403:(ULC) proposed the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA) to provide fiduciaries easy access to the digital accounts of their deceased clients. Twenty-six states proposed legislation based on the UFADAA; however, such legislation failed in all but one state. In response to this, NetChoice, a major rival to ULC, proposed the Privacy Expectation Afterlife Choices Act (PEAC), which included much more stringent guidelines for giving fiduciaries access to digital accounts and was overall considered to be much more privacy-centric. Only four states had proposed PEAC legislation in 2014, and only Virginia actually implemented it in 2015. Shortly after passing the UFADAA, the ULC passed a revised version (RUFADAA). This new legislative proposal incorporated more privacy centered aspects that aligned more with those of PEAC, which even gained it the support of NetChoice. Moreover, thirty-one states proposed legislation in accordance with the RUFADAA. However, critics of the new legislation contest that its transformation still not does give much consideration to a decedent's post-mortem privacy of the information kept in their account. Google announced in 2020 that they will delete photos and cloud files after two years of inactivity.
425:, aimed at protecting the ownership rights of original works, contain a significant amount of overlap with publicity rights. Much like post-mortem privacy rights, no blatant federal rights of publicity have been established, leaving recognition up to individual states. Whether states have laws regarding post-mortem publicity is dependent upon whether the state classifies the right as a privacy right or a property right. If classified as a personal right, states will not recognize post-mortem rights of publicity due to the stipulation that personal rights only apply to the living. If classified as a property right, then the upkeep and transfer of publicity rights follow a similar tract as that of property. Most states acknowledge a specific duration for post-mortem publicity rights, which generally range between forty and one hundred years. Because post-mortem publicity rights vary from state to state, court precedent has determined that when establishing a person's post-mortem publicity rights, the legislation of the state in which the decedent lived must be adhered to.
210:(HIPAA), which protects individual's personally identifiable health information for 50 years after death. Howeover, no legal mandate exists regarding patients' wishes after death. During life, informed consent is the basis for managing patient medical history, but since informed consent is no longer possible post-mortem, confidential medical information is at risk of being exploited in a number of ways. First, highly sensitive information, such as genetic information, potential health factors, or diseases, can be easily disseminated in a way the patient may not have wanted. In addition, legal consent for research on a patient's biological material no longer applies to deceased individuals, allowing such research to be conducted on deceased patients without requiring permission.
399:
States began proposing legislation to address this problem in the early 2000s, and legislation favoring access to decedents' accounts became overwhelmingly supported. Delaware's Access to
Digital Assets Act is an example of such legislation already passed at the state level, which grants family members of deceased individuals full access to online accounts and profiles. However, stringent terms of service agreements by service providers still make access to accounts very difficult in most cases. Thus, two major contemporary legislative proposals have come forth to address the issue. In July 2014, the
159:. Judicial justification for the termination of privacy rights at death is centered on two main points: firstly, the deceased can no longer be active agents, and secondly, the deceased are incapable of being harmed by invasion of privacy or defamation. The only clear extension of postmortem privacy rights under federal law are those pertaining to property. Via Will, private property and some personal information can be passed on to heirs in accordance with the decedent's wishes.
1562:
25:
1550:
1524:
218:
privacy protection. The inconsistencies surrounding this legislation also have the potential to expose very personal medical information that can also affect the living relatives of a patient. For example, certain genetic diseases that the patient's family does not want known to the public could be exposed, which can lead to raising health insurance premiums and employment difficulties.
