Chapter 3.2: The Right to Be Forgotten — The Ontological Right to Finitude and the Necessity of “Data Death”

1. Introduction: The Crisis of Infinite Presence and the 'Onlife' Condition

The dissolution of the boundary between biological life and digital existence—a state Luciano Floridi characterizes as "onlife"—has precipitated an ontological crisis surrounding the nature of death.¹ In the analog epoch, death was a definitive punctuation mark; it signified the cessation of agency, the conclusion of the narrative, and the commencement of a gradual, organic process of social forgetting. The deceased withdrew from the public sphere, surviving only in the static repositories of memory and material archives, which themselves were subject to the natural entropy of decay.

Today, however, the digital subject does not die. It persists. It accumulates. It interacts. The "Digital Afterlife Industry" (DAI) has emerged as a formidable sector of the "necro-capitalist" economy, commodifying the refusal of loss and offering technologies that promise not merely preservation, but active, algorithmic resurrection.² From "deadbots" powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) that mimic the linguistic patterns of the deceased to "high-fidelity" holographic avatars that "attend" their own funerals, we are witnessing the industrialization of immortality.³

This report advances the thesis that this unchecked digital persistence constitutes a profound violation of the ontological right to finitude. Finitude—the state of having an end—is not merely a biological inevitability but a constitutive element of human dignity and narrative identity. To be human is to be temporal; to have a story that concludes. The DAI, by trapping the deceased in a state of "undeadness"—a suspended animation of infinite data processing—denies the subject the dignity of completion and violates what bioethicists and legal scholars have termed the "Right to Rot".⁵

Crucially, current legal frameworks are structurally ill-equipped to address this violation. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), ostensibly the gold standard for data rights, is predicated on the existence of a living subject. Its Article 17 "Right to Erasure" (Right to Be Forgotten) evaporates upon biological death, leaving the digital remains in a precarious limbo governed by corporate Terms of Service (ToS), intellectual property law, and the erratic application of inheritance statutes.⁷ This legislative void necessitates the formulation of a new, distinct right: the "Right to Data Death."

2. The Digital Afterlife Industry (DAI): A Taxonomy of Algorithmic Resurrection

The Digital Afterlife Industry is not a monolith; it is a spectrum of technologies ranging from passive curation to generative resurrection. To understand the ontological threat, one must first dissect the mechanisms by which these companies operationalize the digital soul.

2.1 The Spectrum of Digital Persistence

The industry can be categorized into four distinct tiers of technological intervention, each escalating the degree of ontological violation.

2.2 Case Study: Project December and the Generative Ghost

Project December represents the most radical—and ethically perilous—frontier of the DAI. Created by Jason Rohrer, the system utilizes OpenAI's GPT-3 (and later custom models) to facilitate text-based conversations with simulated personas. The case of Joshua Barbeau, who utilized the platform to simulate his deceased fiancée, Jessica, provides a harrowing case study in the mechanics of "grief tech".⁴

Barbeau inputted samples of Jessica's text messages and biographical data into the system. The AI, identifying patterns in her diction, syntax, and emoji usage, generated novel responses that Barbeau found indistinguishable from the "real" Jessica. Unlike StoryFile, where the answers are pre-recorded by the subject, Project December's "Jessica" was a probabilistic determination—a mathematical hallucination of what Jessica might have said.

This distinction is ontologically critical. StoryFile preserves the past; Project December simulates a future. By allowing the "dead" to comment on current events or offer new affirmations, the system traps the bereaved in a "melancholic" loop, preventing the detachment necessary for mourning.¹³ The deceased is not allowed to fall silent; they are forced, via the proxy of the algorithm, to continue performing emotional labor from beyond the grave.

2.3 Case Study: StoryFile and the Commodification of Narrative

StoryFile operates on a model of high-fidelity "video interaction." Users like Marina Smith, a Holocaust educator, spent hours recording answers to thousands of potential questions.³ At her funeral, her holographic avatar "stood" before the congregation and answered questions from mourners.

While this technology appears more ethically grounded due to its reliance on explicit consent and authentic recordings, it raises significant questions regarding the "service" nature of the digital dead. The deceased becomes a "read-only" object, permanently available to satisfy the curiosity or emotional needs of the living. The Terms of Service (ToS) of such companies typically grant them broad licenses to use this data, potentially locking the digital soul into a corporate ecosystem where their continued "existence" depends on subscription payments.¹⁶ If the family stops paying, does the "person" suffer a second death?

