|
Comments:
Dan Arbor - 2004-12-21 10:09:46 I'm glad I'm not the only one to think so. I was wondering if the deceased soldier or his family might have some copyright rights, by virtue of the soldier writing the emails--his original content. If I write a note on a Gwen Frostic notecard and I pass away, Heaven forbid, before mailing it, I don't think Frostic's company would have any chance of laying claim to the note. An imperfect analogy, but--what gives? Yahoo email is just a gussied-up notecard.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 10:37:35 Or if I sent a bunch of letters, passed away, God forbid, and they arrived postage due, and--for whatever reason--my family couldn't pay it and the P.O. refused to release them--well, that's more a question of payment for services rendered. Not just sheer callous meanness. And right around Christmas, too. I am afraid of the thought of the family starting the (drawn-out) court process, (whose length depends on the busyness of the court calendar) and paying a lawyer and...then it drags past 90 days and the whole thing's moot. * * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-12-21 10:49:06 The whole point of not making exceptions is not to open yourself up to further litigation based on that exception. It seems cold, but it's the slippery slope.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 10:51:54 Then Yahoo needs to make an exception in case of death. This is ridiculous. Or the family and Yahoo could sign some kind of contract specifying the manner in which making an exception does not open up Y. to further litigation. And I still think the soldier has copyright rights somewhere in there.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 10:54:30 And you know what? If Yahoo had just quietly given them to the family, no one would be the wiser, and the family would be happy. So coldly putting the company interests ahead of a son's last letters home is revolting.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-12-21 10:57:41 If I write something and mail it, I don't have claim to any copyrights. This may be a long-shot, but if Yahoo made this exception, what happens when I die and both my parents and wife (who very much hate each other) want access to my email account? Who does Yahoo give ownership to?* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 11:03:02 The spouse. Parents second. One's spouse has priority in such decisions--one isn't a child at home anymore, after all. But that's just my opinion. It's entirely within Yahoo's power to draw up a simple family-rights plan for cases like this. Another alternative is for soldiers to give their password to their families. But...I kinda wouldn't want to, just out of wanting privacy for my own emails. Your question about which family members get priority is a good one, and grey--that recent euthenasia case in Florida was another example of battling family members. I forget who they ultimately gave the power to, however.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 11:10:30 On the Ken Burns Civil War soundtrack, one cut is the plaintive "Ashokan Farewell," combined with a reading of the last letter written by soldier Sullivan Ballou. It is exquisitely tender, loving, moving, and haunting. I hate to think that such writing, now a memorable bit of American culture familiar to millions, could be lost. But it hasn't been, and you can read it for yourself here.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-12-21 11:14:29 I guess the thing that confuses me is shouldn't the soldier in question already have sent his emails before his death? It's entirely possible that he wrote drafts that he never sent, but it's unlikely. Won't the parents just see the stuff that has been sent to him? Stuff that his friends, lovers, or other family members sent to him in confidence? Maybe this doesn't seem so pure of heart after all.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-12-21 11:22:45 The Detroit News has a better article that sort of explains their motives. http://www.detnews.com/2004/technology/0412/21/A01-38621.htm* * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2004-12-21 11:27:28 Those of us with someone to trust completely with passwords to email and keys to our hearts are lucky. Should such pairings perish together, bye-bye, "it ain't nobody's bidness but mah own."* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 11:29:40 That is indeed a much better article; thank you, Eric *, for the link. Oh, man, the part about the family trying several different new passwords every day is so sad. How undignified. Yahoo should give them the emails, period. You are right, Raymond, such people are lucky. But in this case it wasn't just private personal info but letters from a war zone. They should give them to the family.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-12-21 11:34:17 Not to beat this to death, but if the soldier was really concerned about this, he wouldn't have signed up with Yahoo or agreed to their privacy policy. Regardless, this is all about the family getting access to emails that were sent to him -- not emails he sent or never completed sending. That's sort of weird.