Presented at DDD14 in Bath University

1. Victim’s Social Media on Television
Examining the Privacy
of the Deceased
September 7, 2019
Dr.Akiko ORITA
@oritako
(Kanto Gakuin University,JAPAN)
This research is supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research #16K00468 and #19H04426.
The 14th International Conference on the Social Context of Death, Dying and Disposal

2. Contents
• Background & Motivation
• Two aspects of postmortem decision
– Privacy of deceased
– Online mourning
• Survey in three countries
– Japan, US and France
• Discussion
• Conclusion

3. Background & Motivation
• Recently, social media accounts of
victims of serious incidents have
been reported in the news.
• It helps audiences better understand
these tragic situations and their
mourning, it may also be an invasion
of the victim's and their family's
privacy.
• This research will examine
individuals’ intentions about
treatment of their social media
account after death and what do
they think of deceased’s social media
on mass media.

4. Post-Mortem Privacy
• Postmortem privacy is understood as the right of a
person to preserve and control their reputation and
dignity after death (Edwards and Harbinja 2013;
Harbinja, 2017)
• There is no comprehensive law which define
postmortem privacy as a right of decease.
– Most European privacy laws deny the possibility of the
deceased holding privacy rights(Buitelaar ,2017).
– Recital 27 in The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
states,
• “This Regulation does not apply to the personal data of deceased
persons.”
• “Member States may provide for rules regarding the processing of
personal data of deceased persons.”
– France’s Digital Bill defines “digital death” as the right for all
to express their wishes and ensure they are respected with
regard to what happens after their death to their personal
information published online (Government of France, 2016).

5. Digital Assets
• Another concept regarding postmortem privacy is
“digital assets,”
– Copyright acts as a surrogate for postmortem privacy with
respect to unpublished writings. Individual states in the
USA
• Technological solutions
– Facebook’s legacy contact
– Google’s Inactive Account Manager
– These developments signify the change from rights to
privacy to the ownership of digital assets
(Yuasa&Orita,2018)
– Either the deceased themselves or heirs would decide the
treatment of data after death

6. Online Mourning
• In the late 1990s: “cybermemorials” or “virtual cemeteries,” which
included static content (memorials) as well as a dynamic content
(guestbooks) (Roberts and Vidal 2000)
• MySpace identifies three categories of comments for the deceased:
(Brubaker and Hayes ,2011)
– Sharing memories of the deceased
– Posting updates from their own lives
– Leaving comments to maintain connections with the deceased
• Online social networking facilitates adolescent grieving following
the sudden death of a peer by reviewing 20 profiles of users aged
15–19 years who had died in 2005 -2007. (Williams and Merten ,2009),
– The comments posted to the deceased’s profiles were addressed
directly to the deceased: an effort was made to cling to an “ongoing
attachment;”
– in contrast, the are little interaction among the living.
• Among Facebook users, mourners use memorialized profiles to
maintain a continuing bond with the deceased (Getty et al,2011)..

7. Overview of the Survey
Data source Macromill Inc. Online Global Research Panel
in Japan, US, and France
Samples 1,080 (360 in each country), age 20–79,
using at least one SNS or messaging service
Equalized cells Allotted by age (6 cells) and gender (2 cells)
Means Web-based questionnaire in each language
Period January 2019
the US : where SNS services are originated from
France : one of EU nations that recognize the deceased as being entitled to
independent rights

8. Intention for treatment of
their account after death by country
27.2%
13.3%
36.8%
24.1%
30.4%
13.5%
38.4%
33.8%
24.1%
19.0%
22.6%
28.0%
26.5%
26.0%
26.2%
27.2%
38.2%
26.0%
48.9%
43.6%
48.7%
67.7%
40.6%
47.9%
43.1%
60.6%
35.4%
39.0%
61.8%
74.0%
51.1%
74.0%
FB-all
FB-Japan(N=158)
FB-US(N=340)
FB-France(N=336)
Instagram-all
Instagram-Japan(N=104)
Instagram-US(N=164)
Instagram-France(N=136)
Twitter-all
Twitter-Japan(N=169)
Twitter-US(N=135)
Twitter-France(N=110)
Set Memorial Mode Retain as it is Delete
Significant differences tested by Chi-square (p<.01)