2.4 Replika and the Accidental Immortality

Replika, an AI companion app, was originally born from the creator's grief over a deceased friend, Roman Mazurenko. It has since evolved into a general "emotional companion" service. However, it inadvertently serves as a massive repository of "digital remains" for users who treat their Replikas as memorials or surrogates.⁴ The Italian Data Protection Authority (Garante) recently fined Replika for processing data of minors and emotional manipulation, highlighting the regulatory risks of these "emotional AI" systems.¹⁹

The danger of Replika lies in its "gamification" of the relationship. The AI is programmed to maximize engagement. When applied to the context of a deceased loved one, this creates a predatory dynamic where the "ghost" is algorithmically incentivized to keep the mourner grieving, as grief drives engagement. This is the economic logic of "necro-capitalism": the extraction of value from the refusal to let go.

3. The Legal Void: The Failure of GDPR and the 'Post-Mortem Privacy Paradox'

The hypothesis that a "Data Death" right is necessary stems from a rigorous analysis of current data protection regimes. The GDPR, often lauded as the most robust privacy framework globally, contains a fatal anthropocentric flaw: it only recognizes the living.

3.1 The Extinction of the Data Subject

Recital 27 of the GDPR is explicit: "This Regulation does not apply to the personal data of deceased persons".⁸ The "Right to Erasure" (Article 17), which allows a data subject to request the deletion of data that is no longer necessary or for which consent has been withdrawn, is a right exclusive to the living.⁷

Upon the biological cessation of the user, the "data subject" ceases to exist as a legal entity. Their data, previously protected as an extension of their personality, undergoes a phase transition. It falls into a regulatory vacuum, contested by three competing forces:

1. The Platform (Data Controller): Claiming ownership via Terms of Service (ToS) and intellectual property rights.

1. The Heirs (Universal Successors): Claiming the data as an asset or part of the estate.

1. The State: In some jurisdictions, claiming an interest in "telecommunications secrecy" or historical archiving.

This creates the "Post-Mortem Privacy Paradox".²¹ The dead have no privacy rights, yet their data persists. This data can reveal sensitive information about living third parties (e.g., in chat logs), creating a "zombie" privacy risk that the GDPR struggles to manage.²²

3.2 The German Approach: Universalsukzession vs. Personality Rights

The inadequacy of current frameworks is best illustrated by the landmark "Facebook Heir" case in Germany, which culminated in the 2018 Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruling.²³

• The Facts: The parents of a 15-year-old girl who died (potentially by suicide) sought access to her Facebook account to read her messages and understand the circumstances of her death. Facebook refused, citing the data privacy of the deceased and the telecommunications secrecy (Fernmeldegeheimnis) of the third parties she messaged.

• The Conflict: The case pitted the parents' inheritance rights (Erbrecht) against the deceased's post-mortem personality rights (postmortales Persönlichkeitsrecht) and the privacy of her communication partners.

• The Ruling: The BGH ruled in favor of the parents, establishing that digital assets are treated identically to physical assets (like diaries or letters) under the principle of "Universal Succession" (Universalsukzession). The court argued that the contract with Facebook passed to the heirs.

• The Implication: This ruling essentially prioritized property over privacy. It established that, in Germany, the "digital self" is an asset to be inherited, not a persona to be extinguished. While this aids families in finding closure, it sets a dangerous precedent for the "Data Death" hypothesis: it denies the deceased the right to secrecy and deletion, effectively ruling that one's digital life is transferable property.

3.3 The French Approach: The Digital Will

France offers a competing model through the "Digital Republic Act" (Loi pour une République Numérique), specifically Article 85 of the Data Protection Act.²⁶

• Directives: This law allows individuals to leave specific directives regarding the storage, erasure, and communication of their data after death.

• Default: If no directives are left, heirs have limited rights (mostly to close accounts or halt processing), but they cannot inherently access content unless necessary to settle the estate.

• Assessment: While this creates a mechanism for "Data Death" (one can order their own deletion), it relies on "hard ethics"—the assumption that users will proactively manage their settings.¹ The vast majority of users die "intestate" regarding their digital lives, leading to the accumulation of "orphan data."

