The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in João Pessoa, Brazil, from 10 to 13 November 2015. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> MODERATOR: Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Is it on? It is on. It looks like it's on. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the three ring. This ring is specifically (inaudible) and looking to be set a little bit glim, but not too glim. It is very important that when we discuss this and the fact we may never be able to escape this, we need to bring some humor to this. So we're going to deal with this topic in as fun a way as we can. Otherwise, we'll just sit around and cry. You know? So I remind you that we will have fun with this topic. So please, if you need some extra support and care, we do our best to find that for you.
At this point in time, we're not giving you legal advice. We're having a discussion about many things. There are‑‑ we may have to share. Okay. So there's three things for sure. Taxes, this and trouble. This I know. This I know. So we're trying to void the last part, the last part as much as possible. So, I need to introduce to you my players. We're doing this as a hypothetical. Okay? This is a story. This is a play. This is a thing that's going to evolve in front of you. Do not believe everything you hear. It's not necessarily true. You need to make up your own mind about facts that are put out and about here. So please come with us. This is going to be a lot of fun. Okay. Matthew is a human rights advocate. Many of you know Matthew already. He's a typical user. All the materials‑‑ Matthew, tell us a little bit about yourself. What do you do?
>> MATTHEW SHEARS: Like many of us here, I spent an awful lot of time on the plane. I don't spend much time at home. I've had a pretty wide ranging career. I've worked for corporations. I've worked for governments and now I found a home in civil society. I'm not really good at keeping track of my data. I have many, many services, but many of those were paid by direct debits. I have a number this year and I have been keeping track of my payments. I like music lists and videos as well when I'm flying around. I'm generally very tired and I have this fellow called Bob that helps look after‑‑
>> MODERATOR: Bob? Your microphone. He's the chair, great history and technology and security. Bob, what are you telling Matthew about his stuff?
>> BOB: So I've given him a lot of advice. Some of which he followed and some he didn't about how to protect and secure his data. He has a very distributed way of doing it. Instead of one account in one place, he as multiple accounts around the world. He has the usual social media,Facebook, Twitter. He plays online games. He has online music. He has a very diversified online portfolio so to speak. I try to encourage him to use something like a password manager so that access to it is all in one place. He may still be using that. I think it is fairly clear he never thought of giving anyone else access to his password file.
>> MODERATOR: Matthew, you have so many accounts all over the Internet. Have you read the terms and conditions?
>> MATTHEW SHEARS: Let's just say sometimes it is very hard to reach. No. I'm not very good at passwords. They tend up to end up in pieces of paper. They tend to be substitutes for telephone numbers and I must have not been thinking about it. My family don't know much about those passwords or data either. That's unfortunate. Most recently, yes. I'm a little bit of a hoardist. I probably kept everything on a password. I'm getting some sense to human rights cases, yes.
>> MODERATOR: So you recently‑‑ haven't you been to visit the doctor while you were home for a short period. You had some really bad news, haven't you.
>> MATTHEW SHEARS: Yes. It is very hard to share this. I have a terminal illness. But I thought that I dedicated my life to this space. I'm here. I'm delighted to be here in Brazil. I'm continuing to work until the very last minute as I have been most of my life.
>> MODERATOR: Matthew is a very dedicate man. What should he put in his will?
>> I'm not going to advise offline, but (inaudible) but I would like to advise about so called digital property that I and (inaudible) disagree with. But I have to advise him on that as well. You need to have a provisioning of where you will share to access and manage your digital property, digital accounts, digital assets and it has to be precise and explicit. Otherwise the service provider can reduce to do it such as they might be criminally or civilly liable. So we will drive three weeks precise saying what will happen and he will decide on whether he would like to leave some of the accounts and things to his wife and kids. E‑mails to his wife, I'm not sure. And yeah. We have to be really concise here and I'm asking him how to‑‑
>> MODERATOR: You are giving him very careful advice. Matthew, will you follow this advice?
>> MATTHEW SHEARS: It's like everything else. I am free to be here talking to you. I have Bob looking after.
>> MODERATOR: (inaudible)
>> MATTHEW SHEARS: I do need to be quite explicit. I have Facebook, Hotmail. Gmail I did follow some advice. I did activate the inactive account manager function. So hopefully that's good. Dropbox, yeah, yeah. I may be able to provide one or two passwords. I do have some sensitive information in my account. I have brokerage accounts, I have online banking. I have credit card statements. I have a lot of (inaudible) account.
>> MODERATOR: Okay. Too much. Too much. Matthew, stop, stop. That's too much. You have sent an e‑mail to Dana saying the world is kind ever okay pretty much?
>> MATTHEW SHEARS: I'm working on it.
>> MODERATOR: Okay.
>> (inaudible) (low voice).
>> MODERATOR: You have a conference coming up in Brazil. So Matthew heads off to Brazil. He's having a wonderful time. Unfortunately, he's not used to the traffic. He's just not used to the traffic. And while he's been on the road after function, Matthew's been hit. I'm sorry. But Matthew is now in the hospital on life support. (inaudible) is acting for the Cloud services companies. They hold Matthew's healthcare records. Of course Matthew's family want access to the healthcare records especially his daughter. So, Steve, are you going to give access to this medical information?