270:, family members generally maintain the right to control dissemination of photos of deceased relatives. Privacy rights in this context only extend to the privacy of the living relatives of the decedent, not the actual deceased. Most court rulings regarding autopsy and death scene photos have looked to the precedent set by the federal
461:
of celebrity likeness for commercial, or noncommercial, use in a way that the celebrity would otherwise not agree to during their lifetime. This then raises questions about a potential violation of that celebrity's privacy because of the use of an individual's image without their consent. This can be seen in the 2012
217:
records has become a significant issue in recent years. State legislation dictating the dissemination of autopsy records can be characterized into three groups: those prioritizing confidentiality, those prioritizing complete transparency, and a middle ground that limits some aspects of disclosure for
106:
pertaining to the deceased vary significantly, but in general do not extend any clear rights of privacy beyond property rights. The relative lack of acknowledgment of post-mortem privacy rights has sparked controversy, as rapid technological advancements have resulted in increased amounts of personal
460:
The use of deceased celebrities' likenesses has sparked controversy, mainly regarding the potential for their image to be used in a way that is inconsistent with that celebrity's desire. This can occur through the use of a celebrity's image for advertising a product, service, or any other recreation
420:
was created as an extension of the right of privacy. It was developed with the intent to provided unique privacy rights to celebrities or anyone whose persona or name had commercial value. Because these people are constantly in the public eye, general rights of privacy are oftentimes not applicable,
394:
has allowed for the memorialization of deceased users' accounts, which aims to maintain the privacy of the user while allowing friends and family to still interact with the account. Requesting information from the account is a long and difficult process. The company also allows for "legacy contact,"
380:
The past decade has seen an unprecedented amount of data being stored in online accounts. Because of the relative newness of this phenomenon, no legal mandate exists for how a person's digital assets are to be handled after death. Terms of
Service Agreements between the user and the service provider
365:
determined that a prosecutor who photocopied and then released an autopsy photo of a deceased child after his retirement could not be sued under the
Doctrine of Qualified Immunity. A major point in the case was whether or not Brenda Marsh had the legal right to control the dissemination of her son's
398:
The rigid policies of service providers have become increasingly problematic as online transactions and data storage have become more popular, and personal representatives have consequently found an increasing need to access online accounts in order to carry out estate transfers and Will orders.
473:
and other similar recreations of celebrities could become a serious privacy concern in that those being reproduced have no control over how they are being represented. Discretion regarding the use of such digital personas is entirely up to whoever owns the right to that celebrity's image, which
248:
in the scientific world today. Lacks and her family were neither informed nor asked for consent to the use of her cells for this research. It was not until the 1980s when Lacks's medical records were made public, exposing the rest of her family's medical information as well as the fact that her
142:
that are used to prevent unjust damage to individuals' reputations cannot be extended post-mortem. For example, a family cannot file suit for invasion of privacy on behalf of a deceased relative as a personal right; it can only be exerted by the person whose rights are being infringed upon. In
249:
family was never informed of this. The major issue surrounding the Lacks case is twofold. Firstly, at no point was consent sought for the extraction and research on Lacks's cells. Secondly, her family never received compensation for the commercial use of the HeLa cell line.
340:
moments before the event. The major argument of the case came down to weighing public interest and the decedents' families, and the court ruled in favor of protecting the decedents' families, claiming that exposing the tapes could cause relatives of the astronauts trauma.
290:, decided to make the photos of her brutally murdered son public in spite of officials' attempts to ignore the event. The photos exposed the horrendous realities of racial injustice in America and became a rallying call for many influential civil rights figures, including
257:
The lack of biobank policies and consent forms has led to uncertainty about the post-mortem use of data for medical research. However, studies show that acceptability of post-mortem use of data for medical research was high among research participants and their relatives.
389:
requires a lengthy process that involves getting a court order to obtain content from a deceased user's account. There is also an option to allow someone to manage the account, make it inactive, or delete it altogether once the user has died.
350:
similarly found that under FOIA, the privacy rights of a decedents' relatives are both acknowledged and prioritized when disseminating autopsy/death scene photos of the deceased. This decision was made in regards to the death scene photos of
1042:
381:
remain the closest variant to this available. In order to maintain their users' privacy protection, many of these agreements make it very difficult for third parties to access such online accounts once the user has died.
1151:
421:
thus publicity rights accommodate this situation. The right of publicity essentially grants a person the right to control the portrayal of themselves in the public eye, specifically in regard to commercial use.
298:. Moreover, the images forced all Americans to confront the deep-rooted racism in America despite many white Americans’ attempts to remain ignorant to the despicable happenings, especially in the South.
449:
Al
Hendrix, despite being his son's sole heir, was denied the acquisition of Jimi Hendrix's publicity rights due to the fact that New York, at the time, did not acknowledge post-mortem publicity rights
442:
determined that
Marilyn Monroe's estate did not own her post-mortem right of publicity because neither state of her residency, New York nor California, recognized post-mortem rights of publicity.
1146:
184:
on behalf of her late husband, claiming the use of his name in a documentary was an invasion of his privacy. The court decided her claim was insufficient because it only applied to her husband.