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 11:40:08 Nope, I don't buy that. You're technically correct, but, realistically, does anyone read every last word of those "conditions of use" thinks before clicking "I Accept"? No. It would simply be the right thing to give the emails to the family. But the article also mentioned that the stepmom thought he had written but not sent a number of emails, too, so that seems to be part of the body of emails they're seeking. The entire account contents, in short. * * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-12-21 11:49:13 I never read the terms of my credit cards, but have no legal grounds to dispute interest charges from my zero percent financing adventures. I can't call Citibank and say "Oops, don't charge me because I wasn't paying attention. It's not my fault." The cynical person might say the family is looking to compile all of the e-mails that were sent to him in hopes of publishing a book and making some profit on their son's death. I find it amusing that you of all people are excusing people of their personal responsiblity.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 11:57:55 But I'm not. If he pressed the "I Accept" thing, he's responsible for all the 1-point-font endless details whether he reads them or not. But nobody reads that stuff--I don't read my credit card stuff either; who has time? My point is that there's always an exception that can be made, and that compassion trumps some company's paranoid and cruel sticklerism. I have to say I do find it very nice that you say "you of all people [no sarcasm]. I hadn't been aware that I'd projected an aura of responsibility, and can assure you that I have many shortcomings in that area. But I appreciate that you said it. Thanks. OK, back to the topic.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-12-21 12:07:13 Weren't at an impasse here, but one exception always leads to the next. If it were my son who was tragically killed, I'd probably be more concerned about grieving than compiling the e-mails that were sent to him.* * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2004-12-21 12:12:05 It's bad enough that our survivors should find our porn and guns without those incriminating emails as well. I hope Yahoo resists enforcers of the Patriot Act as vigorously as they resist situations like this dead soldier's.* * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2004-12-21 12:21:00 One of my cousins was killed in Vietnam. Shortly after his parents received notification of the death, they received an audio tape from their son. They attached holy significance to the voice-from-beyond, as if it were an image of Jesus in the stains on the garage floor. Stuff like this makes us crazy, and we grasp at straws to prolong our misery. I wonder what I did with my ex-wife's ashes, they're around here somewhere...* * * * * * * * * * * * Anna - 2004-12-21 12:34:14 Personally, if my parents saw some of my emails after I died, I would turn over in my grave. I understand the feelings that the parents have -- feeling that each thing their deceased child had written was precious, but really, don't all of us carefully show the appropriate face to the appropriate person? Don't each of us want to be remembered differently by different people? Ted Hughes once wrote that he hoped that each of us owns the details of our own lives. Sadly, that's not true since the dead have no legal rights at all. I've always been a bit queesy about peoples' personal letters in library archives, and I, for one, am glad that email is held in more confidence. * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan Arbor - 2004-12-21 12:46:11 Responding to the first posts in this string: I am perpetually amazed at the enthusiasm for defending corporate policy demonstrated by your average Joe Citizen. Corporate policy is driven by two things: CYA, and protection of profit, Nothing else. If said policy has a benevolent effect, it is purely by accident. You gain nothing, potentially lose a lot by supporting, rather than scrutinizing, corporate policy. Responding to the later posts: Your privacy ends when you die. To adopt corporate policy as a protection is to enjoy it so long as it jibes with the above-mentioned CYA and profit protection, and is therefore false security. If you were a person of note, do you think Yahoo would really hesitate selling your personal email off to the highest bidder? Email should belong to us, as do our other worldly possessions, and pass onto our heirs or the designated estate manager when we pass on. And if you have deep, dark secrets, or another face you don't want others to see upon your demise, you should take steps to deal with that, in whatever manner you choose, while you are still here. * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 13:29:15Some extremely nuanced, thoughtful, provocative, and thought-provoking comments here. Eric *, I don't believe that making one exception necessarily leads, domino-style, to another. Just because they compassionately give the emails to the family does not create a precedent so that next time, they'll give someone's password to, say, an abusive husband intent on checking up on his wife. Anna, a great comment. I thought about my parents seeing my email. I've sent many foolish ones, some unflatteringly angry ones, and some plain stupid ones. But they're my parents--they probably already knew all about those sides of me already, and I wouldn't mind. I personally don't mind letters in library archives--those are some of the most vivid and valuable historical documents we have. Dan Arbor, your thought "Email should belong to us...and pass onto our heirs" is a very original and striking thing to say. It is interesting to think that something so evanescent could be an actual, inheritable possession. Which I happen to agree with.