>> STEVE: I always tell his daughter to look both ways before she crosses and then I will say there's probably not going to be a problem getting access to the data. The electronic health records company happens is to be organized in the United States. Of course, it has this communications act and Dina talked about that and also having a separate healthcare law. But all that is fine as long as Matthew takes the diligence to fill out that consent form for next of kin. In the old days, you used to do it on paper, but now we have a special screen that, Matt, you could have filled out. There may have been a few times we didn't force our subscribers to fill out, but let's just hope that Matthew indicated the next of kin. I've been told there's nothing in the will granting consent for those health records. We take a look. Before I can figure out whether you designated consent for next of kin, I need to figure out which healthcare provider you were using. We need to figure out whether you're been receiving e‑mail updates. As soon as we see one from a healthcare provider in my Cloud, I need to check to see if you have given consent. Now turns out your e‑mail providers like Google, they have to wait for your inactive account to kick in before anyone in your family can get access to that. There's a special provision that your Yahoo and netmail can get the metadata provided we have proof that somebody that you're dead and that it's necessary to administer the state. The Mota data for e‑mails is just the date of who it's from and who it is to. That's enough to figure out whether you're a healthcare provider and that brokerage account that you were afraid of.
>> MODERATOR: He's not dead yet. So there is no (inaudible) in place. There is difficult things in here. The hospital is crowded. They do want their resources back. The family doesn't want him lingering on. All the doctors have the same advice for the family that Matthew (inaudible) I'm afraid. The hospital has agreed to turn off life support, Matthew. Thank you, Matthew.
[APPLAUSE]
So Matthew has interesting ceramic dolls. So his family asked you to act for them. We will have access and Telefonica, they're a big company here and Google and Dropbox. You think you can get a court order for access?
>> Looks like he's dead. If we're talking Brazil, then we have another person displaying a little bit more. But if we're talking the U.S., then we have a recently adopted a U.S. product of access to the assets. And it's been adopted by (inaudible) half of the U.S. states. In the state law, they implement with grant and automatic access to the executor of that.
>> MODERATOR: We have a hold of Matthew's money. That's okay. But all his other stuff, that's good value too.
>> The thing is in this case executive his wife or whoever‑‑ I know, I know‑‑ she'll be placed into his shoes and she'll be able to access or manage the account according to the law of the states. But the problem is California has not adopted such a law. And the jurisdiction, Google claims and most of the companies is in California. So California might not grant the court's order here.
>> MODERATOR: The companies is in California. Matthew, I'm not sure what citizenship. We have several jurisdictions and we die differently everywhere. You can give us or shed some light on this. Is this court order going to work?
>> Like the story, it's getting complicated. I may be addressed by Matthew's lawyer asking what about the Brazilian law? Since I am a Brazilian lawyer, I live in Joao Pessoa. I have my office by the beach and I will be contacting saying listen, please. We have some case law in Brazil and the family tried to reach contact information from some accounts and Google has some (inaudible). But the courts usually re49 from giving access to the accounts of the deceased. If we some (inaudible) on that and we have to take a look to see how we end up being played out with the provisions having access. There is still, I would say, no solid case law. Definitely the case of following this or that direction. Certainly we have seen courts re49ing from giving family access to the private data of the deceased. You can find decisions here and there. Mostly I will say that is the case. But since I am a lawyer and I want the case to go along, I say let's try it. Let's do those accounts. You know what? Maybe there's something in mail that he sent out during the IGFand you know the market review. It applies the Brazilian legislation if Adaka is collected in the terminal in the communications from disbursem*nt. It begins a terminal in Brazil. So the Brazilian law flies. It doesn't matter. We need to apply the Brazilian law on that. So I really want to play a lawyer that is a jurisdiction supremacist.
>> MODERATOR: Matthew has something to say here.
>> MATTHEW SHEARS: It's amazing when you're dead how everything becomes very clear. It would be really inconvenient for those e‑mails to be available to various parties. There may be some e‑mails in there that are personally embarrassing for me and members of my family. There may somebody very indiscrete e‑mails in those accounts. There will also be e‑mails that relate to my corporate activities, if you go that far back. And certainly relating to the sensitive cases I have at the moment.
>> MODERATOR: So you're going to take this case and I think the family came to take it on now.
>> Brazilian doesn't have data protection laws enforced. So we do have a constitutional provision that protects privacy and the protection. We do have the Internet Bill of rights, but we do not have full fledge law to talk about data protection in Brazil. This is going to be tricky because those e‑mails have been up is the out in Brazil. Understand this happened in Brazil. But I will definitely take the case.
>> MODERATOR: Steve has got something to say.
>> STEVE: Yeah. Turns out when you involve the third party, that's really a communications privacy that was supposed to be protected under that federal law. It turns out to be ruled because the state can't absolve any company from federal liability. That law hasn't produced one bite of data. It's a meaningless law. We'll get to that later. So when you discover where to go, Carlos talked about it. If we can find some evidence and some paperwork or in his inactive account manager where not you gave consent for sister, mother, father to have access to his communications, then we in the California base companies can turn that over. But you have to have evidence of consent that is compelling. It turns out I have seven. I have seven sheers. So we will need another piece of paper from you not only showing that his dead, that you're his official attorney. That the sheers, it is [emailprotected]. Give me consent and Yahoo I can give you access to that e‑mail without necessarily exposing myself to getting sued under federal law. Even if Brazil gives you certain rights and powers, the companies aren't going to turn things over if they break the law and expose it.
