![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophie) wrote in ![[site community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/comm_staff.png){kind=small}
dw_suggestions2011-01-16 08:00 am
Unblock Logins for Memorial Accounts
Title:
Unblock Logins for Memorial Accounts
Area:
Accounts
Summary:
In November last year, memorial accounts were blocked from logging in in order to prevent the deletion of entries from them in case anyone were to break into the account. Unfortunately, this can be somewhat problematic as negative comments cannot be deleted. I'd like to suggest that to overcome this, logins to memorial accounts should be allowed again, with the deletion of entries blocked.
Description:
One of the most obvious problems with being unable to log into memorial accounts is not being able to take action against any objectionable comments which may have been left by others. For example, if someone were to comment to a post saying hateful things about the person in question, that comment would either have to stay up, causing distress to people who read it, or someone would need to submit a support request to get the comment deleted, which would necessarily need to be escalated to admins, and involves talking to other people - which the person viewing the comment may not want to do. This, I feel, is unfair to friends and family who may be grieving.
The above also applies to other types of unwanted comment, including spam comments. It is unlikely in this case that anyone would ask Support to delete these because more spam will probably appear later anyway, which means that the comments remain on the entry, appearing extremely disrespectful.
I suggest that instead of blocking logins, we should allow logins but prevent the deletion of existing entries, which would accomplish the original purpose of the change. It does mean that unfortunately someone may be able to break in and delete all the *comments*, which would be a bad thing, but as I said above, I feel that the ability to delete comments in this case is important. I do feel, though, that to delete all the comments would be such a painstaking job that it would probably not be done.
In the end, I suppose it comes down to: Would it be preferable for a potential attacker to not be able to change anything at all while preventing harmful comments from being deleted, or would it be preferable to allow harmful comments to be deleted while risking that someone may break in and delete *all* the comments?
This suggestion:
Should be implemented as-is.
17 (29.3%)
Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
21 (36.2%)
Shouldn't be implemented.
5 (8.6%)
(I have no opinion)
15 (25.9%)
(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I just want to be able to smack it down if, instead of a new memory, it's a spam message. :P
no subject
no subject
no subject
+1
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I don't know, the more I think about this the itchier I get. I put my finger on why in a later comment: it's because it inherently assumes that people will be sharing their passwords, and that just makes me twitch.
no subject
Why shouldn't that be an option?
If the date is needed, surely existing ones could be grandfathered in with the date the change was made?
no subject
It might be nice if it was possible for the survivors to request either this status OR a completely frozen no-login version. If no one has the password anyway (because the deceased elected not to share it in their paperwork) then it would be more appropriate to freeze the login altogether.
But of the two, if it can only be one - this version rather than what we currently have. Under the current scheme, if my father's account had been here, I would decline to have it designated a memorial account ever (and take the risk of a hijacking) rather than run the commenting risk.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Edited because: It appears that it won't happen anyway, so this comment is extra pointless, oops. :3
no subject
no subject
I think that support should be open to deleting post memorial spam, but the account should otherwise be left alone.
no subject
You could argue that the support staff member would recognize that as offensive and delete it, but for each person and group of friends there are bound to be statements that strangers will not recognize as hurtful. Better to let someone who loved you manage things than someone else....
no subject
I don't think support should give someone who doesn't have that ability the ability to log into such an account. But if someone has left to their heirs the ability to log into their account, I think they ought to be able to do so to manage the comments....
no subject
no subject
That would prevent unwanted comments from being seen (except when someone was logged in to that journal to do maintenence, which presumably would be infrequent), and also would prevent a potential attacker from deleting any comments.
no subject
no subject
The more I think about this suggestion, the more I hate it for that reason exactly. We originally blocked logins to memorial accounts because I've see one too many cases of someone breaking into a memorial account and gutting it, and the friends and loved ones of that person can never get that back. (Imagine how it would feel for your friends to see your account posting Russian pornbot spam after your death.)
On LJ, I had to suspend memorial accounts that had been broken into and cleaned out, or broken into and used to post spam all the time, because those accounts could never again be secured, and those friends would never be able to visit their friend's journal again. I'd say that was about ten to fifteen times as common as someone contacting us because there was an unpleasant comment in the account. (With the advent of the spam invasion on LJ, I'm sure that frequency has flipped by now, but I seriously doubt we'll get to the point where spam comments to memorial accounts become more than a few manual deletions a week, tops, for a long time. Knock wood.)
Also remember, your account doesn't automatically become memorial when you die. Someone has to contact us to get us to flip the memorial flag. So if you want your friend to be able to keep logging into your account and deleting comments that you wouldn't want there, just don't have the account set to memorial. But you'd have to give them the password before your death (or in your will or something), and I get twitchy whenever we start discussing any kind of program that will encourage people to do that.
no subject
I don't feel that implementing this suggestion would be akin to saying that you support sharing of passwords. Indeed, I know that in a lot of cases people are comforted by the thought that someone is caring for the journal of someone they remember dearly.
As I commented above, I like the idea of making it so only comments made after the memorial status was granted could be deleted. As for posting spam, how about prohibiting commenting in any journal other than their own? (since I believe posting in any journal is already prohibited, right? If not, it probably should be.)
And as for accounts not automatically becoming memorial after you die - I know that. But if someone has died and a friend asks for their account to be memorialised, then it's probably going to happen whether the account owner wanted it or not (unless, perhaps, it's clearly outlined that they don't). Right now, I probably wouldn't want it to happen, and then that carries with it the problems that you've already outlined, probably leading to my account getting suspended some time after I die.
If we could make sure memorial accounts were properly secured in such a way that it's still possible for someone to partially take care of it after the owner's death, then I would *want* my account to be memorialised.
no subject
You know how some of the random suggestions have been in a "make personal accounts act more like communities" sort of direction?
What if there became the possibility to grant friends limited moderator rights on your journal? While there could be the possibility for abuse, it would also cut down on password-sharing. I don't know whether the decrease in password-sharing would be enough of a benefit to overcome whatever increase in problems would arise from people feeling that they could safely share power with someone who turned out to be untrustworthy.
What if, beyond that, there became the possibility to grant friends freeze/screen (unfreeze/unscreen) powers upon your journal becoming memorial? This does have the obvious exploit mode of someone writing in to declare you dead when you're just gone for the weekend, however.
no subject
no subject
I was just thinking that what I'd actually prefer here was the ability to designate an account that could have limited mod powers on a memorial journal (make & edit one sticky post, fix the layout if it breaks, delete spam and troll comments, possibly take people off the trusted-by list) without actually logging in to it, but to really make that work, you'd have to have a way to designate that person before your death, and the powers would activate if the journal became a memorial journal.
...I should probably just go make a separate suggestion for that.
no subject
Think Kyrielle is right to an extent though, it's something that should be included in probate paperwork, no harm in making that easier and simpler though.
no subject
(I do have an internet-executor specified in my will with all of my accounts and where to find the passwords, and I think everybody should, as far as they're willing to link their identities. But not everybody can do that.)
no subject
no subject
If you didn't have anyone you wanted to designate who was comfortable with DW/social networking, you wouldn't have to - it could just revert to a standard memorial account (or stay as a standard account) with staff taking care of any issues that came up.
And the idea would be that the original journal owner would have to designate before their death - the name would be stored in the DW system, and nobody else would have the ability to set the account to memorial status. If they didn't designate anyone, it would work like the current system.
...I should probably just make the suggestion and let this sort of thing get hashed out there.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject