Social networking sites allow us to maintain a web presence long after death
It is a most basic fact of life: we will all die. There are no creams, no pills, no incantations that can change this. However, more and more of us have the opportunity to perpetuate ourselves by the grace of overenthusiastic automated Facebook reminders and the digital archives of identity that we upload with pieces of us.
After we die, we leave behind an estate that tells a particular story of who we were. We have no control over how we are represented, perceived or passed around: the post-death identities of highly public, controversial figures such as Muammar Gaddafi are appropriated for political agendas and images ricochet around news outlets and the web; more popular people such as Steve Jobs are bequeathed elevated cachet offline and on; and the less well-known but just as deserving, such as recently deceased computer scientist Dennis Ritchie, maintain an afterlife among the faithful who cluster around biographies and tributes.
As for the rest of us, pre-web, we'd have faded away pretty quickly. Now, it's possible to have our own public perpetuity. This can be disconcerting to those we leave behind. Many of the stories I've heard about digital death experiences come from bereaved people who are jolted by the activity surrounding a loved one's online profile, or the skeletons that were hidden in an online closet. One person who contacted me about his experience of 21st-century death commented: "It's a very weird thing, Facebook after death: it's a strange, living memorial to which anyone can add and contribute – and which the family cannot control." Social network accounts become windows into the worlds of their former owners, exposing the good and the devastating facts – such as hidden relationships or mental health problems – of a person's life.
Most social network services allow family members to access a deceased loved one's account, to turn it into a memorial page, to archive it or to delete it. This can preserve the online identity as part of the whole person, something that, pre-Facebook, wouldn't have been part of the mainstream idea of "self". Virtual memorials can be a real source of comfort to loved ones. The same commenter told me: "Following the recent first anniversary of [my brother's] death, it was emotional – and not unpleasant – to log back on and see people posting anniversary messages and to see that he was still in the thoughts of so many people."
We are now embedded in online social networks, which means they can be speedy conduits for informing people whose lives were touched by the deceased person. Others told me that, although they'd only known someone online, when they'd heard about their death, they felt compelled to go to their funeral.
Death is big business and there is an emerging industry that wants to help us deal with our digital assets before we die. The fourth Digital Death Day conference takes place in Amsterdam in November, aimed at a motley crew of undertakers, human-computer interaction researchers and social network administrators. It hopes to answer questions about new forms of estate and legacy planning, the implications of the web for end-of-life and after-death care and the ways the terms and conditions of online tools are constructed to take into consideration the end-of-account requirements of their customers.
People are already lining up to advise us on what should and shouldn't be included in a last will and testament, offer hacking services for the bereaved to gain access to locked-down computers and social networking accounts, and flog augmented headstones so grave site visitors can discover more about an entombed person's life by scanning it with a smartphone. Our digital assets are incredibly rich resources, and the archive of emotional and biographical assets that we leave behind is growing every day. Parents document everything about their children's lives and upload it to the web, from first moments to first days at school, and beyond.
Once we have control of our online selves, we continue to pour the minutiae of us into infinitely deep memory books. "I'm not espousing that we chronicle every little aspect of our lives: that would be ridiculous, redundant and boring," says John Romano, one of the authors of Your Digital Afterlife, "but there are things that we value that we put online. And there are times when representation online is the only way that it's stored."
"It used to be the things that were most important to us had tangibility," continues Evan Carroll, Romano's co-author. "Now that we're doing these things digitally, the content – no matter what format it's in – is still important." These are potentially valuable emotional assets, personally and socially, and their worth only truly realised by the people who survive us. For this reason, Carroll and Romano recommend taking a regular audit of what's important – photos, videos, status updates, blog posts, online banking passwords – and entrusting an executor with the details of how to access them.
Death in the age of the web reminds us how much the technology has become part of the fabric of our personal and social identities. Once we're gone, what we leave behind is a rich resource of who we are. We may not survive beyond the release of the next social network, but our inevitable ends are being extended by our digital lives.
InternetAleks Krotoskiguardian.co.uk © 2011 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The first malaria vaccine to get through large trials cuts malaria cases by 56% and severe malaria by 47%. It's only partially effective – but that's no reason for the donors to put their money elsewhere
All credit to the scientists and doctors behind the first-ever malaria vaccine to get through large-scale trials. It would be easy to say the glass is half-empty because the vaccine prevents only 50% of cases of malaria – and also because there are signs that the protection it offers may wane over time – but that would be to devalue an amazing achievement. This is the first vaccine against a disease caused by parasites – something that 20 years ago many in the scientific community said could not be done. And halving malaria cases would cut them from 200m a year to 100m a year. There can be no doubt this vaccine has the potential to save children's lives and prevent them suffering serious harm.
The big question now is whether – at a time when money is short – donors will come forward to buy this vaccine in 2015 or so when it is ready, or whether they will want to spend the money instead on bednets or drugs and wait for an improved version. Because in the end, there will be a more effective vaccine. The hard work was to establish there could be a vaccine at all. This could get messy. GlaxoSmithKline is talking about increasing production capacity and supply chains, and keeping the cost down by licensing production to Africa or India, understandably very keen to roll out what it has got. And indeed, there is a good argument that this partially effective vaccine should be available as widely and as quickly as possible. But price is going to be absolutely critical – it has to be low, or the donors will put their money elsewhere. And at the same time, the scientists need to be encouraged to keep going.
Postscript. For anyone who doubted the significance of the trial, this is the comment on the results from Peter Hotez, president of the American Society for Tropical Medicine and Hygiene:
This news on the malaria vaccine is what the moonwalk meant for the future of space exploration. This is banner news in our world as we continue our work to find treatments and bring relief for those suffering from tropical diseases worldwide. This is a true testimony to perseverance in public health, and it doesn't get any more important than this. The results from this trial also hold promise for breakthroughs in finding vaccines against other tropical diseases.
He adds a plea for more money for research.
This accomplishment – more than 24 years in the making – underscores the importance of long-term investment in research. Without it, we might never have come this far. And without continued support, further progress could be stymied.
MalariaVaccines and immunisationSarah Boseleyguardian.co.uk © 2011 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