>> MODERATOR: What about the terms and conditions. You have some thoughts on the terms and conditions?
>> I would say that it's obvious that terms and conditions apply to the situation. But they definitely cannot overcome the current legislation. I would say from a mental right in the discussion here, which is the rights to the family to view it up on the memory of the deceased and it's not only about apply that perspective about properties. It's bigger than that. I would say and I will put that in my briefing. You know, when you use social networks, you have identity to have access to this account not just property. It's to have access to the whole life of someone who is loved to have just deceased. So it is important for the family to have access to those photos, to those e‑mails. They don't know if that is going to be embarrassing so far. They definitely want to have access to that because maybe that's the most precious memory they can have from the deceased.
>> MODERATOR: There's one other secret in there too. Isn't there, Bob.
>> BOB: (inaudible) any secrets? Yes. We have a relationship that no one else knows about.
>> MODERATOR: Matthew is God's love child. This is why‑‑ but move on. I think you had a comment.
>> Matthew, you saved this in your contact perhaps?
>> BOB: Does that mean ISOhas access to that information?
>> MODERATOR: We're not sure. Is there a name?
>> BOB: It was. Otherwise it would still be a secret.
>> I have to say then you solve no‑‑ what I want to reply at this right to memory is that it does not exist. And the second one is that you might not have had your wife on Facebook and children, but some academics argue that they look and it is very different and it should not multiply. They're constructed by a person and a friend. So they have more content on facebook than family. And but they enabled.
>> MODERATOR: Luckily, they're able to get a court order. They have a court order now and there is some other arrangement in the U.S. as well. I'm not quite sure. But Google. You're not going to own this court order, are you? Why not? What's happening?
>> We're not trying to make it difficult for grieving families, but we're in an impossible position here that in a very significant number of cases even from across the role, they have fought. They don't have the necessary details and even when they do, we have a jurisdiction issue here. Even if the local law of the land applies, it would only apply to whatever communications Matthew did during his presence in Brazil. It certainly does not apply to his entire account he made his whole life. They have scenarios in which the company faces things. Users have a very strong expectation of privacy in their account and it came back to why Google has the account manager. So the court order in Brazil will not be enforced in that sense. We will not honor that especially if its intention was to gain access to the entire count of the communications rather than just whatever the final e‑mail is on the conference work, for example.
>> MODERATOR: This is getting more and more controversial. Matthew started out with only three or four Twitter followers. It's getting bigger and bigger and bigger. His following on Twitter is now over 20,000. It is hitting upwards by the day. There is so much information on this. Not only in the Brazilian press, but across the world. So the family wants his account shut down. They have sent it in. They're refusing to shut down his account because it is making (inaudible). It is still going. I think there might be (inaudible) involved. He was testing some technology. There's an Avatar that he's tweeting from the grave. There are things that Matthew might have said. So, did you‑‑ why isn't Twitter doing this?
>> We don't necessarily shut down an account just because somebody says shut it down. Sometimes we check to see if there's still tweets coming from that account. Estimates of death were greatly exaggerated. We need to make sure we know where they're coming from. We need a proof of death. If you're a U.S. citizen, the bitter terms and conditions, but if you live anywhere else in the world, we go to the Irish law to determine the groups of service. But as soon as we know he's dead and that's the right guy, we activate that account and there will never be another tweet from that account.
>> MODERATOR: We're up into the millions, but there's been so much press and it's been so controversial. So, it is a mess. That's communityfeud or the families counter sued that they think their stuff is going to come out. It is getting controversial. Government field has to step in now. Mary, what is the government going to do? What could they do?
>> MARY UDUMA: Okay. Thank you very much. As government, we have to protect the life and property of our citizens. They have one of them first. There's a lot of controversy. (inaudible) to make sure Google, Twitter, all of them comply with the laws of the land. Secondly, we'll take that and also‑‑ currently in my environment, the offline thing is nothing that says anything that says about the data when you are normal. But first we want to know that they will not be putting in U.S. They'll be putting in Brazil. That's important. So we'll make sure that the law of the land is followed. When somebody is dead, he's dead. And the death certificate‑‑ by the way, I will keep it in custody and then make sure Twitter and Google or Yahoo will not fail that data.
[Laughter]
>> MODERATOR: They're entertaining. They're really entertaining.
>> MARY UDUMA: It is against that and those are things we will be looking at. But in an environment, we don't have any law. We don't have any data protection. If there's any enforcement, there's a problem. We'll enforce another one and (inaudible) enough. So it is complicated and my friend, I can't find her again on the Facebook. I think (inaudible) shut down Facebook. I've been searching for her. I can't find it.
>> MODERATOR: So the family is grieving now and the community is very upset. They won't be able to remove the things of Matthew, but they also want‑‑ they're a bit conflicted. So, is this‑‑ is this typical of what is likely to go on legislation if it is likely to come about?
>> MARY UDUMA: Not really. I'm not sure what government (inaudible).
[Laughter]
>> MODERATOR: It's in the Cloud. The government is in the Cloud.