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-12-21 13:33:55 If I were to download all of my email onto my computer's hard drive, then yes, it is an inheritable possession. If I were to store it on the Yahoo servers like the soldier did, then it's not inheritable because it's not in my possession. As far as the domino theory goes, it's absolutely the way our legal system works. In fact, it's the reason I can carry my AR-15 to church each week.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 13:44:11 But nobody "downloads" their email onto their hard drive; I don't even know what you mean by that. It's unrealistic. Also, your argument gives awesome power to Yahoo by virtue of their storing the email. In my case I have Hotmail, and regularly send art reviews I write at home to my work email account. That writing is the property of my magazine. Just because I use Hotmail to get it from home to work does not give Hotmail possession of that (copyrighted) writing. I have to say I don't see the connection between the fallacious domino theory and packin' in the pew, but that's just me.* * * * * * * * * * * * Dan Arbor - 2004-12-21 13:56:28 But what about more intangible possessions like stock options or intellectual property? I don't have a stock certificate for each of my shares, yet my ownership of these shares is recognized and represented in digital form. If witten thoughts on paper are considered my property, then why not my email? If a physical manifestation is what's required to claim ownership, then all I should need to do is print a copy, right? And what about all the servers in the from my computer to the destination computer? All of those servers have a copy of my email. Do they now also have a claim to ownership? This question of email ownership is far from settled, unfortunately. But, I think it should be treated in the same manner as snail mail, with all rights and claims to privacy attendant. BTW, your church sounds like a hoot. * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan Arbor - 2004-12-21 13:58:28...sorry, the sentence above should read: "And what about all the servers in the path from my computer to the destination computer?* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 14:01:59 Hm, you are persuasive, Dan, and your point about the chain of servers is a good one. Eric * has put forth some reasonable points and so have you and I and others; as you observe, this isn't settled. Yes, the holster-in-the-church has my mind dancing with sacriligious puns, but I'm trying to be good.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-12-21 14:12:03 Actually, if you use a mail client like Outlook or Thunderbird, you have the option of downloading your e-mails and removing them from the server. ISPs only give you so much room on their servers, so it's a necessary option. I think you are taking this a step too far by assuming Yahoo has awesome powers because they store the email. They don't own it and can't sell it and can't publish it, but since they store it, they can adhere to the points set out in their privacy policy. This isn't about ownership. Yahoo isn't claiming to own these e-mails.* * * * * * * * * * * * tom - 2004-12-21 14:22:32 Eric*, you assert that because the emails are stored on the Yahoo servers, they are not an "inheritable possession". That's wrong, I think. As Laura points out, emails are the property of the writer regardless of where they reside in the chain of transmission. A letter sent through the regular mail does not become the property of the US Postal Service if the writer dies before the letter is delivered. While the slippery slope argument should be taken seriously, there are times when a slippery slope is preferable to one's present position. In this case, I think email providers can set up a policy which allows for the heirs of a deceased person to receive his emails which is fairly immune to slippage. Property rights and inheritance are well-established. Laura, I don't know that inundating Ms. Mahon with compalints is the right way to protest Yahoo's policy. I think she is the company mouthpiece, not the originator of the policy. (On the other hand, I have no clue to whom one would protest.)* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 14:24:25 I see. I didn't know about that download function; thanks for the clarification. However, I wonder if the privacy policy has exceptions. If F. S. Scott Fitzgerald emailed his final draft to his publisher, who'd paid him a hefty advance for said work, and then unexpectedly passed on, I'd think the publisher would have a pretty good case in court. * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 14:25:33 oops, Tom beat me to the comments; sorry, that "I see..." was directed to Eric *.