ABSTRACT The information age has led to extensive personal data aggregation, posing various challenges for posthumous privacy and digital remains. Users are often unaware of tools for managing their digital remains, laws in the area are predominantly silent or inadequate, and the scholarship has argued for appropriate legal and technological solutions. Our study of 1766 adult UK residents’ attitudes, the first in the UK, reveals a desire for control over digital remains but low awareness and utilisation of existing tools. These phenomena are known in the literature as ‘the posthumous privacy paradox’ and ‘the inverted posthumous privacy paradox’ – our data and findings offer strong evidence for future policy and law reform. Based on our findings, complemented by earlier theoretical and doctrinal research, our recommendations include law reforms in data protection, recognition of online tools for managing digital remains and a more comprehensive UK and EU-wide reform that encompasses several relevant areas of law.

This paper presents the results of the first qualitative empirical study on digital legacy and post-mortem privacy in the UK, shedding light on experiences, practices, perceptions, and limitations in the field. Our research confirms and extends existing theoretical and doctrinal work, validating key arguments, assumptions and ideas. The study unveils critical issues surrounding awareness, platform behaviours, and the limitations of current practices, exacerbated by the global impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic. Central to our findings is the overwhelming lack of awareness among users, practitioners, platforms, and regulators, highlighting a pressing need for increased engagement from the media, academics, and professional associations. The study identifies key drivers for change, emphasising the role of individual grief, high-profile cases, and technological advancements. Legal professionals, facing obstacles in the absence of clear regulations, exhibit leadership and creativity in addressing client needs, claiming a new expertise in the evolving field of digital legacy. Contrary to the clear call for law reform among practitioners, regulators acknowledge the growing importance but prioritise other areas, necessitating a cross-cutting reform approach. Concerns about platform cooperation, jurisdictional differences, and the inadequacy of existing solutions emerge, urging a re-evaluation of technological and in-service solutions, such as Facebook or Apple Legacy Contact. Education and media literacy are identified as pivotal components, addressing the broader landscape of digital legacy and privacy. Our findings underscore the urgent need for legal and policy reform, conceptual clarity, and a review of technological solutions. The study's impact extends beyond empirical evidence, informing subsequent research on user perceptions and guiding the development of policy and law reform proposals in the underexplored realm of digital legacy and post-mortem privacy.

e.harbinja@aston.ac.uk #online harms, duty of care, platform regulation, online safety This article critiques key proposals of the United Kingdom’s “Online Harms” White Paper; in particular, the proposal for new digital regulator and the imposition of a “duty of care” on platforms. While acknowledging that a duty of care, backed up by sanctions works well in some environments, we argue is not appropriate for policing the White Paper’s identified harms as it could result in the blocking of legal, subjectively harmful content. Furthermore, the proposed regulator lacks the necessary independence and could be subjected to political interference. We conclude that the imposition of a duty of care will result in an unacceptable chilling effect on free expression, resulting in a draconian regulatory environment for platforms, with users’ digital rights adversely affected. Content Not Available

Abstract Posthumous medical data donation (PMDD) for the purpose of legitimate, non-commercial and, potentially, very beneficial medical research has been sparsely discussed in legal scholarship to date. Conversely, quite an extensive social science and humanities research establishes benefits of this practice. It also finds that PMDD enables individuals to employ their altruistic motivations and aspirations by helping them participate in ‘citizen's science’ and medical research, thus supporting efforts in finding cures for some of the acutest diseases of today. There appears to be no jurisdiction where a regulatory framework supports and enables PMDD. This paper analyses whether and to what extent law and policy should enable this practice. We take a comparative approach, examining the position under both US and UK law, providing the first comparative legal account of this practice. We do not aim to suggest a detailed legal solution for PMDD, but rather key considerations and principles for legislative/policy reforms, which would support the practice of PMDD. We discuss organ donation and provide a comparative outlook with the aim of drawing lessons from this practice, and applying them to the regulation of PMDD. Our analysis is both normative and black letter since we consider arguments regarding the necessity of organ and data donation, as well as the law that regulates these practices.

Ob vernetzte Fabriken, intelligente Social Bots oder autonomes Fahren – smarte Produkte sind in aller Munde. Das vorliegende Buch erweitert in der 2. Auflage das Spektrum der Themen, die in Zukunft die rechtliche Diskussion beherrschen werden, bis hin zum Weltraumrecht. Es erörtert Fragen künstlicher Intelligenz und autonomer Systeme, insbesondere unter haftungs- und produktsicherheitsrechtlichen Aspekten; ein praktischer Teil stellt ausgewählte Anwendungen des Internets der Dinge vor.

This chapter examines the concept of digital assets from an angle that has not yet been explored in legal scholarship around digital death and the transmission of digital assets on death. Digital death is conceived herein as the death of an individual who leaves behind various digital fragments of their identity, either in the form of digital assets broadly or as digital biographies, dossiers, autobiographies and archives. Digital death causes uncertainty as to what happens in this dispersed, interconnected and often unregulated digital space, which Kasket lucidly entitles The New Elysium. Most legal scholars have considered digital assets either from a perspective of ‘hard law’ of succession and probate or the intersection of property, contracts and intellectual property; sometimes referring to data protection, jurisdiction or cybercrime. The scholars have not ventured into exploring theory that goes beyond theories of property, intellectual property and privacy. The chapter begins by examining classical conceptualisations of digital assets as property and the ‘”new” new property’, exploring whether this is the correct way to perceive digital assets conceptually. It will then go on to examine post-mortem privacy in the context of digital assets, and introduce a novel link with the Floridian concept of informational bodies. In the attempt to offer a comprehensive framework and a more nuanced normative support for future policy and law, the chapter interrelates all of the concepts with the ideas of postmortal society, introducing a new concept of ‘postmortal privacy’. Finally, the author uses this conceptualisation to test some of the existing legal regimes in the area of the transmission of digital assets. Suggestions from this chapter remain mainly at an abstract level, due to the scope and the nature of the framework it introduces.

This article critiques key proposals of the United Kingdom’s “Online Harms” White Paper; in particular, the proposal for new digital regulator and the imposition of a “duty of care” on platforms. While acknowledging that a duty of care, backed up by sanctions works well in some environments, we argue is not appropriate for policing the White Paper’s identified harms as it could result in the blocking of legal, subjectively harmful content. Furthermore, the proposed regulator lacks the necessary independence and could be subjected to political interference. We conclude that the imposition of a duty of care will result in an unacceptable chilling effect on free expression, resulting in a draconian regulatory environment for platforms, with users’ digital rights adversely affected.