>> No. I personally as an academic, I'm not going to say too much (inaudible) legislation. I'm more in favor of (inaudible) communication side, for example. We need to mandate to make things clear here. Yeah.
>> MODERATOR: Carlos, do you think Brazilian government wants to change something here?
>> CARLOS DIAS: Well, I wasn't in doubt about which government we were talking about here, but if I'm defining the family, I would say first of all, are you thinking all the devices from the deceased? Is that the law? There has to be a warehouse with all the devices from dead people. I'm really worrying about that. Is that the case?
>> We don't want anybody to impersonate Matthew from that starting point. And for that, (inaudible) a long time and we would have allowed things to clear up with Google‑‑ I mean, bitter and Facebook and the family‑‑ so by the time they're asking for‑‑ we allowed them time before they go do all that. We have guidelines on what to do when resourcing happened.
>> This is something getting really, really hard with the family. Now with the new apps where you exchange photo, those photos are not in the Cloud. The images that Matthew may have sent out to friends, maybe he has some glitch in a Snapchat‑like app. They're not in the Cloud. They're in the device. So that's why I will fight the Brazilian government. I'm fighting everyone because the family needs to get access to those devices. It is not only about the Cloud now. It is about the devices themselves. So I definitely need those Ipads and I need those Smartphones. There are photos there that the family wants to have access. We're getting the situation which I am not in agreement with the government taking the devices hostage.
>> The situation is a bit more complicated. When you find the devices, you may find that I've been hiding some funds from family members and others. And they may not have corporate‑‑ they may not have paid the taxes on that. They could or could not become apparent from having these devices.
>> MODERATOR: I'm sure taxation law will be here. Let's try not to go there. Okay. The families have had enough of all of this. They want to hold a funeral. They want to hold the funeral and they want‑‑ for the wonderful person he was. Tell us about the funeral? What is happening at the funeral?
>> The funeral did not go as well as everybody hoped. What happened is a number of the frames of Matthew's children age 15 to 25 turned up to the funeral and proceeded to take funeral. It is where somebody is take the selfand in the background. Innocuously enough, that's the funeral chapel and there is the coffin in the background. The coffin is open and the selfie is posted. This is typical of the narcissism of today's use and they were appalled. Others argued that this was simply a communications method that young people are accustomed to using. And through the selfie, what they were doing was taking the funeral to social network that they belong to and bringing the social network to the funeral. So that argument proceeded.
>> MODERATOR: There were other problems.
>> There were a couple other problems. Matthew has a friend who lives in the U.K. For various reasons, this friend‑‑ we'll call him Frank‑‑ for a number of reasons, Frank was unable to travel from the U.K.to attend the funeral as much as he would like to. The funeral is strained and it's possible for Frank to get a DVDor two to download from the Cloud of the funeral, but it is not enough for Frank.
>> MODERATOR: Stop.
>> This is the real world funeral.
>> MODERATOR: I thought they were going to wait for Matthew's booklist on amazon.
>> Not yet. Frank wants to attend the funeral in a bodiedfashion as he can. One of the funeral parlors that employ a striped robot. The striped robot has a battery and it's driven and has a flex screen at the top and Frank from London is able to steel the road block from the funeral and talk with other people at the funeral and observe poor Matthew in the coffin. From Frank's point of view, this is terrific. This is the next best thing to being there, but others found it very distracting as you can imagine having a robot driving around at a funeral. It takes attention away from where the attention should be. And there was a third problem. Should I‑‑
>> MODERATOR: They do want now to play some music from Matthew's iTune account, but unfortunately with all of the press associated with Matthew's demise, Amazon knows he did and the material, when they go to play Matthew's music at the funeral, there was an uncomfortable silence. So we try. So Matthew's books‑‑ sorry. On Amazon, that's all gone too. I'm afraid that‑‑ what else is happening?
>> His favorite music is gone and it's not able to be played. His funeral parlor is equipped with state of the art video equipment. There's a large commercial sized screen at the back. A professional video editor was employed to construct a 15 ever had minute biographical video of Matthew's life. With the sound track, very moving sound track, perhaps not one that Matthew would have chosen, but a very moving sound track. What happened there is the other people delivering the eulogy was moving. How can a person stand up, a grieving person unaccustomed to public speaking complete with this multi‑media video shot. So the funeral, in some people's eyes, became a cinemagraphic video affair rather than a family‑based human affair.
>> MODERATOR: So the family walk away unhappy. They don't have all their stuff. They have not had a happy funeral and then let's go to the frames. They had a lot of things disappear. It was just too messy. The island was too messy and they have gone back to having a lot of (inaudible). What's happening at this funeral? What is going on now?
>> A lot of people consider it a very good idea to have a funeral on World of Warcraft because Matthew was very active there.
>> All that extra time.
>> All that extra time. World of Warcraft is a social game. Matthew had many friends on World of Warcraft. They, of course, were not in a position to attend the funeral live, but thought it would be a good idea and quite fits that a funeral occur in parallel to the embodiedfuneral on World of Warcraft. So that was arranged at a certain net time was set and in a certain place. People had done their finest Avatars and people came to that place at that time and they chatted with one another and reminisced about Matthew. There were speeches made.
