Digital Privacy and the Deceased: The Ellsworth Email Case

Introduction

Justin Ellsworth's parents should not have been given access to his email account on their request alone, as doing so would have violated nearly every privacy act in existence at the time of the case, the terms of Yahoo's agreement with Justin, and would have set a dangerous precedent for the invasion of the digital assets of the deceased. Yahoo relented and provided access to the email account only upon court order, thereby preserving the digital rights and privacy of its millions of customers using Yahoo Mail and other online email applications in the process (Leach, 2005).

Yahoo argued successfully that providing access without a court order would have violated the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. § 2701. This has since become an often-cited precedent by all other Internet email providers, who must retain the trust of their customers to remain in business. The case carries a multifaceted ethical dimension, which is analyzed from both a deontological and a utilitarian standpoint below.

Analysis of Email Access from an Ethical Standpoint

Deontological reasoning is predicated on the findings of Kant (1981), who posited that moral laws take the form of categorical imperatives organized around three formulations: universality, congeniality, and community. Universality concentrates on the universal laws of nature; congeniality focuses on treating persons as ends, never as mere means; and community holds that the best ethical outcomes arise when a decision-maker places themselves in both the role of subject and sovereign (Ralph, 1999).

Using deontological ethics to evaluate the decision of whether to allow the Ellsworths to access their deceased son's Yahoo email account raises an ethical dilemma: how should a parent's right to know their son's thoughts and emotions immediately before his untimely death be weighed? The ethical dilemma for Yahoo, however, must be viewed from a global standpoint. The deontological conflict lies between the need to preserve the privacy rights of email customers — even in death, as stipulated in their agreement with the company upon sign-up — and the need of a grieving family for closure following the unanticipated death of their son.

Deontological Perspectives on the Ellsworth Case

Does the deontological ethics and implied moral responsibility that Yahoo has to serve the family — and provide them access to their deceased son's email — override the same responsibilities owed to its global base of customers? No, it does not. Yet from a deontological perspective the argument could plausibly be made either way, with the family potentially holding a higher claim than a broader interpretation of the law might suggest.

What makes access to email a paradox from a deontological perspective is that universality and congeniality — two of Kant's three categorical imperatives — are plausibly satisfied by serving the family first (Ralph, 1999). Yet community, the third imperative, is clearly violated if Yahoo chooses to make an exception to its licensing agreement and provide the family access to the deceased soldier's email account.

Deontological ethics must be interpreted across all three categorical imperatives if they are to provide the necessary foundation for ethical decision-making (Irene, 2007). Yahoo remained consistent with all three imperatives and was thereby able to forestall legal challenges. The universality aspect of the case also demonstrates that no quantity of families in varied circumstances of loss can ever justify an exception that violates the three categorical imperatives. In this context, Kant's definition of deontological reasoning closely resembles the core concepts of utilitarianism as well (Irene, 2007).

Conclusion

The Ellsworth family and millions like them facing this dilemma were ironically more assisted than impeded in their pursuit of the emails by the Yahoo service-level agreement approved by the deceased than if no such agreement had been in place at all. This opt-in of privacy, extending beyond death, set a precedent that clearly defines the total contextual framework for applying utilitarian-based logic to the conditions of access. With the service-level agreement in place, the frameworks and contexts for applying Kant's three categorical imperatives were also firmly defined.

The service-level agreement thus becomes a proxy and contextual definition for the application of both forms of ethical decision-making. Without it, there would likely have been rapid and continual litigation, with families most likely succeeding in gaining access to email accounts without third-party validation. This would have been disastrous from an online privacy standpoint, as many would seek to circumvent the ethical and legal processes necessary for such a system to function. Both ethical frameworks provide the necessary consistency and clarity of direction to guide a reasonable and defensible outcome.

Bibliography

Carroll, A. B. (1990). Principles of business ethics: Their role in decision making and an initial consensus. Management Decision, 28(8), 20.

Gustafson, A. (2013). In defense of a utilitarian business ethic. Business and Society Review, 118(3), 325.

Irene, V. S. (2007). Beyond utilitarianism and deontology: Ethics in economics. Review of Political Economy, 19(1), 21.

Kant, I. (1981). Grounding for the metaphysics of morals. Hackett Publishing. (Original work published 1785).

Leach, S. L. (2005). Who gets to see the e-mail of the deceased? Christian Science Monitor, May 2, p. 12.

Ralph, C. C. (1999). Deontological dimensions of administrative ethics, revisited. Public Personnel Management, 28(4), 505–514.