premature. :)
|
steve
|
|
response 30 of 65:
|
Jan 14 15:20 UTC 1995 |
Thats good. But I still got a laugh at the thought of Marcus
sending 110M mail files to Mary!
|
davel
|
|
response 31 of 65:
|
Jan 14 15:58 UTC 1995 |
In response to one suggestion, it should be noted: there is no way that
Grex can send anyone's password to anyone. That password is known only
to the person who set it & anyone it's been revealed to, barring fairly
intense efforts at cracking it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 32 of 65:
|
Jan 14 20:29 UTC 1995 |
An executor would have the right to the password. This is like a decedent
leaving a locked box: the executor can have it opened (which applies also
to safe deposit boxes).
Re #28: specifically, I was the executor of my mother's will. There was
executed an "Oath of Personal Representative Designation of Resident
Agent, and Acceptance" in a Circuit Court in Florida. It also designated
as my "agent or attorney for service of process in any action against (me)
in (my) representative capacity.." (this is to satisfy others having
claims against the estate). This document, accompanied by a copy of the
will, sufficed to gain entry to and distribute all effects. Persons
sometimes name attorneys as their executors, but it can also be a friend
or relative. The heirs to the estate must later stipulate legally that
they are satisfied that the terms of the will were followed, before the
executor is dismissed.
|
mdw
|
|
response 33 of 65:
|
Jan 14 23:12 UTC 1995 |
IFF grex had the password, and the executor could prove they have the
right to that password, that's very likely the case. But the point is
moot, since grex does not HAVE the password! But that's actually a
minor point, if the executor could prove they have the right, then the
password could be simply reset to a known value and sent to the executor
via a secure channel. The real problem is that there is no real tie
between a person's identity and their grex account other than their
password, and so it would be extremely difficult for an executor to
prove they have the right to the account. To some extent, a grex
account could almost be considered to be like a Swiss numbered bank
account.
|
tsty
|
|
response 34 of 65:
|
Jan 15 14:57 UTC 1995 |
i like that comparison
|
rcurl
|
|
response 35 of 65:
|
Jan 15 21:49 UTC 1995 |
That would be true for an unverified user, and certainly for an anonymous
user. A court would have to have other evidence that some crucial document
was stored on Grex, and obtain a warrant to search for it. But most
accounts are identified with users' names. In this, even if there is
a question of it being the account of the *right* John Doe, an executor
with foreknowledge of what is being sought could get a warrant to look.
Good grief - this sure is verging on conspiracy theory..... ;->
|
steve
|
|
response 36 of 65:
|
Jan 15 21:57 UTC 1995 |
After thinking about this some more, I think I have a policy
that just might work here. It's as simple as we can make it, I think.
If a Grex user dies and we find out about it, we
- change the password of the account.
- if no one comes forward with an "official" request for the
data in the account, we let the account expire as we normally
would for an unused account.
- if we receive "official" requests from an executor for example,
we comply.
Note that "official" needs to be better defined. I don't think
anyone would argue with a court order, but what other things might
be official is open to debate I suppose. If the parent of the person
dies wants the data? Things like that.
I'm curious if people think this is a good basis for a start.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 37 of 65:
|
Jan 15 22:06 UTC 1995 |
I'd suggest limiting it to the court or executor. If parents or friends
want the data, they can ask the executor. We don't have to be involved
with others. (In my example - my brother might have wanted to have access
to a safe deposit box, but because I was executor, he would have had to go
through me. That I was named executor had a family reason at the time.
There could be many reasons why a particular executor was chosen, which
would be none of Grex's business.)
|
scg
|
|
response 38 of 65:
|
Jan 15 22:15 UTC 1995 |
What do we do if somebody contacts us claiming that somebody died,
and saying they want the information? How do we confirm that the person
who died had the account on Grex? I would hate to have a situation where
get told that a Grexer has died, we change the password and give the files
to somebody else, and then the person comes back from a vacation and is
upset that they can't log in and that their privacy has been violated.
One thing that occurrs to me is that if we reap inactive accounts,
that must mean that we aren't obligated to preserve data that's on Grex.
