LCI Learning
Master the Art of Contract Drafting & Corporate Legal Work with Adv Navodit Mehra. Register Now!

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


The concept of property has undergone plethora of changes, with the emergence of social networking platforms. The photos we share, the posts we make are our digital property. Every person now-a-days has a part of himself online, and the family and friends would want to preserve this legacy too after a person is no more. We have a lot of memories stored online which our loved ones would want to preserve. Digital assets also include music, films, email accounts and computer game characters.

In a very recent case of Toronto based Alison Atkins, the sixteen years old lost a long battle with colon disease. Her sister had a technician crack her password protected Mac Book Pro, as her family wanted to access her digital remains like her facebook, twitter, yahoo and hotmail accounts, which were her life line during her illness. Alison had pictures poems and messages written on these inline forums which her family wanted to preserve.

However, accessing Alison’s accounts without her authorization was an act of unauthorized access and punishable by law.

Under the Information Technology Act, 2000, it is a violation of Section 43(a) and Section 43(b) of the Act.

These provisions read as under:

Section 43: If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is in charge of a computer, computer system or computer network,-

(a) accesses or secures access to such computer, computer system or computer network

LCI Learning

(b) downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer data base information from such computer, computer system or computer network including information or data held or stored in any removable storage medium.

-shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation to the person so affected.

The unauthorized use of Alison’s passwords violated the website terms of use and provisions of cyber laws too. None of the service providers allowed the Atkins family to recover her passwords and access her accounts as that would amount to a violation of her privacy. The attempts of the Atkins family to recover the digital remains of their daughter fell apart as facebook and all the other service providers started to block them out.

The digital era adds a new complexity to the human test of dealing with death. Loved ones once may have memorialized the departed with private rituals and a notice in the newspaper. Today, as family and friends gather publicly to write and share photos online, the obituary may never be complete.

But families like the Atkinses can lose control of a process they feel is their right and obligation when the memories are stored online—encrypted, locked behind passwords, just beyond reach. One major cause is privacy law. Current laws, intended to protect the living, fail to address a separate question: Who should see or supervise our online legacy?

In 2009, Facebook began to allow family members to either delete or “memorialize” the accounts of the deceased. In a memorialized account, the people on a person’s existing friend list can still leave their comments and photos with the account of a dead person. But nobody has permission to log in or edit the account. However, this could also lead to cases of cyber defamation where there could be defamatory posts made, and the family is not authorized to delete or edit them.

The only solution to this is that digital legacy must be included in wills, and people should leave clear instructions about what should happen to their social media, online accounts and other digital assets after their death. If we make our wishes clear now as to whether we want our digital legacy to be closed down or preserved, it becomes much easier for loved ones to comply with our wishes.

Advocate Puneet Bhasin,

Cyber Law Expert,

Cyberjure Legal Consulting

www.cyberjure.com

contact.cyberjure@gmail.com


"Loved reading this piece by Advocate Bhasin?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"






Tags :


Category Intellectual Property Rights, Other Articles by - Advocate Bhasin 



Comments

10 years ago mr. snehal

good article sir. truly henceforth i will recommend my clients for the same.


11 years ago dr g balakrishnan

when common sense is uncommon in the name of special sense you are in a deep canyons system of people never to surface back!


11 years ago dr g balakrishnan

Every government worth the name should be supported by great common sense. Else governments would fail without any shadow of doubt, that jurisprudence prudentially appreciate!


11 years ago dr g balakrishnan

so it is vital governance too has a lakshmana rekha, a principle of limitation. That way Limitation Acts surfaced when you go deep down into legal history


11 years ago dr g balakrishnan

see if fed up people stop depositing cash in banks what would happen to so called governance of governments all over! No people movement can be stopped by any force!


11 years ago dr g balakrishnan

today income tax gives credence to cheques while cash transaction is called as bogus transactions and lead you to all kinds of penalties, do u call it a sanctity!


11 years ago dr g balakrishnan

idea of cheques made banks to come into being, but for cheques why do do you need banks! thru banking you developed some banking industry and some employments people who deposit in banks help run banking development,More than that what?


11 years ago dr g balakrishnan

Why cheques came into being ? it came as a convenience commercially under NI Act 1881 so world over as Britain was ruling 3/4th world. No where cheque bounce is a crime but 'wise' India did it so!


11 years ago dr g balakrishnan

i say bar councils of india need to move a PIL to cause severability under doctrine of severability Writ under judicial review. that would one sane act when really done!


11 years ago dr g balakrishnan

so sec 138 today says a check bouncing though a civil wrong just because errors are common in memory or recording but that so called section sends accused to prison calling him a great criminal!


Show All (15) (Login required)


You are not logged in . Please login to post comments.

Click here to Login / Register