>> MODERATOR: That sounds lovely.
>> Until serenity swoops down from the hills and slaughters everybody at the funeral. Of course again, we have this controversy. This they point out is a real death. Family is a real person. We're not talking about an Avatar here. We're talking about a real person who really died and we're talking about other real people who really did love Matthew and really are grieving. On that occasion, you come and slaughter them. Completely inappropriate. Rubbish others say. That's not what is inappropriate. What is inappropriate is having a solemn occasion on World of Warcraft. That's a place where people get slaughtered. That's what it is all about. If you had a funeral on World of Warcraft, you have to expect to be slaughtered. The company roll norms of the real world where a funeral is a solemn occasion and not to be disturbed and blah, blah, does that apply or do the cultural norms of the World of Warcraft apply?
>> MODERATOR: You might want to defend their actions.
>> They happen to be a member of our association. And they're based in California. So guess which law applies right now? Turns out those private chats that you were describing amongst his friends are really private communications. They're subject to the same protections for privacy and the family was really anxious. I know they were a bit repulsed by everything you just described. But you know what, Matthew never designated anything in World of Warcraft. So when the attorneys contacted World of Warcraft, they can't do anything. They can't turn over the communications of these other give guys. It is a dead end unless they can find one of those buddies and ask them to give permission. Now, the things we talked about, the revulsion of what happened, at least they had some control of what shows up on Matthew's Facebook page. Turns out whether he designated an alternate or not, when Facebook learns from a next of kin, it will allow you to suspend new posts to that account or deactivate. At least the family doesn't have to be offended by recurring videos and things showing up on Matthew's page. It turns out it can show up on his friend's page.
>> MODERATOR: They're all wanting to say something. Quickly.
>> An interesting thing is hundreds of millions of people who have Facebook accounts and who have died is a relatively small group that have the account deleted or memorialize the account. Most of them remain active. They're active through Facebook's algorithms or they have taken over by someone else who is posting on their behalf. Perhaps in Matthew's case, this is what happened. Matthew's wife is now posting as Matthew and people are receiving those posts from Matthew, many of whom have not known or embodiedMatthew and have only known the online Matthew. Now, is Matthew still alive or is he dead? If your only knowledge of Matthew is through his posts and there were many hundreds of people that only knew him from the posts and if those posts continued, does not his life continue? Are we not seeing a separation here of social life and biological life.
>> If it's a Facebook account, we're in good shape. That entire Facebook page belonging to him can disappear.
>> MODERATOR: And it can be memorialized.
>>D companies notify the account holder that a request was made in the sense of (inaudible)d account. In a significant number of cases, we actually get a response back not to disclose information. So we believe that there's (inaudible) beyond the grave. We assume somebody is managing that account. That's an issue there.
>> MODERATOR: Dana?
>> DANA: We're not going to talk much about Google plus. Okay. So I want to say in addition to memorialization and the Facebook account, there's services called Facebook Legacy contact. That is one of the (inaudible) and the only thing they can do is to change the cover and the profile picture and to post some remembrance picture. The person that says they can Thursday the Legacy content to receive some of the pictures and some of the content, but they cannot access the account and they can send friend's request. You shut it off and designate Bob as your Legacy contact to manage this very well because you were so close in a special relationship.
>> Bob, it was nice to know you from the grave.
>> Let me just jumpbecause don't forget we're talking about a funeral. A funeral is being held in Brazil. Do we have a written statute outside of IGF? We'll get to that. I see. But I think it is important to highlight the family's point and I am impersonating here, but there's a lot of opportunities to make money in this case. First of all, you have the funeral and you have all the things you have described about the funeral. The fundamental case law about the right to privacy and the right to image in Brazil is about the funeral as well. That is something just like that happening. It was decades ago. It was a Brazilian painter. When he died, a very famous moviemaker in Brazil crashed into the funeral and started making a video of the body and the attendants of the funeral. It was a very famous movie at the time, but the family managed to get a court order in order to impede this movie to be widely distributed. There is privacy and there is right of image like right of publicity regarding the deceased. So, this must be stopped and damages could be collected by the family that felt offended. So, this is something the family would like to raise about offline funeral. About the online funeral, family has a claim because there is something that we are forgetting here that this character in the World of Warcraft‑‑ as a lawyer, more like a (inaudible) wars guy. This character is level. I'm not sure. It's like a level 80, 90.
>> 100. It has a lot of value.
>> In fact, I am embarrassed to say I have multiple characters.
>> It is having a new opportunity. We can sell those characters. So the family definitely wants to make out some money from those characters. Those characters have swords, shields, armor. There's a lot of things that can definitely get into the market. I am not sure if you are allowed to believe those characters, but maybe in the second hand market, you can work this out. They definitely want to make some money on that.
>> Three things I will look at as government. First is (inaudible) account is still active and Matthew is not physically here. When planning (inaudible). Secondly, the fact that somebody managing that account can (inaudible) where companies (inaudible). So it goes (inaudible). The sourcing is that we need to know what Google and Google+ does with the data. There must be some guidelines to see. In case of that, this is what we should do and we should know what Google did with this.
>> So we're back at the terms and conditions that are important after all.
>> Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: So I think everybody had some good times at the funeral, a lot of mixed emotions. I think it's time we put up a couple of websites. Bob, you decided to put one up too. Where are you putting these notices up?