Maybe a better attitude to take is that, while the data may belong to the
person, the disk space belongs to Cyberspace Communications, Inc., which
does have the right to get rid of data living on it's disk. That way we
could recognize the right of the next of kin to have the data, contingent
on dead person having kept their own copies on their own hard drive or
floppies. In addition to toother benifits, that would also eliminate the
verification headache.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 39 of 65:
|
Jan 15 22:47 UTC 1995 |
If only an executor or court could claim access, they will have proof
the person has died.
When a person dies, their effects are suddenly "frozen". That is, they
could have discarded anything when they were alive, but no one can
after they die except by order of court or action of executor. If we
had a firm, written, reaping policy in effect, then that would be the
very nature of having records here. If the executor or court isn't fast
enough, well that would just be the way it is (the same is true of stuff
left at any public event - it goes into a lost-and-found, and is eventually
discarded). Steve, the "next of kin" do *not* have a right to the data,
unless specified in a will, or so determined by probate.
|
andyv
|
|
response 40 of 65:
|
Jan 16 00:05 UTC 1995 |
The reaping policy sounds good to me. Everyone should be storing the volumes
of stuff here someplace else anyway (free up disk space;). Just because I
am still in the stone age without a hard drive (believe it or not) makes
my perceptions unrealistic at times.
|
scg
|
|
response 41 of 65:
|
Jan 16 01:11 UTC 1995 |
Yes, the executor will have proof that a person has died, but will they
be able to prove that that person had a Grex account?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 42 of 65:
|
Jan 16 07:22 UTC 1995 |
If the decedent was verified here, yes. If not, or was anonymous, not
easily. The executor would probably have to get a warrant from a court
to do a search of suspect files, if we raised any kind of objection.
(I think these possibilities are extremely remote - unless the decedent
was known to have hidden industrial secrets here - which would have
been a stupid thing to do.)
|
andyv
|
|
response 43 of 65:
|
Jan 16 23:22 UTC 1995 |
Who would ever think of looking here for secrets? This is a great hiding place
|
mdw
|
|
response 44 of 65:
|
Jan 17 01:02 UTC 1995 |
Actually, no, this is not a great hiding place. Just for starters,
there are 10 people who'd still have access. Then there are all the
network providers inbetween, the disk glitch to worry about, and all
sorts of other issues. If you *really* care about your secret, this
isn't the place.
|
andyv
|
|
response 45 of 65:
|
Jan 17 15:03 UTC 1995 |
Ah, but the thought of having secrets here is intriguing. You folks (the ten)
don't read anyone's mail like other places who have censors, do you? :-0
|
remmers
|
|
response 46 of 65:
|
Jan 17 22:04 UTC 1995 |
Gack, no. Under the Electronic Communications Act, it would probably
be illegal to do so.
|
steve
|
|
response 47 of 65:
|
Jan 17 23:27 UTC 1995 |
Whats the ten? Oh, the ten people who have root, I guess. No, we
don't have mail parties.
|
mdw
|
|
response 48 of 65:
|
Jan 18 03:00 UTC 1995 |
Despite our best efforts, there are also occasionally people who break
into root. Do you really want *those* people to have access?
|
gregc
|
|
response 49 of 65:
|
Jan 18 17:14 UTC 1995 |
Just some clarification as regards response #46: While alot of people would
like there to be legislation that causes electronic mail to treated the
same as US postal mail, myself included, there is, at the present time, no
such actual legislation.
Most large companies, like Ford or GM or Xerox, will tell you that they c
consider any email recieved on a machine belonging to them to be their
property. They have no problems with reading private mail.
I think the current problem with trying to equte email with US mail is
as follows:
When you put a stamp on a letter and put it into it into a US Mail box, you
have entered the letter into a large, government system, with a centralized
authority and rules system. There is no such centralized authority or rules
system for email. Email travels through a veritable hodge-podge of *private*
systems and networks.
Trying to enact privacy legislation on email would be as difficult as trying
to get US Postal regulations to apply to a scrap of paper that you scrawl
a note on and shove under your neighbor's front door.
|