My column in today’s DNA:

If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to have heard it fall, does it make a sound?’ is an old philosophical question on which there has been much heated argument over the centuries. The debate is a consequence of a school of philosophy that believes that events exist from the point of view of the observer. If there is no observer, then there is no event. Others, especially scientists, maintain that events exist irrespective of the presence of the observer.
In an era of 24-hour news channels, this philosophy can be revisited. If an event occurs, let’s say a protest, and there is no media coverage, then as far as public consciousness is concerned, does the issue even exist? Groups and causes that can articulate their view in media-friendly chunks have their issues become part of the public debate. Groups and causes that cannot, do not exist as far as the public space is concerned. Political and civil society groups of all hues and shades are beginning to realise this. They have realised that media coverage works best in the media centres — Mumbai and Delhi. And, protests work best when conducted in the full glare of the media. They realise that if there is no observer for an event, then the protest is as good as being dead in the water. For example, Irom Sharmilla has been fasting to repeal the Armed Forces Special Powers Act for over 10 years, and it is just now that the protest has been noticed. And, that is because Anna Hazare’s 12-day fast brought Irom Sharmilla’s decade long fast into the limelight. Similarly,38-year-old Swami Nigamanand Saraswati died trying to save the Ganga from pollution caused by illegal mining. After 68 days of fasting in Haridwar he passed away. His death was covered by the ‘national media’ because it coincided with Baba Ramdev’s little drama at the Ramlila grounds. But his cause, that of saving the Ganga, is largely ignored.
Media coverage is not about how ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘important’ or ‘unimportant’ a cause is. It is about being part of the media’s line of sight and being able to keep catching their attention. Once the media starts paying attention, then the idea is to keep engaging the media on a constant basis, so that the cycle of publicity continues.
Today, packaging of news surrounding the protest is as important as the protest itself. Every successful protest is handled like a product. And, in a modern world, the product attributes are not as important as the packaging and promotional hype surrounding it.
That is the reason for the insistence on Jantar Mantar by Team Anna. Anna could have fasted anywhere else in India. After all, Gandhi fasted wherever he was — his ashram, jails, various cities — location didn’t deter him. But, in a modern India which is wired 24/7, it is important to be where the media is. If Anna Hazare had fasted in Ralegaon Siddhi would the event have been part of pan national consciousness or would it have been like Nigamanand Saraswati’s fast, mentioned in passing by regional news while being largely ignored by the ‘national’ media?
The recent attack by members of the ‘Bhagat Singh Kranti Sena’ on Prashant Bhushan — a core member of Team Anna — in full view of a television news crew is taking this philosophy one step further. The issue raised by the Bhagat Singh Kranti Sena becomes part of national consciousness, overnight, because it was sensational, violent, jingoistic and on tape. We would not even have heard of this fringe organisation if they had hit someone without the TV crew being present. They were mimicking the acts of Sri Ram Sene a few years ago. The Ram Sene protesting against declining ‘moral’ values — decided to go to the nearest pub and beat up a few girls who were drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes. But, before they went to teach the girls a lesson, they called the camera crews.