792:
Barwick, Elizabeth D. "All Blogs go to Heaven: Preserving
Valuable Digital Assets Without the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act's Removal of Third Party Privacy Protections."
317:
1196:
156:
932:
Smith, Shannon Flynn1. 2013. "If it Looks Like Tupac, Walks Like Tupac, and Raps Like Tupac, it's
Probably Tupac: Virtual Cloning and Postmortem Right-of-Publicity Implications."
1211:
1092:
207:
1423:
395:
wherein the user can appoint someone to take over their account once they die. The new policy also offers the option for the account to be permanently deleted upon death.
152:
1131:
366:
autopsy photos, and though the court determined that she did, it ruled on a technicality that at the time of the events, the law had not yet been "clearly established."
35:
1388:
1327:
1216:
1082:
1161:
345:
138:, meaning it applies only to the living and, consequently, does not recognize the privacy interests of the deceased. Because of this, defamation and privacy
628:
857:
330:
271:
244:
was an
African American woman whose cells were removed without consent while receiving cancer treatment. Her cells became the source of the foundational
1607:
1171:
1087:
1077:
462:
162:
Most post-mortem privacy protection occurs on the state level. Thus, legislation and the degree of protection varies widely from state to state.
274:(FOIA), which determines under which circumstances the release of such images is appropriate and not invasive of any living person's privacy.
202:
Medical confidentiality is upheld through both state and federal law. Because state legislation varies considerably, Congress passed explicit
1403:
1032:
1226:
1383:
1191:
1181:
1141:
230:
1123:
1097:
1057:
1300:
1221:
1206:
1102:
966:
334:
121:
69:
989:
197:
1587:
1176:
1107:
1072:
1597:
1398:
1378:
1332:
1295:
1201:
1156:
385:, for example, states in its terms of service agreement that the account will be permanently deleted upon the user's death.
814:
1305:
1136:
1111:
661:
Bak, Marieke A. R.; Ploem, M. Corrette; AteĹźyĂĽrek, Hakan; Blom, Marieke T.; Tan, Hanno L.; Willems, Dick L. (April 2020).
492:
1540:
1166:
663:"Stakeholders' perspectives on the post-mortem use of genetic and health-related data for research: a systematic review"
624:
Kohl, U.(2022) What post-mortem privacy may teach us about privacy, Computer Law & Security Review, Vol 47, 105737,
91:. An individual's reputation and dignity after death is also subject to post-mortem privacy protections. In the US, no
1186:
611:
Moore, Quianta L., Mary A. Majumder, Lindsey K.Rutherford, et al. 2016. Associated with Public
Molecular Autopsies."
51:
1418:
1362:
1342:
1067:
1027:
934:
469:. The virtual clone performed on stage, rapping a song never recorded by Tupac during his life. The use of such
1592:
47:
849:
1413:
1408:
1280:
1062:
1454:
1052:
1047:
994:
436:
established the right of publicity, granting individuals control of the commercial use of their identity.
400:
308:
291:
776:
Lopez, Alberto B. 2016. "Posthumous
Privacy, Decedent Intent, and Post-Mortem Access to Digital Assets."
1433:
1004:
959:
760:
Harold, Christine, and Kevin Michael DeLuca. Emmett Till." Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 8(2): 263-86.
722:
Siddiqui, Mahira. 2014. protected Federal Privacy Rights in the Dissemination of Postmortem Images in
1602:
1566:
1252:
1037:
595:
Fennimore, Keenan C. 2012. "Reconciling California's Pre, Post, and Per Mortem Rights of Publicity."
144:
1469:
1337:
1322:
1272:
375:
561:
Berg, Jessica W. 2001. "Grave secrets: legal and ethical analysis of postmortem confidentiality.”
1509:
417:
267:
99:
1479:
1262:
700:
682:
517:
171:
1527:
1393:
1352:
1290:
1242:
999:
952:
690:
674:
507:
131:
474:
inevitably opens up the possibility that the decedent's interest is not being prioritized.
