FatDux

11 Comments »

1. 

   This is an interesting topic, Eric, and it goes so far beyond just the social space. That is, now that more is being stored "in the cloud" and the internet is not so new anymore, we're getting to a point to where people we know are starting to pass and a lot of their information is still online.
   
   There have been lawsuits against Yahoo! as families hope to retrieve email accounts, etc. of their deceased loved ones. Unless they've made radical changes to their policy, I don't believe they allow for anyone else to have access to accounts, which ultimately means that once we're deceased our family members may not be able to access all of our information that is online.
   
   That's probably good and bad. Frankly, I can't imagine a deceased person would want their family going through their email accounts--and if they did, they'd assign a proxy, share an email password with someone, etc.
   
   I've been surprised that we've yet to see the "would you like to assign a proxy to retrieve your information upon your death" clause in online email, etc. Morbid as it is, I suspect we're not too far away from it.
   
   I'm pretty sure most places have a deletion from inactivity clause, but I suspect that doesn't get honored much. I also suspect that online spaces that require payment will be less forgiving and remove some of the personal history soonest, but beyond that...
   
   I imagine there's the "who's paying for this" aspect of it all, too. Memory and storage is fairly inexpensive, but not free. I would suspect that places that don't monetize your connections (ie LinkedIn, Facebook) will be the first to let us fade, but I have to wonder about the others.
   
   Good post, Eric. Plenty more to ponder here.
   

   Comment by Russ - 14:05 22.08.2009
2. 

   Thanks for the kind words, Russ. As you point out, storage is cheap. But ultimately, what are we going to do with these digital artifacts? How will they influence future events?
   
   Regarding "second life after death" (to coin a phrase), I've heard that some recent wills actually have stipulations for this. And I know the EU has talked about "ownership" of online profiles (no decisions that I know of as yet).
   
   As for monetizing, well, we haven't necessarily seen the business models role out for most social services. Certainly Classmates.com did so with a vengence (and thoroughly drove me off with their insistent "go for the gold"). But rest assured, the models will appear. Twitter, too, will show up with something at one point (I suspect a premium-grade tool that lets you assign different degrees of access to your tweets (friends, followers), better personalization (for paid accounts), plus an easier way to track/map conversations).
   
   But I digress...that's for another post (I've finally worked out the length of an "internet year" - suffice to say, Biz Stone and Evan Williams probably have about two months more to roll out their revenue model and around eight months to find a buyer for Twitter).
   

   Comment by Eric Reiss - 15:23 22.08.2009
3. 

   Good post, Eric.
   
   Regarding ownership of the info and dealing with it after death: The first I heard of this was in a presentation at CHI2009 of a paper called "Dying, Death, and Mortality: Towards Thanatosensitivity in HCI", by Mike Massimi (http://www.dgp.toronto.edu/~mikem/), a PhD student at the University of Toronto. The abstract is as follows:
   
   "What happens to human-computer 'interaction' when the human user is no longer alive? This exploratory paper uses insights from the critical humanist tradition to argue for the urgent need to consider the facts of mortality, dying, and death in HCI research. Using an interdisciplinary approach, we critically reflect upon how the intersection of death and computing is currently navigated and illustrate the conceptual and practical complexities presented by mortality, dying, and death in HCI. Finally, we introduce the concept of thanatosensitivity to describe an approach that actively integrates the facts of mortality, dying, and death into HCI research and design." (p. 2459 of the CHI2009 Proceedings)
   
   Russ, Massimi's paper talks about exactly the sort of thing that you mention, in terms of assigning a proxy.
   
   Although this wasn't a well-known problem when my husband died in 2001, it didn't pose an issue for me because we shared an online account (with different email addresses) and I had his password. In addition, his will left me all of his intellectual property, so I think that would have covered it even if I had had to request access. Maybe that's the solution?
   
   Regarding our online legacy, I think that things we create ourselves have (or at least deserve, but maybe that's my bias as an introvert) more impact than things we build using the social networking technologies. For example, my husband designed and built his web site while he was in home hospice, and I still sometimes point people to it (mainly for the recipes). His epitaph (which he wrote himself) is "You have enriched our lives"; and his site is still enriching people's lives.
   

   Comment by Elizabeth Buie - 04:40 24.08.2009
4. 

   Fantastic comment, Elizabeth. Many thanks. Yes, the assignment of intellectual property rights will probably be the solution. At least that's the direction the EU seems to be taking at this point.
   
   But more importantly, you are right - we need to create stuff for the greater good, not build networks to promote ourselves or our online "image". Somehow, online "noise" is often confused with thought leadership in our community, yet the two things don't always equate.
   