>> BOB: In the history domain and I had to think a lot about which TLDto use. It is probably an opportunity here. I think there are some TLDs in the space and so we create a website as a memorial.
>> MODERATOR: We havememorials.com, there was another Legacy address. There's a whole bunch that have gone up, but this particular one Matthew has brought. It's a special website dedicated. There are issues associated with this website now. What's‑‑ what's‑‑ what's going to happen?
>> I put materials that I wanted to share, which wasn't everything. But then other people wanted to add their own content and that was creating their own dispute and other people's created their own website. It is sort of like Wikipedia arguments over articles. People have different opinions.
>> MODERATOR: Are there any costs associated with this for the family to think of, Bob? They spent a lot of money on lawyers lately.
>> BOB: How do you pick a website that you want to last for eternity just like you would in a cemetary or something. You expect the cemetary site to be maintained and you hope they never go out of business. But even a bigger issue for online because who knows what companies will still be around and how much you willing to pay. At some point, I will stop paying because I won't be here. How did all of that get resolved? I think it's all a new challenge we have not seen yet.
>> MODERATOR: Marco?
>> Marco: One of the thins is the cost of doing the moderating. Like having an address with Matthew's family. They search apps and words and they moderated every post that goes up, but it is very difficult for non‑family members to do that. For example, in Matthew's case, there was a lovely tribute posted by a fellow named Ken. It raises no red flags whatever. Unfortunately, Ken is the guy that smacked into Matthew and killed him. The family didn't consider that tribute to be appropriate. There was another one for Mary, again a lovely tribute. Matthew's wife wasn't happy about that. Matthew and Mary had something going on about 10 years ago, but an online moderator would not know. So the burden comes back to the family to do the moderation and doing that on a daily basis is not only time‑‑ not only has a cost, time and it has this emotional cost of constantly revisiting this site.
>> MODERATOR: Anybody have any comments about this website?
>> Had I thought about this, none of this would have occurred. This is not at all like me. It would have been no slaughter on World of Warcraft. There would have been no outpouring of grief. My family would have appreciated that. It is not saying what I wanted. This whole scenario spiraled out of control in even more grief on top of my death.
>> I really have to say is that in Brazil, article 20 of the civil code transferred some of the personality rights of the deceased to those who not actually inherit those rights, but they will be able to protect your rights. You don't know (inaudible) anymore. There is no channel of communication with the deceased that we are aware of and at least know an effective one. Family is the one who is going to protect you and it's there under the Brazilian legislation. It was article 20. So just make sure nobody gets confused here. So article 20 sold paragraph of our civil code, family is a protector of the rights of privacy and image. Often deceased. So the family feels entitled to moderate those websites and to be the guardian of Matthew's Legacy image and how he's going to be shown in the future offline and online.
>> MODERATOR: Dana and Mary?
>> If those codes are put in, so just like we treat the bank account of cash. So it is like asset. Sod national code to those and a lot of the launch to (inaudible) when someone dies. But it is also good that we get to know that we need to put and draw out.
>> I am a little confused with your approach because in a sense, the asset in the bank is money and it goes to wars with family. We're talking about the content of the communication of the deceased here and he might have had before and actually, he had the contractual balance on that. He didn't want that to be disclosed. Companies are regulated and actually, they are the same regulated and not to disclose and contractually bound not to disclose. So I'm not sure if your legislation wouldn't be unconstitution.
>> (inaudible) at the constitution.
>> I'm so sorry that I had to bring Google into this. I just talked to your comment about family privacy. Families were able to protect, but it is accessing that situation. So they could potentially protect the images and they were disturbing. I really disagree with this family's right to protect individual privacy. So as Matthew personal lawyer, I would argue through his right to control. I like with some adjustments and (inaudible) Google, Facebook, Legacy contact and I do support that and they would help Matthew get over some of efficiencies now in his grave. Yeah. Help him present himself.
>> MODERATOR: This is what communityexpectation is? Don't people expect to be able to manage family member's estates? Don't I have a duty to it?
>> Anything that Matthew left in a shoebox or a file folder, he left it on his desk, in a drawer, under the bed, those are tangible things and the family will take into account. There are communications and assets that weren't in the house. He chose not to print out those e‑mails. He chose to leave them in the Cloud where another company was a custodian of it. When you talk about expectations, we spent serious money on a poll earlier this year. We asked serious questions about what happens to your digital Legacy when you're gone? 70% said that no one should access the content of photos. Ironically, less than half those people had a will. There was a lot of laziness about acting out on their preferences. People know if they deliberately put something in the Cloud, especially communications to third parties, it stays there unless they gave consent.
>> MODERATOR: Dana?
>> DANA: First you go to the request what is an estate. So the question is whether this is relevant information that's property. In my view it was supported by case law and this is not really property. It is a combination of intellectual property and privacy. There's no data and some have occasional elements. It is not that clear cut to the offline estate, which is physical usually.
>> MODERATOR: They discovered that Matthew's World of Warcraft armory was worth quite a lot.
>> (inaudible) when it went. What has been detected am? If there's any way that it's been prepared, I think Legacy should also be treated in that form. I'm just asking.