1257:
1247:
632:
470:
241:
203:
193:
177:
148:
135:
1582:
1494:
1474:
1347:
695:
662:
422:
322:
1576:
1464:
1459:
1357:
1317:
1312:
1504:
1285:
466:
356:
352:
295:
87:
is a person's ability to control the dissemination of personal information after
1549:
1499:
1019:
806:
382:
287:
181:
103:
96:
92:
1554:
1484:
678:
512:
283:
127:
686:
625:
521:
282:
While most families wish to conceal the images of their deceased loved ones,
1449:
807:"What happens to my Facebook account if I pass away | Facebook Help Center"
704:
391:
16:
Ability to control the dissemination of personal information after death
975:
222:
214:
838:, 2: 281. Retrieved October 12, 2017 (InfoTrac LegalTrac, EBSCOhost).
176:
established that rights of privacy do not survive death. The widow of
143:
addition, the deceased do not qualify for privacy protections held in
547:, 3: 958. Retrieved October 12, 2017 (InfoTrac LegalTrac, EBSCOhost).
386:
850:"Google says it 'may' delete your files if you don't log in enough"
1489:
226:
88:
333:
for access to audio recordings of the astronauts involved in the
1428:
543:
Banta, Natalie M. 2016. "Death and privacy in the digital age."
312:
245:
139:
948:
18:
233:, medical confidentiality survives the death of the patient.
34:
deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a
944:
493:"Post-mortem privacy and informational self-determination"
43:
1538:
914:
Smolensky, Kirsten Rabe. 2009. "Rights of the Dead."
744:
Terilli, Samuel A., and Sigman L. Splichal. 2005. "
434:
Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc.
1442:
1371:
1271:
1235:
1122:
1018:
982:
208:
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
1424:International Association of Privacy Professionals
885:Decker, Michael. 2009. Transformation at Death."
597:Indiana International & Comparative Law Review
1389:Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
465:concert, which featured a digital recreation of
440:Shaw Family Archives Ltd. v. CMG Worldwide, Inc.
718:
716:
714:
591:
589:
587:
740:
738:
736:
194:Confidentiality § Medical confidentiality
960:
887:Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal,
881:
879:
877:
875:
32:The examples and perspective in this article
8:
928:
926:
924:
897:
895:
772:
770:
768:
766:
346:National Archives and Records Administration
607:
605:
539:
537:
535:
533:
531:
447:Experience Hendrix v. HendrixLicensing.com,
967:
953:
945:
626:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105737
557:
555:
553:
694:
511:
70:Learn how and when to remove this message
1545:
483:
860:from the original on February 13, 2023
788:
786:
613:Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics,
107:information stored and shared online.
1404:Electronic Privacy Information Center
756:
754:
643:
641:
7:
1384:Center for Democracy and Technology
647:Jones, D. Gareth. " perspectives."
262:Autopsy and death scene photographs
231:European Convention of Human Rights
667:European Journal of Human Genetics
14:
848:Morse, Jack (November 12, 2020).
834:Gaied, Melissa. 2016. account."
728:Golden Gate University Law Review
500:Ethics and Information Technology
331:Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
122:Privacy laws of the United States
1608:Privacy law in the United States
1560:
1548:
1523:
1522:
990:Right of access to personal data
901:Hicks, Aubrie. 2012 the wake ."
23:
817:from the original on 2022-10-30
746:Communication Law & Policy,
491:Buitelaar, J. C. (2017-06-01).
1399:Electronic Frontier Foundation
1379:American Civil Liberties Union
1333:Privacy-enhancing technologies
206:regulations in 2000 under the
172:Jesse James Jr. v. Screen Gems
1:
903:Seattle University Law Review
836:Suffolk University Law Review
151:, such as those noted in the
724:Marsh v. County of San Diego
649:Medicolegal & Bioethics,
412:Post-mortem publicity rights
407:Celebrity images and persona
363:Marsh v. County of San Diego
1124:Data protection authorities
198:Physician–patient privilege
46:, discuss the issue on the
1624:
1328:Social networking services
373:
272:Freedom of Information Act
191:
119:
1518:
1419:Global Network Initiative
1363:Virtual assistant privacy
1343:Privacy-invasive software
935:Michigan State Law Review
679:10.1038/s41431-019-0503-5
545:North Carolina Law Review
513:10.1007/s10676-017-9421-9
778:George Mason Law Review,
576:Ethics & Information
1414:Future of Privacy Forum
1409:European Digital Rights
563:Connecticut Law Review,
237:Case of Henrietta Lacks
188:Medical confidentiality
1588:Legal aspects of death
1455:Cellphone surveillance
1372:Advocacy organizations
995:Expectation of privacy
401:Uniform Law Commission
355:, a deputy counsel to
309:New York Times Company
292:Martin Luther King Jr.