   Your husband sounds like he was a fine, caring man. I'm sorry for your loss, and yet his website sounds like exactly the kind of immortality I was thinking about when I wrote this. And how funny you mention recipes: I have hand-written recipes from now-departed friends and family that keep their memory alive in a wonderfully interactive way. Maybe that's why I've started posting recipes to the FatDUX blog :)
   
   Again, Elizabeth, thanks for taking the time to share your CHI notes and your personal story.
   

   Comment by Eric Reiss - 07:13 24.08.2009
5. 

   Great discussion, and great link (thanks Elizabeth).
   
   But may I play devil's advocate and ask how this is possibly different from any other legacy item, paper, property we already deal with?
   
   Russ above says (in relation to one or more cases at Yahoo) that "I can’t imagine a deceased person would want their family going through their email accounts–and if they did, they’d assign a proxy, share an email password with someone, etc.". But this is exactly the reverse of what we do, at least to my legal knowledge and as far as Europe is concerned: if someone didn't state differently (in a will for example), the legal heir gets everything, including the kinky pictures, the embarrassing letters, and the debts. Even more, there are legal provisions which cannot be voided. Why should it be a problem for online 'correspondancy'?
   
   I do see the social, personal issues related to the additional layer of digital replication, digital (and scarcely controllable) diffusion, and the role of the digital self, but this is not technical (and precisely described in the paper referenced above). From that POV, the technical / legal one, my e-mail, my web site, my FB profile, are my heirs' as much as my letters are.
   

   Comment by Andrea Resmini - 10:35 05.09.2009
6. 

   The September 14th issue of Time Magazine, has an interesting article on page 35, "Managing Your Online Afterlife."
   
   Like my post on sexism at Wimbeldon, it would seem we scooped the traditional media yet again :)
   

   Comment by Eric Reiss - 14:50 09.09.2009
7. 

   Ahead of your time, per usual, Mr. Reiss. Good responses, All.
   
   In some ways, this is like what we're suggesting to companies we work with - be transparent.
   
   Transparency creates problems, to be sure,* but better solidifies the picture that others have of that person (or any entity, fwiw).
   
   From the posthumous perspective, we should be willing to own what we put out there, sh*t-disturbing or not, regardless of the medium, as so eloquently stated by Andrea.
   
   For those viewing the multitudes of content that we now generate, please take responsibility for having that depth of detail. Making judgments based on pieces of content. This has been a problem since the beginning of recorded time - people find shocking things in the flotsam of a loved one's passing.
   
   But the wise among us use these elements as pixels to lay upon the picture we have of that person, until the weight of those pixels destroys the frame and forces us to completely re-make that image. For every doting father that is discovered to be an axe murderer there are millions upon millions for whom peering into the depths supports rather than violates that sense of the other's self.
   
   The new thing is that we can color these judgments by giving people a core idea of OUR sense of our own selves. Some find it irresistible to manipulate the image, others find ways to multiply its effect. Whether company or individual, I personally prefer the latter.
   
   Admittedly, I am one of the great violators of this very principle and am working on remedying that as we speak. Unlike Eric, I'm a late bloomer, but eventually emerge with something that belies its recency. Well, most of the time. :)
   
   --
   
   *Regarding organizational transparency:
   
   The digital public demands this even more strongly than us UXfolk espouse it. In both cases, we are incredibly unforgiving when receiving the benefit of viewing the dirty details.
   
   I hope that, in time, we get better at seeing organizations as we see people - some of them are our great friends with their many faults; others are, to our eyes, rotten cesspools of greed and avarice that poison us every moment we spend with them.
   

   Comment by Chris Baum - 02:09 12.09.2009
8. 

   I was listening to RadioLab on NPR a few weeks ago when there was a segment describing "cyber life" after death.
   
   The segment tells a story about a young man who died and the effect the Deathswitch service had on his mother and friend.
   
   You can listen to the part of that podcast here:
   http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2009/09/18/segments/123088
   

   Comment by Crystal Kubitsky - 14:57 13.09.2009
9. 

   Great broadcast, Crystal. Thanks for the link!
   

   Comment by Eric Reiss - 09:31 21.10.2009
10. 

    Yes, I think our immortality in today's world will last much longer and clearer than your grandfather's because of the digital age that we live in. Recordings of life in the past were recorded on things that have much shorter life spans than say a disk, or hard drive which can hold an entire life through the various stages of life. In conclusion, people who view us hundreds of years from now will see us in full motion videos. I see your grandfather died in 1965 which was the year I was born but my condolences to you for the passing of your grandfather.
    

    Comment by Mark at air tool parts - 05:22 10.10.2010
11. 

    Thanks, Mark. Your remarks are both relevant and kind.
    
    How curious to receive condolences 45 years after the fact - and to know that these words will probably live longer than my grandfather lived.
    
    Still thinking about this...
    

    Comment by Eric Reiss - 09:20 16.10.2010