The idea of Apple (or some other big corporation) providing my protected personal data to my next-of-kin is more frightening than the idea that the government has the ability to spy on me while I'm alive. It's the most morbid kind of subliminal marketing that could possibly exist.
"Hey, we're really sorry about fluxquanta's passing. Here is his private data which he may or may not have wanted you to see (but we'll just assume that he did). Aren't we such a caring company? Since we can no longer count on him to give us more money when our next product comes out, keep us and our incredibly kind gesture of digging through the skeleton closets of the dead in mind when shopping for your next device."
The thing is, you can opt in to destroy-when-I-die security. You can encrypt notes or use a zero-knowledge backup provider (backblaze offers this). But for most people that's the wrong default for things like decades of family photos.
In absence of a will it would be terrible to assume that a person meant to have all their assets destroyed instead of handed down. It should be an explicit opt-in. The default should be, your stuff is recoverable and inheritable.
> But for most people that's the wrong default for things like decades of family photos.
That seems like a weird assumption, that there'd be a single person with access to an account containing the only copies of decades of family photos. If someone else has account access or if there are copies of the photos elsewhere, then "destroy-when-I-die" isn't a big problem.
On the other hand, it also violates the way that I think things would usually work in the physical world. That is, if there's a safe that only the deceased had the combination to, I can still drill it to access the contents.
Far from a "weird assumption", that is exactly how most families operate. There's a family computer with all the photos on it that's always logged in, but maybe only dad or mom knows the iCloud password ("hey mom what's the password again?..") Or maybe they are split between family member iPhones, and they just show them to each other when they want to see them.
It would be a pretty big bummer for most families if when a family member passed away so did all those memories. That's probably not what they would have wanted. Or even if they just forgot their password.. that when they reset it all their photos go poof.
You are I might understand the consequences, but for most people it should really be a clear opt-in to "you can turn on totally unhackable encryption, but if you lose your pw you are totally screwed".
Do you have non-anecdotal evidence for that? Among my own friends and family, there are some images that only exist on one device or account, but most of the stuff likely to draw interest ends up somewhere else (a shared Dropbox account, e-mail attachments, on Facebook, copied onto some form of external storage).
There are likely some demographic groups that are more likely to behave one way than the other, and that could perhaps account for our differing experiences.
On second though, it is the easiest way to use the account (each person having an account on each device). I wonder what percentage of people that would benefit from it actually use the Family Sharing option?
I see what you're saying, and I know that I'm the odd man out here. My original comment stems mostly from my own messed up familial situation. My parents, (most) siblings and I don't get along very well, and I'm single.
If I were to die today I wouldn't want my personal photos, online history, or private writing to fall into the hands of my family. Hell, I don't really even want my physical assets to go to them (something I really should address in a will one of these days to donate it all to charity).
There has been a lot of fighting and backstabbing over who gets what when relatives have died in the past, and the more emotional items (like photographs) have been used to selfishly garner sympathy online through "likes" and "favorites" and it makes me sick. My position is that if you didn't make the effort to get to know a person while they were alive, you should lose the privilege of using their private thoughts for your own emotional gain after they're gone. And I do realize how selfish that sounds on my part, but in my current position I feel like it's justified. If I got a long term partner I would probably change my mind on that.
So yes, an opt-in would be ideal for me, but I don't think many online companies provide that right now.
That's pretty standard, though: once you no longer exist, all your private data, all your private money, all your private goods become part of your estate, to be disposed of by your executor according to your will.
Things like money and personal physical property, sure, I understand that. But I feel like personal protected (encrypted) data should be treated differently. I'm thankful Google at least has options[0] available for their ecosystem, but I guess I'm going to need a will to cover the rest.
In the case of sudden death, there would not have been any way to securely dispose of any private "data". So your private information, diaries, works you purposefully didn't publish, unfinished manuscripts you abandoned - everything was handed down to your estate, and more often than not used against your intent.
I'm not entirely clear whether your will could specify such disposal to be done, or could prohibit people from at least publishing these private notes and letters if not reading them, in any kind of binding and permanent way.
"Hey, we're really sorry about fluxquanta's passing. Here is his private data which he may or may not have wanted you to see (but we'll just assume that he did). Aren't we such a caring company? Since we can no longer count on him to give us more money when our next product comes out, keep us and our incredibly kind gesture of digging through the skeleton closets of the dead in mind when shopping for your next device."