>> Everything is private unless I say to share it. On the default everything is shared, unless I say not to. If you want to flip that on its head to please the grieving families, we will have to ask if that's what the deceased wanted at all.
>> MODERATOR: We have so many cases ins past that the executive was told to bend the notes and yet they didn't and now we have the wonderful books‑‑ I don't know if you know the prizewinner. Casca, where would we be without Casca?
>> There is also information that Matthew does not want to disclose. As I mentioned, he's my love child. We'll ignore that part, but I'm sure that his mother and her husband probably would really not like to know this. And it's never been public before, but we had a relationship and corresponded by e‑mail. You know? So Matthew's desire that the information not be disclosed is very important.
>> MODERATOR: I think everyone is getting very tired of all of these (inaudible). So back to Joao Pessoa. There's a physical memorial to Matthew. Who is going to cover that cost? Does anybody in the rest of the participants here, did we miss any issues? Have we lost anybody? You want to get on the video and you may come to the front and use the camera. Actually, my friend Krishna here was going to make a good point.
>> KRISHNA KUMAR: Thank you. We actually had a little bit of dealings with a case like this when one of our board members died. But one thing you might have missed out is if Matthew was like many people, there must have been some things to recover the information. So if you only get access to his phone number, then you might be able to recover quite a few of those accounts.
>> I have to cover my ears on that one.
[Laughter]
It's practically a very sensible thing to do. But to authorize access on an account is illegal. There's no way for Dropbox or order services to know unless they have been giving a proof of death.
>> KRISHNA KUMAR: I am Krishna from India. I am a master and I do my public policy studies. I would like to share my thought in a different perspective from the country I come from. The majority‑‑ 80% of the people follow Hinduism and we have this belief that once we are there, we should be cremated. The whole concept of cremating and setting things free, setting the soul free from the body and letting go of things. You know? I would add a sixth element of this which is data. It is going to stick around from the data centers. It is not really setting the soul free. I see a conflict here, which is against the fundamental concept of Hinduism.
>> In that promise, you rely on that promise to select an e‑mail account that you know is deleted upon that that you are not supposed to share.
>> On Google, for example, you give users the choice and they should not want their account delighted and to actually disclose information and probably the data themselves choose. You said if in your country people would never choose to do that and just as far as an account manager is concerned, they don't have to do anything.
>> MODERATOR: We have a question from a remote participant?
>> They're just dieing to talk about this.
>> Exactly. So my concern to go in the chapter. Is it true that all government has a test in social media data against the global laws of privacy. There's a side that committed we will have a data protection and that is their interest that is (inaudible) in a discussion and they know. (inaudible) commented there is a need to have open access to internet and privacy. There is a world between privacy and having an open Internet. You will see now from Bristol in the U.K.also commented it is great. I can't stop laughing. We had our photo slide show at my dad's funeral. And we know people viewed it. We laughed it and it was more human. In that photo, there was a special recognition. (inaudible) also needs to be considered. I am most shocked of those who lost and shared pictures. (inaudible) of internet needs to be considered. So she's caring about Matthew's religious belief as well. You can tweet‑‑ if they delete the account, there will be limited data to sell on twitter and Facebook to make money. That's all.
>> MODERATOR: I think we'll let Raquel ask her questions now.
>> RAQUEL GATTO: I am Raquel Gatto. I want to be Matthew's cleaning lady and I'm grieving. He paid very well. And his wife told me to pick out his things, collect his things and she's going to send to the nation. And it turns out I discovered Matthew was also organized and he kept all his passwords in a book and I found it.
[Laughter]
I found it. I got all the information from everything even work.
>> MODERATOR: So Matthew ‑‑
>> I hope you are not hearing.
[Laughter]
What is the right thing to do? So we hear‑‑ I'm asking kind of the same question. If I bring in the Loggin information to his wife and she commits a crime to access, am I a partner in it? Should I burn it? Should I bring to Bob? What's the right thing to do is my question.
>> In your position, I would slowly and carefully put the thing back where you found it and move the hell away from it.
[Laughter]
>> MODERATOR: Okay. Yes.
>> My name is Mike Luvia. I am as well an Internet Society and Ambassador. I would say earlier this year I lost a really good friend of mine and a couple years ago, I lost another friend of mine as well. I am the one that memorialized their account on Facebook. I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to do that, but I didn't think anybody else knew how to do that. My question is about who‑‑ under whose‑‑ not really jurisdiction, but I guess‑‑ let me think of how to word this‑‑ under whose responsibility is it to spread awareness on these kind of tools on various social media accounts? Is there any role or regulated government or encourage internet companies specifically to spread this kind of‑‑ disseminate this knowledge in a way that people can actually use it so that again people's Facebook and Twitter accounts aren't constantly, you know‑‑
>> MODERATOR: Abused. One more comment and then we have a few of you‑‑ I'm sorry. We'll get some responses. I am trying to get as many in as possible. Go ahead.
>> Thank you. (inaudible) my thoughts. I am here from Brazil and I am a member of the IGFfellowship program. All right. Let's say that Matthew had an account and a photo op. Very popular here in Brazil. Let's say he has pictures that he is really, really ashamed of. There is information that (inaudible) third party company and under no possibilities get in touch with any responsible. So what should the family do in cases like that where apparently they were responsible for the content?