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-12-21 14:28:35 Again, Yahoo isn't claiming to own anything. All they are saying is they won't give access to someone who is not the owner of the account. More importantly, the writer doesn't own anything. When J.D. Salinger sends me a letter, I can do whatever I want with it and he can't do a thing. Finally, once I drop a letter in the mailbox, it is no longer my possession. It belongs to the recipient.* * * * * * * * * * * * Dan Arbor - 2004-12-21 14:39:09 Well, as the man said, possession is 9/10ths of the law. If they possess the email on their servers, and they cite a privacy clause freeing them from obligation to all but the account owner (including heirs, etc.), then isn't that de facto the "awesome power" of which you speak? Since they are the gatekeeper to the storage area, they are really calling the shots here. To use another example from the physical realm, if I have my stuff in a commercial storage locker, or a safe-deposit box at a bank, my heirs can claim the contents upon proof of my demise. Why should it not be the same for email? My understanding of email is that the the message packets can potentially be copied onto dozens of separate mail servers, depending in the amount of traffic on these servers, as well as the Internet nodes and pipes themselves. Are you saying that Outlook can use SMTP to reverse the path of the message packet, and pull the email off all of these servers? And what about the packets that encountered truncated paths? Can Outlook grab those, too? * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 14:41:41Hm. Would a bank with safety deposit boxes give me my [theoretical] husband's property if he passed on, even if I didn't have the key? I think so. I think Yahoo needs to amend their Draconian privacy proviso to include backup people (designated by email owner) who can get the password in case of the owner's death. My F. Scott Fitzgerald example was flawed, by the way. [notes Dan Arbor's comment coming in and reads it] Also, Dan Arbor's comment about the safety deposit box--that example occurred to both of us it seems.* * * * * * * * * * * * Dan Arbor - 2004-12-21 14:42:22 Sorry, my post was in response to Eric *. Guess I am too slow on the trigger...* * * * * * * * * * * * tom - 2004-12-21 14:42:51 I don't know if the last comment is directed to me or Laura. In any case, Eric*, you claim that on the one hand, an email stored on Yahoo's servers "not inheritable because it's not in my possession", and on the other hand, you claim that Yahoo doesn't own the email stored on its servers, thus you consign the email to some kind of limbo where no one possesses it. You are right, a letter dropped in a mailbox belongs to the recipient. My point, however, was that the USPS cannot destroy a letter because the sender (or recipient) has died before it was delivered. (You get mail from JD Salinger???)* * * * * * * * * * * * tom - 2004-12-21 14:44:58 with everyone posting at once, comments get garbled. In my previous comment, I meant to say that I don't know if Eric*'s last comment was directed to me or Laura.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-12-21 14:46:31 This all traces back to the user's agreement and privacy policy. If you click the box, like the soldier did, then you agree to their terms. I think we're getting too caught up in law when we should be talking policy. Yahoo says that your privacy is important and they will only give out passwords to the owners of the accounts (not family members). Accounts are also deleted after 90 days of inactivity. This is pretty cut and dry albeit a little cold. Again, Yahoo isn't claiming to own anything. They are just claiming to be concern about privacy issues.* * * * * * * * * * * * Dan Arbor - 2004-12-21 14:49:32 Yes, but I would make the point that Yahoo's policy should not supercede laws and conventions where they apply to intellectual property and correspondence. Clarity of policy notwithstanding, I am not sure they are on as solid ground as they believe. * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan Arbor - 2004-12-21 14:58:10Also, while Yahoo may not claim to own the email, they do have control over it. And that just reduces all of this to semantics, doesn't it?* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 15:00:33 Yes, Dan, I agree--intellectual property seems to trump a privacy statement--the owner's dead, after all, and no longer is a private individual. And you are right, gatekeepers are de facto owners. I also don't think Yahoo's on rock-solid ground.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-12-21 15:01:31 That's a interesting point (superceding laws), but I'm not sure there are laws in this case to be superceded. That's why I think Yahoo is so bold. I'd dismiss the intellectual property angle because unlike ink to paper, email can only be considered intellectual property if you include a statement of privacy on each individual email.