BEAVERTON, Ore. — A grieving Oregon mother who battled Facebook for full access to her deceased son's account has been pushing for years for something that would prevent others from losing photos, messages and other memories — as she did.
"Everybody's going to face this kind of a situation at some point in their lives," says Karen Williams, whose 22-year-old son died in a 2005 motorcycle accident.
The Oregon Legislature responded and took up the cause recently with a proposal that would have made it easier for loved ones to access the "digital assets" of the deceased, only to be turned back by pressure from the tech industry, which argued that both a 1986 federal law and voluntary terms of service agreements prohibit companies from sharing a person's information — even if such a request were included in a last will and testament.
Lobbyists agree the Stored Communications Act is woefully out of date but say that until it's changed, laws passed at the state level could be unconstitutional.
"Everybody wants to do the right thing, but the hard legal reality is the federal communications act," said Jim Hawley, a vice president at TechNet, an industry group that represents companies such as Google and Microsoft.
Oregon lawmakers moved ahead anyway with a proposal that would have given "digital assets" — everything from photos and messages stored online to intellectual property and banking information — the same treatment as material property for estate purposes.
"I think it's time for us to really look at what we can do now," said Democratic Sen. Floyd Prozanski after hearing Williams testify about her loss last month.
Two weeks later, however, language in the bill that would have covered social media accounts, from Facebook to Flikr, was stripped as tech lobbyists said the federal law and company privacy policies trumped anything that the bill would have included.
"I recognize the emotional toll these types of decisions can have on a family who's lost a loved one," Prozanski said Thursday. "But some of these issues may have to be addressed when we have more information than we currently have."
Still, the problem persists and discussions on the issue are gaining momentum. As unlikely as such a case might be, even if a person willingly gives over login and password information to someone whom they authorize to access a given digital account, it would violate most terms of service agreements and both people could be charged with cybercrimes and face civil action from Internet companies under current law.
Currently, five states have digital assets laws, which vary widely. This group includes Oklahoma, which passed a law two years ago allowing estate lawyers to access digital assets, even social media accounts. That measure did not face the opposition that has emerged in Oregon.
"There is some question if laws like the one we passed in Oklahoma, would stand up to a challenge by Facebook and Gmail saying their terms of service agreements supersede laws like this one and the one being discussed in Oregon," said Ryan Kiesel, a former Oklahoma legislator who wrote the law.
"That's a question that remains to be answered," he added.
Several other states, including Nebraska are also considering proposals. And the Uniform Law Commission, a non-profit, non-partisan group that writes model legislation for states to help standardize laws around the nation, is examining the issue.
- PacSun pulls T-shirt from shelves after...
- The 10 best cities in America for job seekers...
- Balancing act: Does parenting bring...
- More jobs are available, but new grads are...
- Dave Ramsey says: Build your budget together
- How strict should parents really be?
- Derek B. Miller: Politics may end up costing...
- Media CEOs are the highest-paid American...
- Clinton: GOP threatening small-business... 19
- Derek B. Miller: Politics may end up... 16
- 'Such a stress reliever': In Rhode... 13
- Democrats see skimpy insurance as the... 11
- PacSun pulls T-shirt from shelves after... 9
- Why many experts missed this: Cheap oil... 7
- Utah jobless rate holds steady at 3.4... 5
- How strict should parents really be? 5