102:. At the state level,
1598:Privacy controversies
1434:Privacy International
1005:Right to be forgotten
574:Buitelaar, J. 2017.
213:The dissemination of
157:Fourteenth Amendments
429:Relevant court cases
302:Relevant court cases
166:Relevant court cases
95:specifically extend
52:create a new article
44:improve this article
1470:Global surveillance
1338:Privacy engineering
1323:Personal identifier
1273:Information privacy
1010:Post-mortem privacy
916:Hofstra Law Review,
376:Digital inheritance
318:D.C. District Court
278:Case of Emmett Till
180:filed suit against
85:Post-mortem privacy
1510:Personality rights
794:Georgia Law Review
631:2023-02-15 at the
418:right of publicity
329:request under the
284:Mamie Till Bradley
268:Due Process Clause
100:privacy protection
1536:
1535:
1480:Mass surveillance
938:, (5): 1719-1761.
796:50, (2): 593-624.
80:
79:
72:
54:, as appropriate.
1615:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1553:
1552:
1544:
1526:
1525:
1394:Data Privacy Lab
1353:Privacy software
1000:Right to privacy
969:
962:
955:
946:
939:
930:
919:
912:
906:
899:
890:
883:
870:
869:
867:
865:
845:
839:
832:
826:
825:
823:
822:
811:www.facebook.com
803:
797:
790:
781:
774:
761:
758:
749:
742:
731:
720:
709:
708:
698:
658:
652:
645:
636:
622:
616:
609:
600:
593:
582:
572:
566:
559:
548:
541:
526:
525:
515:
497:
488:
328:
253:Medical Research
229:, and under the
149:statutory rights
134:is considered a
132:right to privacy
75:
68:
64:
61:
55:
27:
26:
19:
1623:
1622:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1593:Medical privacy
1573:
1572:
1571:
1561:
1559:
1547:
1539:
1537:
1532:
1514:
1438:
1367:
1267:
1231:
1118:
1112:amended in 2020
1014:
978:
973:
943:
942:
931:
922:
918:37(3): 763-804.
913:
909:
900:
893:
884:
873:
863:
861:
847:
846:
842:
833:
829:
820:
818:
805:
804:
800:
791:
784:
775:
764:
759:
752:
748:10(3): 313-348.
743:
734:
730:, 44(1): 81-99.
721:
712:
660:
659:
655:
646:
639:
633:Wayback Machine
623:
619:
615:44(2): 309-318.
610:
603:
599:22(2): 377-409.
594:
585:
573:
569:
560:
551:
542:
529:
495:
490:
489:
485:
480:
471:digital cloning
458:
431:
414:
409:
378:
372:
326:
304:
280:
264:
255:
242:Henrietta Lacks
239:
204:medical privacy
200:
190:
178:Jesse James Jr.
168:
124:
118:
113:
76:
65:
59:
56:
41:
28:
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1621:
1619:
1611:
1610:
1605:
1600:
1595:
1590:
1585:
1575:
1574:
1570:
1569:
1557:
1534:
1533:
1531:
1530:
1519:
1516:
1515:
1513:
1512:
1507:
1502:
1497:
1495:Search warrant
1492:
1487:
1482:
1477:
1475:Identity theft
1472:
1467:
1462:
1457:
1452:
1446:
1444:
1440:
1439:
1437:
1436:
1431:
1426:
1421:
1416:
1411:
1406:
1401:
1396:
1391:
1386:
1381:
1375:
1373:
1369:
1368:
1366:
1365:
1360:
1355:
1350:
1348:Privacy policy
1345:
1340:
1335:
1330:
1325:
1320:
1315:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1303:
1298:
1288:
1283:
1277:
1275:
1269:
1268:
1266:
1265:
1260:
1255:
1250:
1245:
1239:
1237:
1233:
1232:
1230:
1229:
1227:United Kingdom
1224:
1219:
1214:
1209:
1204:
1199:
1194:
1189:
1184:
1179:
1174:
1169:
1164:
1159:
1154:
1149:
1144:
1142:European Union
1139:
1134:
1128:
1126:
1120:
1119:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1100:
1098:United Kingdom
1095:
1090:
1085:
1080:
1075:
1070:
1065:
1060:
1058:European Union
1055:
1050:
1045:
1040:
1035:
1030:
1024:
1022:
1016:
1015:
1013:
1012:
1007:
1002:
997:
992:
986:
984:
980:
979:
974:
972:
971:
964:
957:
949:
941:
940:
920:
907:
891:
871:
840:
827:
798:
782:
762:
750:
732:
710:
673:(4): 403–416.