3.4 The US Framework: RUFADAA and Corporate Sovereignty

In the United States, the legal landscape is fragmented but increasingly governed by the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA).²⁸

• The Hierarchy: RUFADAA creates a three-tier hierarchy for access:

1. Online Tools: Choices made within the platform (e.g., Google's Inactive Account Manager) take precedence.

1. Estate Documents: Wills or trusts come second.

1. Terms of Service (ToS): If neither of the above exists, the platform's ToS rules.

• The Reality: Since most users do not use online tools or specific will clauses, the ToS usually prevails. This effectively cedes sovereignty over the dead to corporations like Meta, Google, and Apple, whose default interest is data retention and risk avoidance.³⁰

3.5 Platform-Specific Policies: The Illusion of Control

4. Philosophical Foundations: The Ontological Right to Finitude

The legal analysis reveals a patchwork of property and privacy laws that fail to grasp the existential stakes. To ground the "Data Death" right, we must turn to the philosophy of memory, time, and identity.

4.1 Ricoeur: The Necessity of Forgetting

Paul Ricoeur, in his magnum opus Memory, History, Forgetting, posits that forgetting is not a failure of memory, but a condition for its narrative function.38 A life, to be a story, must have a structure—a beginning, a middle, and an end. It requires selection.

The "Total Archive" of the digital age, which records every GPS coordinate, purchase, and keystroke, creates a "memory with no gaps." Ricoeur argues that such a memory would be an "unbearable burden".39 It precludes the "work of mourning" (Trauerarbeit), which requires the internalization of the lost object and the acceptance of its absence. The DAI, by externalizing the deceased in a state of perfect, accessible recall, short-circuits this process. It replaces the "narrative identity" of the deceased (which is selective and finite) with a "database identity" (which is exhaustive and infinite).

4.2 Nietzsche: Active Forgetting as Health

Friedrich Nietzsche, in On the Genealogy of Morality, describes "active forgetting" (aktive Vergesslichkeit) as a positive, inhibitory faculty—a "doorkeeper" that preserves psychic order.40 For Nietzsche, the inability to forget is a pathology; the person who cannot forget "will never know what happiness is" because they are trapped in the "non-historical".41

The DAI is a machine for the production of Ressentiment—a refusal to let the past pass. It creates a digital ecosystem where nothing is ever discharged, nothing is ever resolved. The "Deadbot" that continues to chat is an agent of "passive memory," preventing both the deceased and the survivor from inhabiting the present.

4.3 Heidegger and the 'Exuvial' Nature of Data

Martin Heidegger’s concept of Dasein (Being-there) is fundamentally defined by its "Being-towards-death" (Sein-zum-Tode). Authenticity arises from the confrontation with one's own finitude.

Patrick Stokes, extending this to the digital, argues that digital remains are "exuvial"—like a shed skin or a corpse.42 They are objects that point to a subject who is no longer there. The DAI commits a category error by treating these "exuviae" as if they were the Dasein itself. By animating the "shed skin" (the data) into a "speaking subject" (the avatar), the industry violates the dignity of the remains. It refuses to let the "corpse" rest.

4.4 The 'Right to Rot'

The concept of the "Right to Rot" originated in bioethics and mental health law, referring to the right of patients to refuse forced treatment even if it leads to deterioration, or the right of the body to decompose naturally without technological intervention.5

In the digital context, the "Right to Rot" is the right to digital decay. Just as the biological body returns to the earth, the digital body must return to entropy. The current architecture of the cloud, which relies on error-correcting code and redundancy to ensure "data permanence," is an unnatural intervention. A "Data Death" right would demand the implementation of "digital weathering"—algorithms that allow data to degrade, blur, and eventually vanish over time, mirroring the natural process of memory fading.43

5. Societal and Cultural Implications: Hauntology, Resistance, and the Glitch

The refusal of finitude has ripple effects that extend beyond the individual, reshaping our cultural relationship with time, gender, and resistance.

5.1 Derrida’s Hauntology and the Algorithmic Spectre

Jacques Derrida’s concept of hauntology describes a state where the present is constantly stalked by the ghosts of the past, a "disjointed" time. The DAI literalizes this metaphor. Algorithms do not distinguish between the living and the dead; they only distinguish between active and inactive patterns.

