Ian,

A fascinating question and one that I have been pondering as well.  I am going to make a radical suggestion that may cause some consternation, especially for those of a more libertarian bent. 

 

We do not own the data. The dead person does not own the data.  The state owns that date. The state, therefore, should control it and protect it.  This is more than DPA, it is about a state asset.

 

So, how can I say this? Surely, my NINO, my wedding (civil partnership) register number and entry, my death certificate, is mine.  Nope.  The number is DWP’s.  It is assigned to you, but you do not control it.  Your wedding (civil partnership) register number and entry.  Nope. They are not yours.  They are the local council’s record.  Your death certificate?  Again. A council record.  It is less personal information than we realize.

 

To the extent that they are all council or government records, they need to be protected the same way.  The record is “alive” even if the person is dead.  It is not for the dead to assert or protect their rights. Instead, it is for the state, as the guardian of its own records, to assert and protect *its* rights on behalf of the living.

 

What I would like to see is a law or a regulatory framework that would licence the use of such records. In that way, we could reduce the likelihood of people accessing such records without controls.  At the same time, it would open up such data to reuse.  To alleviate any concerns from the living, a moratorium of 10 yrs (?) could be placed on that information.

 

I think there is an increasing need for clarity in this area because of the emerging gap between our “digital person” and our physical person.  I would even suggest (again quite radical) that in contrast to my view regarding the dead, the living will increasingly insist that their “digital person” be treated as they, the physical person, would be treated.  By that I mean, instead of viewing it as personal information, it is seen as an extension of the person. We then move beyond data protection towards an essential understanding of due process. Thus, the state will have a higher, and more extensive, responsibility regarding that information (even as it controls the records) and we will have a greater (if sometimes passive) role in it as well.

 

I would be interested in your views on these possibilities.

 

Best,

 

Lawrence