W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-socialweb@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Death and Berevement

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:20:29 +0100
Message-ID: <b3be92a00907270320y6aa31e78v1631189c95236bf2@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Korth <alex@ttbc.de>
Cc: Tim Anglade <tim.anglade@af83.com>, Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>, "public-xg-socialweb@w3.org" <public-xg-socialweb@w3.org>
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Alex Korth<alex@ttbc.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This issue is feature that an ID provider, who is dedicated to take care of
> your stuff and who has access to it, is the right entity to provide.
> In general and as said, users need reach control over their content. If a
> service is given access to content that is hosted by the user's IDP, this
> access must be revokeable if the user changes his mind. It's a life cycle of
> access that ends somewhen. To me it is straight forward for the IDP to ask
> the user what should happen to his content when he dies. Who cares if an
> account is not deleted? It's the party pics that must go offline!
> There is another aspect at the end of content's lifecycle that's strongly
> related to the issue of a user passing away: forgetting. Our brains have a
> feature to forget outdated stuff to free memory.

Sounds like a rather depressing, but useful, use-case. For example,
one might want their content to become a sort of electronic memorial
for oneself, which does mean embarassing party pics must go, but
family members might want to add new photos, use the "wall" to share
memories, and the like. Anyone want to write this up?

> »And because we forget, all the embarassing things we did 10 years ago, are
> forgotten. We are different beings now and thus, this information is
> outdated. One can also understand this brain feature as a natural filter.
> But I am no biologist. ;)
> However, this might be approached technically, or by a licence which expires
> automatically or on demand. Imagine a CC-by-1week. I am no expert in the
> licences domain. Is there something appropriate or something close?«
> (commented on DanBri's http://danbri.org/words/2009/07/23/423 Dan, this is
> still awaiting moderation?)
>
> Cheers,
> Alex
>
> Tim Anglade wrote:
>>
>> Interesting (if slightly morbid) point.
>>
>> The issue is of definite interest nonetheless, if only because of the
>> varying industry practices on the subject.
>>
>> Currently, I'm only aware of two major services who take this eventuality
>> into account:
>> * Facebook urges you to “memorialize” the deceased's page [1]. Apparently,
>> if you can *prove* you're the next of kin, they'll let you delete the
>> account [2];
>> * MySpace lets you delete it permanently [3].
>>
>> Le 26 juil. 09 à 21:39, Phil Archer a écrit :
>>
>>> What I can't work out is whether this is something that might be part of
>>> a future standardisation track - or simply a commercial opportunity for
>>> someone. In which case, why the heck am I sending this to a public list?
>>>  ;-)
>>
>> Another good call. Considering how Americans are signing up for id-theft
>> protection and the like, I could see a smallish industry of e-undertakers
>> cropping up. Something like a nominal or sub-$10 yearly fee in exchange for
>> a prompt removal (or advantageous e-embalming) of your accounts.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tim
>>
>> [1] http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=deceased
>> [2] http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/090224-113022
>> [3] http://faq.myspace.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/369/kw/dead/r_id/100061
>>
>> - - - - - - -
>> Tim Anglade | directeur, pôle « Turbulences » | af83
>> 42, boulevard de Sébastopol | 75003 Paris | France
>> 1436, Howard St | San Francisco | CA 94103 | USA
>> Tel : +33 1 42 72 33 32
>> Mob : +33 6 35 92 77 58
>> skype : tim_anglade
>> Web : www.af83.com
>>
>> This email is:  [X] bloggable   [ ] ask first   [ ] private
>>
>
> --
> Alexander Korth
> www.twitter.com/alexkorth
>
>
Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 10:21:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:08 UTC