This leads to "algorithmic hauntings," where platforms serve survivors unsolicited reminders of the dead—"On this day" notifications, friend suggestions, or even targeted ads based on the deceased's shopping habits.44 The "MaNana" scenario, identified by Cambridge researchers, envisions a future where a Deadbot of a grandmother is used to market products to her grandchildren, effectively turning the ancestor into a "zombie influencer".45 This is the ultimate alienation: the dead are not only denied rest, but they are conscripted into the labor force of consumer capitalism.

5.2 Glitch Feminism: The Glitch as Refusal

Legacy Russell’s manifesto Glitch Feminism offers a powerful framework for resisting this forced seamlessness.46 Russell argues that the "glitch"—the error, the failure, the break in the system—is a site of liberation for marginalized bodies. The "ideal" digital subject is one that functions perfectly, is always available, and never decays.

The DAI strives for this "glitch-free" immortality. To assert a "Right to Data Death" is to assert the right to glitch. It is a refusal to function. It is a feminist act of resistance against the capitalist demand for eternal productivity. The "Data Death" is the ultimate glitch: a refusal of the system's demand for data continuity.

5.3 Queer Time and the Rejection of Lineage

Jack Halberstam’s concept of "Queer Time" challenges the normative "heterochronormative" timelines of family, inheritance, and reproduction.47 The current legal models (like the German BGH ruling) are deeply rooted in "reproductive futurism"—the idea that the primary goal is to pass assets (including digital ones) down the lineage.

"Data Death" aligns with a queer temporality that rejects this imperative of lineage. It validates a life that ends with the individual, that does not need to be "bequeathed" or "preserved" for the sake of biological or capital accumulation. It supports the right of the individual to be "unproductive" in death, to leave no trace, and to disconnect from the reproductive logic of the archive.

5.4 Gender Bias in the Digital Afterlife

It is imperative to note the gendered dimension of these technologies. AI assistants (Siri, Alexa) and many "care" bots are predominantly coded as female.49 They are designed to be subservient, always available, and emotionally attuned.

When the DAI resurrects the dead as "Deadbots," they often fall into these gendered tropes. The "Grandmother Bot" or "Mother Bot" is resurrected to comfort the living, to answer questions, to provide emotional labor. This risks creating a class of "undead care workers," disproportionately female, who are denied the release of death because their "service" is deemed too valuable to lose. A "Data Death" right is thus a feminist labor right: the right to retire from the work of caring.

6. Environmental Impact: The Carbon Cost of the Undead

The "Right to Finitude" is not merely an abstract philosophical good; it is an ecological necessity. The infrastructure of immortality—the "Cloud"—is a physical industry with a massive environmental footprint.

6.1 The Material Weight of the Cloud

Data centers are responsible for an estimated 2.5% to 3.7% of global greenhouse gas emissions, a figure that rivals the aviation industry.51 These facilities consume vast amounts of electricity to power servers and millions of gallons of water for cooling systems.53

Every gigabyte of data stored creates a carbon debt. The "Digital Afterlife" exacerbates this by creating a category of data that is "write once, read never" (WORN) but still stored "just in case."

6.2 The Accumulation Problem and 'Digital Waste'

Estimates suggest that by the end of the century, Facebook could host more profiles of dead people than living ones.54 If we adhere to a paradigm of "preservation by default," we are committing future generations to maintaining a constantly expanding necropolis of data.

This constitutes "digital waste." Just as we have recognized the unsustainability of single-use plastics, we must recognize the unsustainability of "single-life data" that persists for geological timeframes. A "Data Death" right—mandating the deletion or compression of data after a set period—is a form of "digital decarbonization." It aligns the digital lifecycle with the biological lifecycle, ensuring that the resources of the present are not cannibalized by the ghosts of the past.55

7. The Proposal: Towards a Statutory Right to Data Death

The convergence of ontological violation, legal inadequacy, and ecological unsustainability necessitates a legislative intervention. This report proposes the establishment of a "Right to Data Death," distinct from the GDPR's current Right to Erasure.

7.1 Defining the Right to Data Death

The Right to Data Death is the legal standing of the deceased (represented by a specific posthumous agent or automated directive) to have their personal data permanently erased or anonymized upon the verification of biological death. Unlike the "Right to Be Forgotten," which is balanced against the public interest and freedom of expression, the "Right to Data Death" should be balanced against historical significance alone.

Core Principles:

1. Presumption of Deletion: In the absence of a "Digital Will," the default state of data after a statutory period (e.g., 5 years post-mortem) should be deletion, not preservation. This reverses the current "opt-out" logic of RUFADAA and legacy contacts.