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 15:08:34 Yes, I think Dan's on to something with the "privacy statement can't supercede intellectual property laws" argument--that may be the way out for this family. Eric *, is that "statement of privacy" necessary for something to be considered intellectual property? I mean, literature has no such statement (unless you count the copyright) and yet is considered intellectual property. I don't see why ink vs. pixels should matter, but I may be missing something. * * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-12-21 15:27:27 I may have misspoke regarding my letters from J.D. As soon as you put pen to paper and write a letter, you are the intellectual copyright owner. The letter cannot be reprinted without permission (the reason my book of Salinger letters remains unpublished). An email only has a copyright if you attach a statement like: This E-mail message and any attachments may contain legally privileged, confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this E-mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this E-mail message from your computer. I also don't think there is intellectual property involved. The Yahoo account in question only has emails received (even if the step-mom "thinks" otherwise).* * * * * * * * * * * * Anna - 2004-12-21 15:33:53 Jeepers Creepers, Dan Arbor, do you feel comfortable sharing everything about yourself with everyone in your life? I doubt it says anything about "issues" that I need to "deal with" (Dr. Phil?) before I die that I don't want my parents to read all of my correspondence. If I wanted them to read all of my email, I would provide them with the password and tell them to come on in. Afterall, is last night's racy encounter with fiancee really any of my parents' business? Or is it really their right to hear what I really think of their divorce? Heck no. What I want them to know, I tell them. I think that's pretty normal. I think a better analogy would be a law requiring all recipients of letters and cards to be to turn them over to the next of kin following a person's death. Would we feel comfortable with such a law? If people have the expectation that their next of kin will not have the right to bust into their email, then when people die, their email should remain private. If they have specifically granted permission (by, say, revealing their password), or if they have been told ahead of time so that they can censor themselves accordingly, then I see no problem with passing email along after death.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 15:36:35 Hm. That's interesting. And that probably explains those similar privacy notices on fax cover sheets. But there seems to be no real practical difference between mail and electronic mail. If one is the intellectual copyright owner of the former, it seems odd to me that one would not be owner of the latter. There must be some case law pertaining to this, by now. At any rate, I think your Salinger letters are in the public domain, so start writing your preface and lining up those publishers. Last, you are right, the email box probably has only emails received. Some of which are probably from the stepmom. Could she claim some form of ownership on the emails she wrote that are trapped in the soldier's inbox? I don't mean to split hairs or argue for argument's sake--instead, I think this is a very interesting discussion about an as yet ill-defined corner of the law.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-12-21 15:42:04 If there are indeed emails from the step-mother, she can only prevent them from being published. She can't get them back. As Yahoo is not threatening to distribute them, she has nothing to worry about. J.D. can't call me and demand his letters back. I own them, but he owns the copyright and can prevent me from publishing them. Copyright law is messed up.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 15:47:29 Sorry, Anna's comment somehow beat my last one--my "hm, that's interesting" was directed to Eric *'s "I may have misspoke" comment, sorry for any confusion.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 15:54:15 Anna's comment is very persuasive and logical, and worth repeating: "If people have the expectation that their next of kin will not have the right to bust into their email, then when people die, their email should remain private. If they have specifically granted permission (by, say, revealing their password), or if they have been told ahead of time so that they can censor themselves accordingly, then I see no problem with passing email along after death."* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 15:59:52 Now that Anna mentions it, posthumous kin-pillaging of email accounts could lead to a lot of trouble. If that became SOP, then emailers would nervously start to/want to censor themselves, knowing it'd all come out after death. That's a big invasion of privacy, I have to say. Hmmm.