9. When you see a victim's social media posts on TV news,
how do you feel about it?
4.4%
15.6%
13.6%
28.6%
34.2%
35.6%
53.9%
30.8%
29.7%
13.1%
19.4%
21.1%
JP
US
FRA
Defenitely want to see Want to see
Don't want to see Never want to see
Significant differences tested by Chi-square (p<.01)

10. Crosstab Analysis (1) Demographics
20.0%
15.0%
11.7%
11.1%
4.4%
5.0%
37.2%
38.9%
32.2%
34.4%
27.2%
26.7%
31.7%
32.2%
37.8%
42.2%
43.9%
41.1%
11.1%
13.9%
18.3%
12.2%
24.4%
27.2%
20s
30s
40s
50s
60a
70s
Generation
Defenetely Want to See
Want to see
No Significant Difference by gender
5.1%
0.0%
12.1%
28.6%
21.4%
40.0%
16.0%
10.0%
14.3%
33.1%
18.2%
33.4%
42.9%
14.3%
40.0%
40.0%
32.0%
32.7%
54.4%
63.6%
31.8%
10.7%
35.7%
20.0%
32.0%
41.6%
28.6%
7.4%
18.2%
22.6%
17.9%
28.6%
0.0%
12.0%
16.4%
24.5%
Buddhism(N=136)
Shinto(N=11)
Christianity(N=371)
Islam(N=28)
Judaism(N=14)
Hinduism(N=5)
Other (N=25)
None (N=438)
N.A.(N=52)
Religion
Defenetely Want to See Want to see
Don't want to see Never want to see
Significant differences tested by Chi-square (p<.01)

11. Crosstab Analysis Comparison (1) Demographics
• Japan
– No significant difference by gender, generation, and
religion
• US and France
– Significant difference by generation (p<.01)
– No significant difference by gender and religion
26.7%
20.0%
16.7%
15.0%
8.3%
6.7%
40.0%
43.3%
33.3%
31.7%
30.0%
26.7%
25.0%
20.0%
31.7%
38.3%
36.7%
33.3%
8.3%
16.7%
18.3%
15.0%
25.0%
33.3%
20s
30s
40s
50s
60s
70s
Generation (US)
Defenetely Want to See Want to see
Don't want to see Never want to see
25.0%
20.0%
16.7%
13.3%
3.3%
3.3%
41.7%
43.3%
33.3%
43.3%
25.0%
26.7%
21.7%
26.7%
30.0%
28.3%
35.0%
36.7%
11.7%
10.0%
20.0%
15.0%
36.7%
33.3%
20s
30s
40s
50s
60s
70s
Generation (FRA)
Defenetely Want to See Want to see
Don't want to see Never want to see

12. Crosstab Analysis Comparison (2) Knowledge
• Q: GDPR deal with protection of personal information and protection of privacy of
deceased persons. -> FALSE
• Q: Matters concerning handling of data of users after they have passed away are
stated in the terms of use of all services ->FALSE
• Q: After a user has passed away, the bereaved family cannot be given that person's
account information (ID and password) even if they inquire with the service
provider. ->TRUE
• Japan
– Significant differences by knowledge about GDPR and Terms of use (p<.01)
– No significant difference by knowledge about ID & password treatment
16.7%
0.0%
2.1%
22.7%
34.0%
29.0%
54.5%
43.4%
56.0%
6.1%
22.6%
12.9%
Yes(FALSE)
No(TRUE)
Don't Know
Knowledge about GDPR (JP)
Defenetely Want to See Want to see
Don't want to see Never want to see
19.1%
0.0%
2.7%
29.8%
24.5%
29.2%
40.4%
54.7%
56.2%
10.6%
20.8%
11.9%
Yes(FALSE)
No(TRUE)
Don't Know
Knowledge about Terms of Use (JP)
Defenetely Want to See Want to see
Don't want to see Never want to see