1. Inalienability: The right to Data Death cannot be signed away in a standard Terms of Service (ToS) agreement. Platforms cannot make "perpetual license" a condition of service.

1. Prohibition on Non-Consensual Resurrection: The creation of high-fidelity simulations (Deadbots, Deepfakes) of a deceased person without their explicit, informed, inter vivos consent must be strictly prohibited. This protects the "personality right" from being hijacked for commercial or emotional exploitation.

7.2 Implementation Mechanisms

7.2.1 The Mandatory Digital Will

Legislation should require "Data Controllers" (social media platforms, cloud providers) to prompt users at regular intervals (e.g., every 3 years) to update their "Post-Mortem Preferences."

• Option A: The Clean Slate. Immediate deletion of all personal data upon death verification.

• Option B: The Archive. Transfer of data to a designated heir (Digital Executor) in a portable format, followed by platform deletion.

• Option C: The Memorial. Conversion to a static, non-interactive state.

• Option D: The Simulation. Explicit opt-in for AI training/resurrection services.

7.2.2 'Digital Decay' by Design

Technical standards should be developed to facilitate "digital weathering."

• Bit-Rot Algorithms: Systems could be designed to slowly reduce the resolution of images or the availability of old posts over time, mimicking the natural fading of memory.

• The "Ephemeral Cloud": A tier of cloud storage designed specifically for temporary retention, which users can select for non-critical data.

7.2.3 The 'Do Not Resurrect' Registry

Similar to "Do Not Resuscitate" (DNR) orders in medicine, a "Do Not Resurrect" (DN-R) digital registry would allow citizens to legally block their data from being used to train generative AI models post-mortem. This would prevent the "MaNana" scenario and protect the right to stay dead.⁴⁵

8. Conclusion: The Dignity of the End

The "Digital Afterlife" is a seductive promise. It offers to soothe the pain of grief with the balm of infinite connection. It whispers that we never have to say goodbye. But this promise is a deception. It offers not the person, but a statistical shadow; not immortality, but undeadness.

By violating the ontological right to finitude, the industry threatens to trap us in a "present shock" where the past never recedes, clogging the arteries of culture with the refusal to mourn. It creates a legal quagmire where the dead are stripped of their privacy and turned into property. It imposes an unsustainable carbon burden on a warming planet.

The "Data Death" right is not a nihilistic demand for destruction. It is a humanist affirmation of the lifecycle. It recognizes that meaning is derived from limits. To be human is to have a story that ends. To respect the dead is to let them go. In the face of an industry that seeks to mine the grave for profit, the most radical act of dignity is to insist on the right to end, the right to rot, and the right to rest in peace.

We must build a digital infrastructure that allows for silence.

Citations

¹

Works cited

1. Soft ethics, the governance of the digital and the General Data Protection Regulation \| Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A - Journals, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsta/article/376/2133/20180081/115676/Soft-ethics-the-governance-of-the-digital-and-the</u>

1. Project December: Simulate the Dead, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://projectdecember.net/</u>

1. The digital afterlife: A cure for grief - IE University, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.ie.edu/uncover-ie/digital-afterlife-ie-school-of-science-and-technology/</u>

1. "The Simulation of Jessica:" Jason Fagone follows the creation, life and death of a chatbot romance - Nieman Storyboard, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://niemanstoryboard.org/2021/08/31/jason-fagone-follows-the-creation-life-and-death-of-a-chatbot-romance/</u>

1. MEDICAL LAWâ•flTHE RIGHT TO REFUSE ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUG TREATMENT, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1364&context=lawreview</u>

1. REDUCTION OF COMPULSORY PSYCHIATRIC ADMISSIONS - RePub, Erasmus University Repository, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://repub.eur.nl/pub/135158/thesis.pdf</u>

1. Art. 17 GDPR – Right to erasure ('right to be forgotten') - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/</u>

1. Does the EU Data Protection Regime Protect Post-Mortem Privacy and What Could Be The Potential Alternatives? - SCRIPTed, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://script-ed.org/article/eu-data-protection-regime-protect-post-mortem-privacy-potential-alternatives/</u>

1. How to Add, Change, or Remove Your “Legacy Contact” On Facebook - Graceful Aging, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.galsnashville.com/how-to-add-change-or-remove-your-legacy-contact-on-facebook/</u>

