Reply to post: Re: No need to rule on terms of service

Dying! Yahoo! loses! fight! to! lock! dead! man's! dead! account!

Nick Z

Re: No need to rule on terms of service

The way I understand this recent ruling is that the person's email account is a part of his possessions, which the estate manager has a legal responsibility to manage. And managing it involves having access to it.

Because the judgement says that digital goods aren't a separate class of possessions. Which means that they should be treated the same way as the person's all other possessions.

Estate managers aren't restricted from viewing the person's private letters written on paper and sent by regular mail. So, why should electronic mail be treated any different?

This is what the law says about it, according to the judges.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021