* * * * * * * * * * * * tom - 2004-12-21 16:12:12 Laura, in the case where a relative sent nasty physical letters rather than nasty emails, would he not also worry about the letters being read by other family members? I don't think that there is a difference here between a paper letter and an email.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 16:17:12 That is a valid point, Tom. But people don't write paper letters any more, by and large, and they generally don't save them. (I am the exception I guess--I have saved every letter sent to me since I was 14 and have boxes upon boxes of them). Also, people tend to be less formal in emails than in letters. I'm generally pretty formal in my letters, but slapdash in email. I think most people are the same. People use email a bit differently.* * * * * * * * * * * * tom - 2004-12-21 16:25:26 That's entirely true, now. But when one reads letters written before the telephone came along, they can be remarkably informal and frank depending on the purpose and recipient of the letter. For myself, I never assume any email I send is private, and I tend to be rather guarded in the emails I write. It's too easy to accidentally send an email to the wrong person (I think almost has fat-fingered their address book at one time or other), and email is fairly easy to intercept. If I have something to say that is confidential, I use the phone.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 16:34:00 You are right. The Sullivan Ballou letter (link near beginning of thread) is certainly frank; his heart is wide open when he writes it. I wonder what he'd think of its floating on a blog for the wide world to see. I myself am richer for having read it, I must say.* * * * * * * * * * * * George - 2004-12-21 16:45:05 If I die tomorrow, please don't try to speak for me ask my email provider to give my parents my email. If I wanted them to be able to read my emails, I would have given them the password already.* * * * * * * * * * * * addiann - 2004-12-21 16:48:33 Laura...this has been an interesting thread, but mostly I thank you for the link to the Sullivan Ballou letter. I had never read or heard it. It's very beautiful.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 16:57:26 Hello George (of the blog 90% Crud)--thanks for stopping by. Yes, the more I think about it, the more I have doubts about giving the parents access. I can see both sides. Addiann, you are most welcome. I wish everyone could regularly receive tender, loving letters like that--without the death of their sweetheart a week later at Bull Run, I mean. It is indeed beautiful.* * * * * * * * * * * * tom - 2004-12-21 17:06:55 George, strong encryption is the only way to go.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 17:11:50 Perhaps what we need here is something like an "in case of disaster" form when signing up to the email provider. You know, "in case of my death, please give my password to (check one) 1. spouse 2. parents 3. no one." It would be tedious, however, for the email provider to deal with kin brandishing sometimes dubious documents indicating their relationship.* * * * * * * * * * * * brett - 2004-12-21 18:01:34 this entire business is a complete mystery to me. I have outlook express on my computer. My emails come in, and while there is an online holding pen my isp provides me, i have never used it for anything. Email comes in, i delete it or organize it on MY hard drive, and that's it. No offense to anyone here, but I've never comprehended why anyone would trust their permanent correspondence records to a mysterious server someplace, especially a company with a "!" at the end of their name. As for the issue of his parents, or spouse, or anyone accessing his emails, my opinion is that if he didn't send them to those people himself, they don't have a right to see them. I agree with anna and eric* completely on those points. ALso, i don't know if anyone has brought it up yet (my head is hurting and i couldn't read every post), but I've often heard that when soldiers go into actual combat they're warned by their commander to destroy or remove everything from their pockets they don't want their family to see in case they die (love letters from non-spouses, porn, drugs, etc). It's a fairly common aspect of preparing for death, and as important as wearing your dog tags.
Finally, the Ballou letter is heartfelt and moving, as well as being much better written than either a) most civil war soldiers could manage, on average, and b) vastly superior in language to anything most 21st century people are capable of, especially in short a email format: I luv you xoxo c u soon LOL!:) Okay, I'm deleting the 500 messages in my inbox, the many more in my folders - Oh! and all that crap in my Yahoo account. Oh! wait, there are more accounts which I choose here not to name. The letters, notebooks, manuscripts, and sundry jottings can remain. No one can read my handwriting anyway. "All the letters look the same. I can't distinguish A from Z," my father complained.* * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2004-12-21 18:13:55 ...i forgot about the correspondence with that kid who was Charlie Manson's cousin and who killed himself, maybe i'd better get rid of that...* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 19:04:20 Brett, only today, thanks to helpful comments from kind readers, have I learned about email servers that interact with one's hard drive. I just didn't know that was an option till Eric * discussed it. I use Hotmail at home and Outlook (regular, non-express) at work. I have so say that downloading emails to a hard drive is a bit more work than I'm willing to do for email, though I'm perfectly willing to carefully file years' worth of hand-written letters, especially if I ever receive one akin to the Ballou letter. It is said that Burns has a welcome mat that says "Go Away," so I suppose that about sums things up.* * * * * * * * * * * * brett - 2004-12-21 19:40:00 i liked the civil war series overall, i suppose, but mainly because of david mccullough's voice. I feel the same way about ken burns as i do about michael moore- that they've become over-saturated and people immediately think 'burns' when they think 'history', the same way they associate moore with being the official spokesperson for the 'Left.' As for email, when i first got a computer i started doing it the way i mentioned, where messages just come into outlook and i keep them there. I've always had trouble sending things to people with yahoo, aol, etc. accounts due to their storage space being exceeded, messages getting deleted after a set time ("Brett- can you send me that photo again?"), and especially irritating are the convenient spam-blockers these networks generally have that register false negatives. Getting back to the family/soldier issue, though, it really is an incredible pressure on Yahoo! simply because they know there are people like me that would never want my correspondence turned over to my parents, and if they did so then they guarantee a loss of customer trust, probably moreso than the amount of folks that hear about this specific story and cancel their accts. out of protest. It is interesting to note, though, that if the soldier owed yahoo! money, they would most likely expect his next of kin to pay off his bill.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 19:51:53You are right, if they turned over the emails they'd lose customers. But I have to say I'd doubt they'd have much luck in getting his next of kin to pay any money he owed, unlike, say, a credit card bill in a messy divorce, with the card in both names but one person vindictively running up the bill for the other to pay. At any rate.* * * * * * * * * * * * brett - 2004-12-21 20:03:36 well, i think it's interesting because yahoo is a 'free' service, but maybe it will make people realize there is a non-financial price to pay sometimes for trusting online companies with too much information. He had "free email", but his parents would probably gladly pay thousands of dollars for the emails themselves. * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-21 20:11:40 They probably would. I hope Yahoo doesn't suggest such a deal, however; that would be reprehensible.* * * * * * * * * * * * Anna - 2004-12-22 09:51:39 Wow, Laura, Kudos to you for keeping this lively discussion going. Funny about the email downloading thing -- I do that, but I feel very, very queesy about it. First of all, there's the privacy issue -- I use Eudora and haven't been able to find a way to password protect it once downloaded. Second, I had my computer stolen once, and it was a NIGHTMARE -- gone were all the appointments I hadn't written in my date book, important emails with grant and deadline information, manuscripts from collaborators I was supposed to revise, manuscripts I was supposed to review (couldn't even remember all the journals so couldn't contact everyone I owed a review to -- just waited for the furious "I've been waiting for six months for your review!! " emails. Now I have both -- my organized files on my computer, spam filtered and filed in a semi-chaotic-but-can-generally-find-things way, and then my untouched files on the central campus server. If I ever had to go back to those, it would be awful, since they aren't filed, there's tons of spam, and literally 10,000 messages, but it would be do-able. By the way, for a "be careful what you write in email" lesson, see http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~fjgil/* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-22 10:01:48 THank you for your kind comment, Anna, but it's solely the (civil, thoughtful, interesting, thought-provoking) comments from you and everyone that kept this going. I particularly liked the polite way everyone discussed this issue. What a nightmare, to lose so much when the computer was stolen. I did try to look up the link you mentioned, but for some reason it would not come up; I'll try again later.