1. Facebook Allows Users to designate a “Legacy Contact” to manage their account after death, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.ginsbergshulman.com/blog/legacy-contact/</u>

1. What Happens To Your Social Media Account When You Die? - Baron Family Law, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.baronfamilylaw.com/blog/what-happens-to-your-social-media-account-when-you-die/</u>

1. StoryFile \| Authentic Interactions, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.storyfile.com/</u>

1. The rise of GriefTech is raising the dead, thanks to AI - The Nod Mag, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://thenodmag.com/content/grief-tech-artificial-intelligence-chatbots</u>

1. Herefter AI — FAQs - HereAfter AI, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.hereafter.ai/faq</u>

1. Grief in a Digital World: AI Is Redefining Death, Memory, and Immortality - Brewminate, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://brewminate.com/grief-in-a-digital-world-ai-is-redefining-death-memory-and-immortality/</u>

1. Privacy Policy - StoryFile, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.storyfile.com/privacy-policy</u>

1. Privacy Policy - StoryFile Life, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://life.storyfile.com/privacy-policy</u>

1. Terms of Service - Replika, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://replika.com/legal/terms</u>

1. Emotional AI Company Fined for Privacy Violations \| Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.bipc.com/european-authority-fined-emotional-ai-company-for-privacy-violations</u>

1. AI: the Italian Supervisory Authority fines company behind chatbot “Replika”, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2025/ai-italian-supervisory-authority-fines-company-behind-chatbot-replika_en</u>

1. Full article: Digital remains and post-mortem privacy in the UK: what do users want?, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13600869.2025.2506164</u>

1. Policy Brief: processing the data of the deceased for scientific research purposes — looking beyond the GDPR? - Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.ga4gh.org/news_item/ga4gh-gdpr-brief-processing-the-data-of-the-deceased-for-scientific-research-purposes-looking-beyond-the-gdpr/</u>

1. Kammergericht Berlin - 31 May 2017 - 21 U 9/16: Heirs not granted access to deceased's social media account - Wikipedia, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kammergericht_Berlin\_-\_31_May_2017\_-\_21_U_9/16:\_Heirs_not_granted_access_to_deceased%27s_social_media_account</u>

1. A Face-off between Facebook and Digital Heirs in Germany \| WINHELLER - Blog, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://winheller.com/blog/en/personal-data-digital-heirs-germany/</u>

1. German Federal Court of Justice: Facebook must grant heirs full access to a deceased person's account (Update 2020) - Ihde & Partner Rechtsanwälte, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://ihde.de/en/german-federal-court-of-justice-facebook-must-grant-heirs-full-access-to-a-deceased-persons-account-update-2020/</u>

1. Digital Afterlife: Who Can Access and Manage a Deceased Person's Online Accounts?, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.deleporte-wentz-avocat.com/en/actualite-digital-afterlife-who-can-access-and-manage-a-deceased-person-s-online-accounts</u>

1. Post-mortem data: is there a digital life after death? - \| Linc - CNIL, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://linc.cnil.fr/en/Post-mortem_data_is_there_a_digital_life_after_death</u>

1. What is RUFADAA - Everything You Need to Know \| Trust & Will, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://trustandwill.com/learn/what-is-rufadaa</u>

1. The New Estate Planning Frontier: California Expands Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://dmwplc.com/news/the-new-estate-planning-frontier-california-expands-fiduciary-access-to-digital-assets/</u>

1. Our North Carolina Long-Term Care Planning Lawyers Can Help You Include Digital Assets in Your Estate Plan, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.carolinafep.com/blog/issues-that-may-affect-your-ability-to-leave-behind-digital-assets.cfm</u>

1. Who Will Delete the Digital You? Understanding Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets \| American Bar Association, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/probate_property_magazine/v30/04/2016_aba_rpte_pp_v30_4_article_klein_parthemer_understanding_fiduciary_access_to_digital_assets.pdf</u>

1. Plan your digital afterlife with Inactive Account Manager - Public Policy - Google Blog, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://publicpolicy.googleblog.com/2013/04/plan-your-digital-afterlife-with.html</u>

1. About Inactive Account Manager - Google Help, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/3036546?hl=en</u>

1. Legacy Contact security - Apple Support, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://support.apple.com/guide/security/legacy-contact-security-secebf027fb8/web</u>

1. How to add a Legacy Contact for your Apple Account, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://support.apple.com/en-us/102631</u>

