The dead need right to delete their data so they can't be AI-ified, lawyer says

Being remembered vs being deleted

• Some find posthumous “AI-ification” of themselves disturbing, but consider total erasure worse, seeing persistent data as a small claim on history.
• Others argue future remembrance is pointless because everyone is eventually forgotten and the living should focus on present life, not legacy.
• A counterpoint: if you want to be remembered, you must accept you won’t control how future technologies use your traces.

Posthumous rights and autonomy

• Comparisons are drawn between the right to delete one’s data after death and the contested right to die; both pit individual autonomy against state/collective interests.
• Some argue the dead already have rights (wills, treatment of remains, protection of likeness/defamation), so extending this to digital data is consistent.
• Others think posthumous rights are harmful “dead hand” control that should yield to benefits for the living (e.g., organ donation).

Consent and AI replicas

• Several commenters would actively opt in to being AI-ified, especially for comforting or advising loved ones (e.g., a parent leaving an AI “self” for their child).
• Others stress this should be strictly opt-in, not automatic, given abuse potential (e.g., AI interviews with deceased victims presented as “news”).
• There’s concern about respect: auto-deleting everything may be disrespectful, but so is commercial reuse of someone’s likeness against their wishes.

Commercial exploitation and ad dystopias

• Strong fear that ad-tech will weaponize “digital ghosts” for profit: AI versions of grandparents or dead children pushing products or keeping users engaged in grief.
• A fictional vignette about an ad network that resurrects deceased loved ones for hyper-targeted ads resonates as disturbingly plausible.
• Commenters expect AI-built personas of all users for ad optimization and microtargeting, with some joking about “grandma endorsing grooming products.”

Legal frameworks and likeness

• Discussion covers estate law, RUFADAA, and “postmortem right of likeness,” plus moves like Denmark’s proposal to give people copyright over their features.
• Questions arise about conflicts (e.g., lookalikes, identical twins, background subjects in photos) and whether likeness laws end up mainly protecting the famous.
• Some propose simply folding likeness/data rights into estates; others see this as mostly benefiting those with money to enforce it.

Technical and practical issues

• One commenter is actively collecting exhaustive personal data (video, audio, sensors) to train a future “self-model,” acknowledging it as a long-shot.
• Others doubt how accurate a persona can be from typical online traces, though many assume current profiling is already sophisticated enough for persuasive fakes.
• Practical experience with Facebook memorialization shows platforms’ processes for handling the dead can be slow, inconsistent, and seemingly low-priority.

Skepticism and edge cases

• Some believe the dead should have fewer rights, not more; once you’re not a legal person, your data should be governed by estate and general law, not new rights.
• Concerns include: could deletion rights destroy evidence of crimes? Could heirs erase embarrassing or historically important records?
• Cultural and ethical objections liken AI resurrection to necromancy or “wizard portraits,” arguing the living shouldn’t speak with the mouths of the dead.