Afterlife Data Privacy

Have you ever asked yourself what's going to happen with your digital data in case the worst happens, or most importantly, the pros and cons of privacy in such a situation?

Taking passwords to the grave is always be default, and while your email service provider may get socially engineered -- or have to comply with a court order -- under the excuse of emotional crisis, family relations, reconsider how you would like to have your (accounting) data handled :

"The situation poses a dilemma for e-mail providers that are pilloried by privacy rights advocates at the mere suggestion of sensitive data being exposed, at the same time they are expected to hand over the digital keys to family members when a customer dies. Last year, Yahoo was forced to provide access to the e-mail of a U.S. Marine killed in Iraq to his father, who got a court order in the matter. "The commitment we've made to every person who signs up for a Yahoo Mail account is to treat their e-mail as a private communication and to treat the content of their messages as confidential," said Yahoo spokeswoman Karen Mahon. Beyond acknowledging that Yahoo complies with court orders, Mahon declined to discuss Yahoo's requirements for providing family members access to the e-mail accounts of their deceased loved ones. Google will provide access to a deceased Gmail user's account if the person seeking it provides a copy of the death certificate and a copy of a document giving the person power of attorney over the e-mail account, said a Google spokeswoman."

Whereas some inboxes should never be opened -- your spouse's one for instance -- leading email providers have already established practices when dealing with such requests and I feel the lack of reliable stats on the occurrences of such isn't proving the necessary discussion. The majority of people I know don't just have a black and white sides of their characters, they're too colorful to hide it both offline and online, and that's what makes them "people I know". Changing a provider's privacy policy wouldn't necessarily have a significant effect unless an author's email communication truly becomes his property, while on the other hand local laws could ruin the effect. It would be highly flexible if users are offered the opportunity to speak for themselves and their privacy while still able to do it.

Sometimes, on your journey to happiness and emotional balance you end up opening more and more of pandora's boxes, when what you're looking for is right inside your head - the clear memory of the person in question, not the pseudo-individuality in all of its twisted variations. Make sure what you wish for, as it may actually happen!

The ultimate question - Why does a deceased soldier’s email thoughts become the property of a company?

Media Censorship in China - FAQ

Controversial to the generally accepted perspective that China's Internet censorship efforts are primarily a technological solution only, I feel it's self-regulation as a state of mind that's having the greatest impact on the success of their efforts -- the very same way you're being told not to misbehave while seeing yourself on a monitor when entering a store for instance. Self-censorship as a state of mind by itself is a way of hiding the plain truth that the Chinese government is aware it cannot fully control what information is coming in, and going out of the country. That of course doesn't stop it from speculating it still can. Here's a recent FAQ on the Media Censorship in China answering the following questions :

What is the current media policy in China?
How free is Chinese media?
What are the primary censoring agencies in China?
How does China exert media controls?
How does China control the influence of foreign media?
How do journalists get around media control measures?

The main agencies responsible for history engineering :

"But the most powerful monitoring body is the Communist Party’s Central Propaganda Department (CPD), which coordinates with GAPP and SARFT to make sure content promotes and remains consistent with party doctrine. Xinhua, the huge state news agency (7,000 employees, according to official statistics), is beholden to the CPD and therefore considered by press freedom organizations to be a propaganda tool. The CPD gives media outlets directives restricting coverage of politically sensitive topics—such as protests, environmental disasters, Tibet, and Taiwan—which could be considered dangerous to state security and party control."

Centralization as the core of control, why am I not surprised? Don't tolerate censorship, learn how to undermine it.