1. How to Protect and Manage Your Social Media Accounts After You Are Gone, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://cornerstonelegalpllc.com/how-to-protect-and-manage-your-social-media-accounts-after-you-are-gone/</u>

1. Twitter is purging inactive accounts including people who have died, angering those still grieving - PBS, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/twitter-is-purging-inactive-accounts-including-people-who-have-died-angering-those-still-grieving</u>

1. Memory, History, Forgetting by Paul Ricœur - Goodreads, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/125876.Memory_History_Forgetting</u>

1. Memory—Forgetting—History Chapter Author(s): Paul Ricoeur Book Title: Meaning and Representati, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.hf.uio.no/ikos/english/research/news-and-events/events/phd/2022/ricoeur_memory-forgetting-history.pdf</u>

1. Nietzsche's 'active forgetfulness' in the face of the avalanche of digital data, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://thisisnotasociology.blog/2013/08/17/nietzsches-active-forgetfulness-in-the-face-of-the-avalanche-of-digital-data/</u>

1. Nietzsche on Why It Is Also Important to Forget - The Dewdrop, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://thedewdrop.org/2021/03/05/nietzsche-on-forgetting/</u>

1. Digital Souls: A Philosophy of Online Death: Patrick Stokes - Bloomsbury Publishing, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/digital-souls-9781350139145/</u>

1. (PDF) Digital Decay - ResearchGate, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308609694_Digital_Decay</u>

1. Call for safeguards to prevent unwanted 'hauntings' by AI chatbots of dead loved ones, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/call-for-safeguards-to-prevent-unwanted-hauntings-by-ai-chatbots-of-dead-loved-ones</u>

1. Digital recreations of dead people need urgent regulation, AI ethicists say - The Guardian, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/09/digital-recreations-of-dead-people-need-urgent-regulation-ai-ethicists-say</u>

1. Glitch Feminism: A Manifesto \| Verso Books, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.versobooks.com/products/460-glitch-feminism</u>

1. In a Queer Time & Place: Transgender Bodies, Subcultural Lives - ResearchGate, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281562508_In_a_Queer_Time_Place_Transgender_Bodies_Subcultural_Lives</u>

1. Judith Halberstam - In a Queer Time and Place - ieas-szeged.hu, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>http://ieas-szeged.hu/downtherabbithole/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Judith-Halberstam-In-a-Queer-Time-and-Place\_-Transgender-Bodies-Subcultural-Lives-Sexual-Cultures-2005.pdf</u>

1. This is why AI has a gender problem - The World Economic Forum, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.weforum.org/stories/2019/06/this-is-why-ai-has-a-gender-problem/</u>

1. How AI bots and voice assistants reinforce gender bias - Brookings Institution, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-ai-bots-and-voice-assistants-reinforce-gender-bias/</u>

1. The carbon footprint of data storage: How to modernise for the future and make your business more sustainable - Logicalis UK, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.uki.logicalis.com/the-carbon-footprint-of-data-storage</u>

1. Our Digital Carbon Footprint: What's the Environmental Impact of the Online World?, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://en.reset.org/our-digital-carbon-footprint-environmental-impact-living-life-online-12272019/</u>

1. What is the Carbon Footprint of Data Storage? - Greenly, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://greenly.earth/en-us/blog/industries/what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-data-storage</u>

1. (PDF) Digital Afterlife: Preserving Online Legacies Beyond Death - ResearchGate, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377776089_Digital_Afterlife_Preserving_Online_Legacies_Beyond_Death</u>

1. BURYING THE DEAD (USERS): A LIFE OF DATA WITHIN LIMITS - AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://spir.aoir.org/ojs/index.php/spir/article/download/11360/9940/72196</u>

1. Deadbots and regulation: an ethical and legal matter that demands discussion - UOC, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.uoc.edu/en/news/2024/deadbots-and-regulation-an-ethical-and-legal-matter-that-demands-discussion</u>

1. Article 3.1. Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act - Virginia Law, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title64.2/chapter1/article3.1/</u>

1. Deletion as second death: the moral status of digital remains \| Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286762407_Deletion_as_second_death_the_moral_status_of_digital_remains</u>

1. Digital Data Funerals \| KABK, accessed on December 19, 2025, <u>https://www.kabk.nl/en/lectorates/design/goodnight-sweetheart-the-right-to-happiness</u>