Content deleted Content added
new Proposed solutions section copied from User:Gp1791/Digital Inheritance |
new RUFADAA section copied from User:Gp1791/Digital Inheritance |
||
Line 30:
== Proposed solutions ==
Many solutions to the obstacles faced by digital inheritance have been proposed. One possible solution in the United States calls for a revision to the SCA allowing an exemption for digital estate beneficiaries. This would create less liability for online service providers and allow them to grant a beneficiary access to a deceased user's account as an authorized third party.<ref name=":22">Borden, M. (2014). Covering your digital assets: Why the stored communications act stands in the way of digital inheritance. ''Ohio State Law Journal, 75''(2)'','' 405-446. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/ohslj75&i=421</ref> Another possible solution would be an entirely new federal law regulating the handling of digital assets after death, in which the designated administrator of an estate would receive full access to the deceased user's online accounts.<ref name=":13">Ferrante, R. E. (2013). The relationship between digital assets and their transference at death: It's complicated. ''Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law, 15''(1)'','' 37-62. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/loyjpubil15&i=47</ref> As estate law has traditionally been relegated to states, however, a proposed federal law would be a significant departure from current practice.<ref name=":22" /> A third possible solution proposes that online service providers present users with a list of options upon sign-up regarding the disposition of the user's content in case of death. This option would allow users to choose whether or not they desire their content to be preserved and to whom they would grant access, accommodating their right to privacy.<ref>Sherry, K. (2012). What happens to our Facebook accounts when we die?: Probate versus policy and the fate of social-media assets postmortem. ''Pepperdine Law Review, 40''(1), 185-250. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/pepplr40&i=193</ref>
=== Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act ===
As a response to the lack of both federal and state laws concerning digital inheritance, in 2015 the [[Uniform Law Commission]] released the ''Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act'' (RUFADAA).<ref>Sy, E. (2016). The Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act: Has the law caught up with technology? ''Touro Law Review, 32''(3), 647-678. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/touro32&i=665</ref> This piece of legislation seeks to balance the interests of digital estate administrators and the privacy concerns of internet account users and service providers. The RUFADAA stipulates that a personal representative (estate administrator, [[fiduciary]], or [[Conservatorship|conservator]]) of an online account user has the right to access the user's electronic communications if the user had consented to this disclosure either via an online tool (such as Facebook's Legacy Contact feature or Google's Inactive Account Manager) or in a will. If neither of these forms of user consent are on file, an online service provider's terms of service agreement remains in effect and the provider has the right to deny a fiduciary access to electronic communications.<ref>Ronderos, J. (2017). Is access enough: Addressing inheritability of digital assets using the three-tier system under the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act. ''Transactions: The Tennessee Journal of Business Law, 18''(3), 1031-1066. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/transac18&i=1058</ref> As of 2021, 47 states have enacted the RUFADAA.<ref>Uniform Law Commission. (2021, November 30). ''Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, revised''. Retrieved November 30, 2021, from https://www.uniformlaws.org/committees/community-home?CommunityKey=f7237fc4-74c2-4728-81c6-b39a91ecdf22</ref>
==Issues==
| |||