* * * * * * * * * * * * Dan Arbor - 2004-12-22 10:39:43 Anna, your stolen computer story raises the hairs on the back of my neck. That truly is a nightmare scenario! Since I had to bail early, I'll try and answer the question you posed to me yesterday: No, I absolutely do not want my parents to know every detail of my life. I am in agreement with most others on this post in that respect. What I was trying to convey is that you or I may not be able to control what happens to our personal correspondence after our demise, no matter what our stated wishes. If there's stuff you don't want people to see, destroy it now or get used to the idea that it may come to light. That's what I meant when I said you should "deal" with it now. Take steps to protect yourself and your privacy. Sorry if my remarks seemed to imply something else. Myself, I have simply come to terms with the fact that people will have a look at areas of my life that I kept private. I really don't like the idea, but I don't feel that I have any realistic way to prevent it, short of resurrection from the dead to assert my rights in court. :) I once dated a woman whose father was an FBI agent. He once told her not to write down anything she didn't want anyone else to see. As long as you save correspondence with potentially upsetting content, you run the risk of it becoming public knowledge. Now, you can destroy the paper, but email presents a challenge due to its amorphous form, and the manner in which it's transmitted. So far, the best solution to the email dilemma I've heard is Laura's "disaster clause" where you can clearly decide who, if anyone, can access your account after you die. I also have to say that this has been one of most lively and interesting online discussions I've been involved in. You all make good pints and offer fresh perspective on an issue that's still evolving. Thanks. * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-22 10:45:37For me the worst part of Anna's predicament was not knowing which journals expected work, and having to wait for "I expected that review half a year ago!" Yikes. I second what you said, Dan, said about the interesting nature of this discussion, and yes, people made some very thoughtful points indeed. A real pleasure to take part in. Also, it's odd and interesting to note, as you point out, that evanescent email may actually be more difficult to destroy than paper mail.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-22 11:12:29 NPR UPDATE: Michigan lawyers and hackers are offering to help the family for free. Aside from the dubious ethics of hacking into the account, bless their hearts for their generosity.* * * * * * * * * * * * Anna - 2004-12-22 12:13:57 The quick scoop on the web page I posted above: A certain junior faculty member at Penn had an outside interest in what I call (in my biased way) conspiracy theories. Furthermore, he liked to use at least some of them in his teaching. This lead to somewhat heated class discussions that by some opinions were just fine, but by others bordered on frightening and intimidating. He had a senior faculty mentor who warned him in an email that this was not a great tenure-getting strategy and that there were concerns at his mid-tenure review about this. This frank (in my opinion) and helpful (again, my opinion) feedback was apparently perceived as a threat and an attempt to stifle free speech. To resolve this problem, the young fellow posted the email with commentary, and started a storm of email potesting his political persecution. It makes for some pretty interesting reading. Anyway, since then, I've been much more careful about what I put in email, especially to colleagues.* * * * * * * * * * * * Anna - 2004-12-22 12:28:48 Oh, and Dan Arbor... my apologies. I totally misread your comment about "dealing with that" to mean in the pop-psych sense, not in a "disposing of the evidence" sense. I can see what you meant now (and very good advice) -- I had my "miffed by pop psych" hat on. Sorry!* * * * * * * * * * * * tom - 2004-12-22 12:49:37 Anna, your experience with the stolen computer must have perfectly awful. One way to save all your stuff is to get an external hard drive that connects to your computer through the USB port. You can then use software such as Ghost which will copy everything from your computer's hard drive to the external drive. You can then store the external in a safe place. If your computer is stolen, you can use Ghost to copy everything from the external drive to the new computer's hard drive and just pick up where you left off.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-22 12:59:27 [OT]: Anna, I have a "miffed by pop psych" hat, too (green one). :) [/OT] That's a very wise thing to do, Tom; good advice.* * * * * * * * * * * * Dan Arbor - 2004-12-22 13:03:34 Anna - No Prob. :) I want one of those hats, too...* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-22 13:06:28Dan, your tendency to both abbreviate and, paradoxically, capitalize the word "Problem" indicates that you may have ACS (Abbreviation-Capitalization Syndrome). Hmmm.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-22 13:16:12 (just teasing).* * * * * * * * * * * * Dan Arbor - 2004-12-23 11:08:21 Re: yr Post: i Don't Know wht yr Talking About... TTYL, D.A.* * * * * * * * * * * * mortgage - 2005-08-14 19:58:42Mortgages mortgage Alabama Mortgage Alaska Mortgage Arizona Mortgage Arkansas Mortgage California Mortgage Colorado Mortgage Connecticut Mortgage Delaware Mortgage Florida Mortgage Georgia Mortgage Hawaii Mortgage Idaho Mortgage Illinois Mortgage Indiana Mortgage Iowa Mortgage Kansas Mortgage Kentucky Mortgage Louisiana Mortgage <* * * * * * * * * * * * add your comment: |