As a result, an intolerant, violent, extreme fringe organisation became part of pan-Indian consciousness.

News focus on strife, violence, drama and sensationalism to increase ratings, has led to it becoming the launching pad for many a fringe organisation. These groups thrive on media coverage. Their philosophy is immaterial — their rage is what sells. In its blinkered focus on only ratings, news channels have unleashed a genie that needs to be put back in the bottle.

Copyright © 2011 POV. This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact legal@calamur.org so we can take legal action immediately.Plugin by TaraganaRelated ReadingIf medium is message, what is the message?The Thirty Day Project – Day 16 – Media & RepresentationRadia Tapes – Silence of the Lambs ….Radia Tapes – Letter from an Editor ….Conversations with Power Brokers – view

When they hear about a group of people beating someone to death for petty crimes, Malayalees would take pride that it did not happen in their home state. ‘Must be Bihar‘, they would say. ‘Or some other illiterate state in India‘, they would comment. But when they got a chance, they proved themselves to be the most hypocritical society in India. And note that the victim here was not a thief, but a complete innocent.

Raghu, a native of Palakkad, was traveling to Perumbavoor in a bus with some money that he borrowed from gold loan. That is when two people got into a fight with him and started beating him. When people had noticed, they accused Raghu of pick-pocketing. It is only when Raghu got sick of the beating and fell down on the ground that the KSRTC employees kept the two culprits in their custody and informed the police. But Raghu had died before the police could reach the taluk hospital with him.

One one hand there is Raghu, a father of two, who took a gold loan of Rs. 19,000 from the local co-operative bank to help his wife’s grandmother’s family in Tamil Nadu. On the other, there are two people – one of them a gunman, a cop, to a Member of Parliament (K Sudhakaran) which gives him ‘special privileges’. Then there is police, who refused to give details of the questioning of the culprits and prevented the media from taking photos of them. They said it was an ‘order from the top’.

Then there is me and you – the Malayali common men who seems to believe that beating someone to death is justified if the victim is a pick-pocket. That is probably why nobody stopped the two culprits – the gunman and his friend – when they said the money that Raghu carrying was pick-pocketed. It is the same Malayali mindset that would justify the men who slapped a woman for traveling with a friend at night with a comment that ‘she deserved it‘, because she was traveling with her friend to drop her at her place after a night shift job. The same Malayali men who would justify the flesh trade pimping minor girls with a comment ‘why did that girl go with that man in the first place?‘, ‘she must have been craving for sex‘.

I think more than these people who abuse their power and positions, it is on us to take the blame. For being the silent spectators that we have turned out to be.

Share

The social network's 'jokes in the pub' analogy, defending its decision not to take down pro-rape pages, is offensive
It doesn't matter how hard I study Facebook's terms and conditions, I still can't find the bit where it says: "Like Humpty Dumpty, Facebook is at complete liberty to interpret the words used in this document in any way it sees fit." And yet that's obviously what Facebook executives have been doing: making words mean what they want them to mean, or else they'd have removed the pages that promote rape and other forms of violence against women months ago.