>> Hi. I work for the center society. And my question in continuing with this inspiring role‑playing, what if Matthew is a terrorist and law enforcement agencies after they have shut him down still want access to his e‑mails and his accounts? What is the correct way of seeking that data? And how would that be enforced in the jurisdiction?
>> User IGF. I have another one experiment. What happens with Daniel 15 who killed himself because he was gay and he was outed. He is under 18 and they request this is taken down because it's a shame for their family. He didn't identify as an activist, but he posted online because he was gay. Should we take him down or should he be respected even though he didn't call himself an activist.
>> Hi. I am thinking about being a (inaudible) human rights. Every time (inaudible) they tell me that everybody is equal by the law. That's not true. Everybody wants to wants to know about this. How can they say they want to know about his rights.
>> MODERATOR: On that note, we'll start with Carlos and, Matthew, you will get a chance to reply at the end, if that can be quick.
>> Very quickly, are we breaking the four so I can get out of character now?
>> MODERATOR: You can be whoever you like, Carlos.
>> CARLOS DIAS: A bunch of great questions. So very quickly. The issue about the photo opcase. There was an article in BBCBrazil about it like two weeks ago. And it's definitely interesting because photo log was a very, very popular photo scene service that now looks like it is shown through a French company. The 47 company (inaudible) and there's another company that my familiar accounts and they have nothing at all. It is impossible to contact this company. So, this is showing something interesting. We have the expectation that those companies will last forever. Since we are having our account information and photos, we expect that to be with us for our entire life. So since the Internet (inaudible) for like a short time, if we think about it, it is interesting for us to view up this idea that sometimes things‑‑ in a conclusion, let's get going with that conversation.
>> I would advise you take it to the wife.
[Laughter]
That's one. And the thing is we should respect culture, diversity in all the jurisdiction. So whatever is acceptable in the jurisdiction, I think that's what we should be looking at. We are copying the orders and there are things that we have not damaged. We have a lot of consideration when we've looking at that latest thing. (inaudible) is in there for you.
>> Responding to the question here about a promotion in social media. I think the problem with the government promoting it is that these services conflict with (inaudible) in Europe especially on the continent. I suspect (inaudible), but I haven't done the research. I think the companies should make the options more obvious because for now, you probably haven't heard ever them. They're accepting security hidden there in the terms and conditions. I think you should have users look at it. For example, like privacy check up through the Facebook, you should be doing something more to promote. I think you do not have the right to know all the personal information of the individual. So I disagree about that kind of option.
>> I think they're showing what an interplay is. There are people in the room who are interested in keeping their information as privacy as possible where others are clearly making sure how the examining will get access or anybody else for that matter. As interesting that on the question that basically they need to get over it. The family and the several kiss no longer exists. You can't really record data that is no longer available. For that fact for the international, the Brazilians know this, but we actually face the dilemma inside Google with the social network. And internally, we have a debate. Do we shut the service down? It is pretty much research for the past 10 years and what we decided to do is preserve in HTMLform the contents of the discussion that is going on there. So basically there's a memorial to history of the online discussions that we were doing at that time. We brought up the idea first. It is the very importance so that people understand what is going on. It is available online.
>> One question was by government access. This 1996 law, the telecommunications privacy act was written to stop the government creating access. It has a few pieces to cover, but it was really about getting access. I would also add the photo opbox in Brazil ‑‑
>> That government. That government. Go on.
>> Actually, it doesn't say that government. I don't think the Australian government could create. I think it is any government. Any law enforcement official. It is a strict prohibition. It is consent from a private party there is no allowance unless you can show criminal investigation. And then we asked about photos. If you put photos up to Flickering and you publish them to the world, Flicker knows they have already been disclosed. Things that have already been disclosed can be turned over to your family. You can turn that over without that consent. But your private albums will require consent. If somebody has passed away on Facebook, again, next of kin, proof of death, page disappears. In two cases in the United States, the family also wanted access to all their private friends chats, but that is protected by the federal law. Without consent where it doesn't have legacy contact, Facebook could not turn it over.
>> Just point out that technology and culture is in a reciprocal dance. People ask often the question. This is that new technology. Is it good or bad for this or that? In this case, I think the answer really is that as technologies are changing, capacities are also changing their desires and they're changing what good and bad is, which make its almost impossible to answer. If anybody is interested in new technology and commemoration or memorialization, if you catch me after, I can give you a sheet with some pointers to some research.
>> It seems to me that we're shot of not ever dieing. I think you need to think about your physical assets, your virtual assets. The more you can do ahead of time and it's not just and you your family, but other people you care about. This is something we all need to start thinking about. I have not, but I will now.
>> You heard enough about me. I would like it ask a set of questions very quickly and you have to answer truthfully. Who in the room, who has a will?
>> Who has a will?
>> How many people have dealt with digital‑‑ possible digital Legacy with Google or Facebook? How many people after sitting through this panel will think twice about that and go back and fix it?
[Laughter]
>> MODERATOR: I would like to thank Matthew very much for turning to a corpse. I would like to thank everybody here and thank everyone for their participation and I am very glad to see that. If anybody needs a hug after, I am available and so are others. Thank you.
***
This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.
***