653:
637:
617:
601:
583:
567:
549:
527:
506:(2): 129–142.
482:
481:
479:
476:
457:
454:
430:
427:
423:Copyright laws
413:
410:
408:
405:
371:
370:Digital assets
368:
353:Vincent Foster
323:New York Times
303:
300:
279:
276:
263:
260:
254:
251:
246:HeLa cell line
238:
235:
189:
186:
167:
164:
145:constitutional
136:personal right
117:
114:
112:
109:
78:
77:
60:September 2018
38:of the subject
36:worldwide view
31:
29:
22:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1620:
1609:
1606:
1604:
1601:
1599:
1596:
1594:
1591:
1589:
1586:
1584:
1581:
1580:
1578:
1568:
1567:United States
1558:
1556:
1551:
1546:
1542:
1529:
1521:
1520:
1517:
1511:
1508:
1506:
1503:
1501:
1498:
1496:
1493:
1491:
1488:
1486:
1483:
1481:
1478:
1476:
1473:
1471:
1468:
1466:
1465:Eavesdropping
1463:
1461:
1460:Data security
1458:
1456:
1453:
1451:
1448:
1447:
1445:
1441:
1435:
1432:
1430:
1427:
1425:
1422:
1420:
1417:
1415:
1412:
1410:
1407:
1405:
1402:
1400:
1397:
1395:
1392:
1390:
1387:
1385:
1382:
1380:
1377:
1376:
1374:
1370:
1364:
1361:
1359:
1358:Secret ballot
1356:
1354:
1351:
1349:
1346:
1344:
1341:
1339:
1336:
1334:
1331:
1329:
1326:
1324:
1321:
1319:
1318:Personal data
1316:
1314:
1311:
1307:
1304:
1302:
1299:
1297:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1289:
1287:
1284:
1282:
1279:
1278:
1276:
1274:
1270:
1264:
1261:
1259:
1256:
1254:
1251:
1249:
1246:
1244:
1241:
1240:
1238:
1234:
1228:
1225:
1223:
1220:
1218:
1215:
1213:
1210:
1208:
1205:
1203:
1200:
1198:
1195:
1193:
1190:
1188:
1185:
1183:
1180:
1178:
1175:
1173:
1170:
1168:
1165:
1163:
1160:
1158:
1155:
1153:
1150:
1148:
1145:
1143:
1140:
1138:
1135:
1133:
1130:
1129:
1127:
1125:
1121:
1113:
1109:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:United States
1101:
1099:
1096:
1094:
1091:
1089:
1086:
1084:
1081:
1079:
1076:
1074:
1071:
1069:
1066:
1064:
1061:
1059:
1056:
1054:
1051:
1049:
1046:
1044:
1041:
1039:
1036:
1034:
1031:
1029:
1026:
1025:
1023:
1021:
1017:
1011:
1008:
1006:
1003:
1001:
998:
996:
993:
991:
988:
987:
985:
981:
977:
970:
965:
963:
958:
956:
951:
950:
947:
937:
936:
929:
927:
925:
921:
917:
911:
908:
904:
898:
896:
892:
888:
882:
880:
878:
876:
872:
859:
855:
851:
844:
841:
837:
831:
828:
816:
812:
808:
802:
799:
795:
789:
787:
783:
779:
773:
771:
769:
767:
763:
757:
755:
751:
747:
741:
739:
737:
733:
729:
725:
719:
717:
715:
711:
706:
702:
697:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
657:
654:
650:
644:
642:
638:
634:
630:
627:
621:
618:
614:
608:
606:
602:
598:
592:
590:
588:
584:
580:
577:
571:
568:
564:
558:
556:
554:
550:
546:
540:
538:
536:
534:
532:
528:
523:
519:
514:
509:
505:
501:
494:
487:
484:
477:
475:
472:
468:
464:
455:
453:
452:
448:
443:
441:
437:
435:
428:
426:
424:
419:
411:
406:
404:
402:
396:
393:
388:
384:
377:
369:
367:
364:
360:
358:
354:
349:
347:
342:
339:
337:
332:
325:
324:
319:
315:
314:
310:
301:
299:
297:
293:
289:
285:
277:
275:
273:
269:
261:
259:
252:
250:
247:
243:
236:
234:
232:
228:
224:
219:
216:
211:
209:
205:
199:
195:
187:
185:
183:
179:
175:
173:
165:
163:
160:
158:
154:
150:
146:
141:
137:
133:
129:
123:
116:United States
115:
110:
108:
105:
101:
98:
94:
90:
86:
82:
74:
71:
63:
53:
49:
45:
39:
37:
30:
21:
20:
1505:Human rights
1020:Privacy laws
1009:
933:
915:
910:
902:
886:
864:February 15,
862:. Retrieved
853:
843:
835:
830:
819:. Retrieved
810:
801:
793:
777:
745:
727:
723:
670:
666:
656:
648:
620:
612:
596:
581:, 19(2):129.
578:
575:
570:
562:
544:
503:
499:
486:
467:Tupac Shakur
459:
450:
446:
444:
439:
438:
433:
432:
415:
397:
379:
362:
361:
357:Bill Clinton
344:
343:
335:
321:
307:
305:
296:Muhammad Ali
286:, mother of
281:
265:
256:
240:
220:
212:
201:
170:
169:
161:
125:
104:privacy laws
93:federal laws
84:
83:
81:
66:
57:
33:
1603:Privacy law
1500:Wiretapping
1212:Switzerland
1197:South Korea
1187:Philippines
1177:Netherlands
1172:Isle of Man
1093:Switzerland
1073:New Zealand
905:, (1): 275.
889:27(1): 243.
780:24(1): 183.
456:Controversy
320:denied the
288:Emmett Till
182:Screen Gems
97:post-mortem
1577:Categories
1485:Panopticon
1108:California
983:Principles
821:2022-10-30
579:Technology
478:References
374:See also:
336:Challenger
266:Under the
192:See also:
128:common law
120:See also:
1450:Anonymity
1286:Financial
1263:Workplace
1253:Education
1162:Indonesia
1132:Australia
1088:Sri Lanka
1083:Singapore
1028:Australia
687:1476-5438
522:1388-1957
463:Coachella
348:v. Favish
338:explosion
48:talk page
1528:Category
1443:See also
1296:Facebook
1291:Internet
1243:Consumer
1217:Thailand
858:Archived
854:Mashable
815:Archived
705:31527854
651:5:43-52.
629:Archived
392:Facebook
42:You may
1541:Portals
1306:Twitter
1258:Medical
1248:Digital
1167:Ireland
1152:Germany
1137:Denmark
1063:Germany
1053:England
1048:Denmark
976:Privacy
696:7080773
565:(1):81.
223:England
215:autopsy
1301:Google
1222:Turkey
1207:Sweden
1192:Poland
1182:Norway
1147:France
1078:Russia
1038:Canada
1033:Brazil
703:
693:
685:
520:
387:Google
383:Yahoo!
316:, the
196:, and
153:Fourth
130:, the
126:Under
1583:Death
1490:PRISM
1313:Email
1236:Areas
1202:Spain
1157:India
1068:Ghana
1043:China
496:(PDF)
327:'
227:Wales
140:torts
89:death
50:, or
1429:NOYB
866:2023
726:.”]
701:PMID
683:ISSN
518:ISSN
416:The
313:NASA
294:and
225:and
174:Inc.
155:and
147:and
1555:Law
1281:Law
691:PMC
675:doi
508:doi
445:In
311:v.
306:In
221:In
111:Law
1579::
1110:,
923:^
894:^
874:^
856:.
852:.
813:.
809:.
785:^
765:^
753:^
735:^
713:^
699:.
689:.
681:.
671:28
669:.
665:.
640:^
604:^
586:^
552:^
530:^
516:.
504:19
502:.
498:.
451:.
359:.
1543::
968:e
961:t
954:v
868:.
824:.
707:.
677::
635:.
524:.
510::
73:)
67:(
62:)
58:(
40:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.