The specific clause in Facebook's statement of rights and responsibilities that's supposed to protect groups against violence and hate speech instructs the user: "You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence." However, Facebook has now defended the numerous pages that clearly violate these terms by claiming: "Groups that express an opinion on a state, institution, or set of beliefs – even if that opinion is outrageous or offensive to some – do not by themselves violate our policies." Which is strange, because if a page entitled "Roses are red, violets are blue, I've got a knife, get in the van" isn't hateful, threatening or gratuitously violent, I don't for the life of me know what is.

It was back in August that feminists first began to notice the proliferation of pro-rape pages on the popular social networking site. Two months later over 176,000 people have signed a US-based petition calling on Facebook to take them down, and nearly 4,000 people have signed a UK-based petition calling for the same. The Facebook pages, such as the one cited above and others that include "You know she's playing hard to get when your [sic] chasing her down an alleyway" still remain.

Facebook's initial response to the public outcry was to suggest that promoting violence against women was equivalent to telling a rude joke down the pub: "It is very important to point out that what one person finds offensive another can find entertaining" went the bizarre rape apologia. "Just as telling a rude joke won't get you thrown out of your local pub, it won't get you thrown off Facebook."

And in some ways they're right: telling a rude joke probably wouldn't get you thrown out of your local pub. I'd suggest, however, that propping up your local bar while inciting others to rape your mate's girlfriend "to see if she can put up a fight" would not only get you thrown out, it would in all likelihood get you arrested as well. Still, at least you could log on once you got home and post your offensive comments on Facebook instead, safe in the knowledge that they wouldn't do anything about it.

What Facebook and others who defend this pernicious hate speech don't seem to get is that rapists don't rape because they're somehow evil or perverted or in any way particularly different from than the average man in the street: rapists rape because they can. Rapists rape because they know the odds are stacked in their favour, because they know the chances are they'll get away with it.

And part of the reason rapists get away with it, time after time after time, is because we live in a society that all but condones rape. Because we live in a society where it's not taken seriously, and where posting heinous comments online that promote sexual violence are not treated as hate speech or as content that threatens women's safety, but are instead treated as a joke and given a completely free pass.

By refusing to take these pages down, and by resorting to such a ridiculous and quite frankly offensive "rude joke" analogy to justify their decision, Facebook executives have made absolutely clear where they stand on the issue of gender hate crime. It's fine to post hateful or threatening content on their site, just as it's fine to post content that incites violence. Well, as long as it's primarily aimed at women, that is.
FacebookInternetRapeGenderSocial networkingFeminismWomenCath Elliottguardian.co.uk © 2011 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Today, as I stand here a Miss India, I don’t even know if my father knows that it is me, his daughter, who has set out to conquer the world, a crown on my head. Our lives have not been easy, least so for my mother. Financially, emotionally, she struggled to stay afloat, to keep her job and yet allow us to be the best that we could be.

Brides and Parents Back Home Get Picky as Economy Makes America Look Risky

Are Americans among the most religious people in the world? The answer depends on which "world" you're talking about. If you're referring to the entire planet, the answer is plainly "no."

Lines at the ER, a television boom, emptying suburbs. A catastrophic economic downturn would feel nothing like the last one.

The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures -- is this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

You might have heard of child abuse but this beats everything.

They would work equal hours, spend equal time with their children, take equal responsibility for their home. Neither would be the keeper of the mental to-do lists; neither of their careers would take precedence.

Pilgrim accounts stress that the Hajj leads to a feeling of unity with fellow Muslims, but outsiders have sometimes feared that this could be accompanied by antipathy toward non-Muslims.

With the industry growing at an average rate of 25 per cent per annum, the lavishness doled out by Indians on weddings is just getting larger this season

In the end, porn doesn’t whet men’s appetites—it turns them off the real thing.

They may be co-educational schools in metropolitan Mumbai, but are still insisting drawing on a line that divides the boys from the girls.

Additional children seem to make mothers less happy than mothers with only one child

Prejudice tolerated is intolerance encouraged.