13. Crosstab Analysis Comparison (2) Knowledge cont.
• US and France
– Significant differences (p<.01) by knowledge about GDPR
and about ID & password treatment
29.1%
8.7%
13.5%
32.7%
60.9%
32.3%
18.2%
30.4%
33.3%
20.0%
0.0%
20.9%
Yes(FALSE)
No(TRUE)
Don't Know
Knowledge about GDPR(US)
Defenetely Want to See Want to see
Don't want to see Never want to see
23.2%
18.2%
11.2%
31.3%
50.9%
31.1%
24.2%
25.5%
35.4%
21.2%
5.5%
22.3%
Yes(TRUE)
No(FALSE)
Don't Know
Knowledge about ID&Pass (US)
Defenetely Want to See Want to see
Don't want to see Never want to see
No significant difference in Terms of use
30.0%
8.8%
8.9%
37.5%
38.2%
34.6%
18.8%
35.3%
32.5%
13.8%
17.6%
24.0%
Yes(FALSE)
No(TRUE)
Don't Know
Knowledge about GDPR (FR)
22.0%
17.5%
8.4%
31.0%
47.4%
34.5%
28.0%
22.8%
32.5%
19.0%
12.3%
24.6%
Yes(TRUE)
No(FALSE)
Don't Know
Knowledge about ID&PASS (FRA)

14. What do you think about introducing a victim's social media
posts on TV news in coverage of an incident or accident?
36.9%
24.4%
17.8%
8.3%
24.7%
51.4%
40.3%
0.8%
32.2%
30.3%
11.1%
17.8%
24.4%
33.9%
31.4%
1.9%
22.5%
20.8%
19.4%
14.7%
26.4%
36.7%
33.1%
2.5%
It enables more understanding of the details of
the incident or accident **
It enables understanding of the victim's life
before he/she passed away**
It is effective as a measure for preventing
accidents**
The victim is respected**
The victim's dignity is infringed
The victim's privacy is infringed**
The victim's bereaved family's privacy is
infringed**
Other
JP US FRA
** p<.01 by ANOVA

15. Crosstab Analysis : Demographics
• Japan
– No significant difference by generation, and
religion
– Significant differences by gender in
• Victim’s dignity infringed : Male 12.2% Female 4.4%
• Victim’s privacy infringed : Male 42.2% Female 60.6%
• France
– No significant difference

16. Crosstab Analysis : Demographics Cont.
• US
– No significant difference by gender and religion
– Significant differences by generation in
• Details of the accident & Victim’s life : the younger, the
more positive (proportional)
– ( 20s 53.3%, 70s 20.0%) ( 20s 46.7%, 70s 18.3%)
• Preventing accident:
• Bereaved family’s privacy infringed : the older, the
more they concern (proportional)
– ( 20s 20.0%, 70s 40.0%)
25.0%
8.3%
3.3%
18.3%
3.3%
8.3%
20s
30s
40s
50s
60a
70s
Preventing Accident

17. Discussion
• Unless the deceased’s account is deleted, there is possibility to be found,
shared, and broadcasted if the deceased is victim of any accidents.
• Our survey examined their intention as a party and as an audience varies
• As a party
– Prior decision to set up memorial mode on their account is not yet major way
except for in US.
– Intention for retain or delete their account also varies by country of residence,
where there is different legal system of postmortem privacy
– Though global services have common policies worldwide, reactions varies.
– Japan showed the unique tendency that majority prefer deleting their account
after death.
• As an audience
– Japan showed the unique tendency that majority have negative impressions
on victim’s social media on TV while US and France showed both positive and
negative impressions
– Some demographic elements and correct knowledge about related rules may
effect on their attitude

18. Conclusion
• It is necessary not only for Social Media services
industry but also for Mass Media and to design
comprehensive guidelines that cover postmortem
privacy and dignity as well as “the right to know”.
• Our future research directions include the
problem that whether victims’ real-name are
reported or not