Essentially, by taking such a strong stance against breaking their own regulations, even in cases of death, Yahoo! was upholding utilitarian principles in order to benefit the community as a whole. Thus, the company was focused on upholding a commitment to privacy for all of its members. It was unfortunate that Justin Ellsworth lost his life in the line of battle, but that could not jeopardize the promise Yahoo! made to its millions of users. If the company was to just give up one user password, it could have the potential to do so again, thus risking the privacy rights of others. Moreover, there are also deontological considerations against the internet company giving up private account information, even after death. In this sense, the company had an obligation to Justin Ellsworth to uphold its promise of protecting his personal information. The marine had himself agreed to the terms and conditions of Yahoo! service, showing that one of his wishes may have been to keep his personal emails private, even after his death. This is essentially keeping the sanctity of privacy agreements. Many who opposed Yahoo!'s distinct stand against providing Ellsworth's parents with his password. This was also taking a deontological perspective, even though it is from a different vantage point. In this opposition, Yahoo! had an obligation to Ellsworth's parents in that the company held access to information that could have potentially given...

This was a much more personal obligation to a limited number of people. Yahoo! would have to sacrifice its commitment to the larger society in order to meet such a limited obligation to a single grieving couple.
Although many might share this sentiment, an obligation to such a limited population cannot be allowed to overrule an obligation to the rest of society. Therefore, despite such opposition, Yahoo! did have a right out of principles of utilitarianism and deontological thinking to deny Ellsworth's parents his email passwords. Despite the presence of those who may agree with the court's decision, it is important to see the company sticking up for the privacy rights of its users. In a new internet era, where privacy is so fleeting, it is definitely reassuring to see that Yahoo! was trying to keep its obligations to its users in order for the better good of society. Still, this unfortunate case was extremely difficult because of the sensitive matter. Thus, the court did grant Ellsworth's parents access to his accounts in order to help the grieving process.

References

Leach, Susan Llewlyn. (2005). Who gets to see the e-mail of the deceased? The Christian Science Monitor. Web.

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=830357671&SrchMode=1&sid=20&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1236294601&clientId=29440