The digitalisation of memory: what ethical issues?

What is digital memory?

Digital memory refers to all the digital traces that a person leaves throughout their life. Social networks, emails, photos in the cloud, online bank accounts, subscriptions: our digital identity has become an essential component of our existence.

An average user owns between 80 and 130 online accounts and generates several gigabytes of personal data each year. This digital footprint is divided into two categories: active memory (voluntarily published content) and passive memory (browsing history, geolocation, metadata).

The evolution is spectacular: in just a few decades, we have moved from paper to cloud, creating an intangible heritage that survives our physical existence.

Posthumous data: who owns it?

The central question of data ownership after death remains largely unresolved. Who can access a deceased person's accounts: heirs, platforms, the State? The distinction between legal ownership and moral ownership further complicates the situation.

Terms and conditions vary considerably across platforms. Facebook offers a memorialised account status, Google allows the designation of a legacy contact, Apple requires a court order to grant access to heirs.

This diversity creates a legal grey area where families often find themselves helpless when facing digital giants. To better understand these procedures, consult our practical guide on managing a deceased person's digital accounts.

The ethical issues of digital preservation

The preservation of digital memory raises complex ethical dilemmas that touch on intimacy, respect and posthumous dignity. Should everything be preserved or should erasure be allowed? Who decides what content to keep?

These questions go beyond the technical framework to question our collective relationship with death and remembrance. Technology offers unprecedented possibilities, but it also imposes new responsibilities on families and platforms.

The absence of social and legal consensus creates a void where everyone navigates according to their own values, sometimes to the detriment of respecting the deceased's wishes.

The right to digital oblivion after death

Does the right to be forgotten exist after death? This question divides legal experts and ethicists. Some families wish to preserve every digital trace, others want to erase everything to protect the deceased's privacy.

Consent becomes crucial here: did the person express their wishes whilst alive? Without clear directives, relatives must guess what the deceased would have wanted, an additional emotional burden at an already difficult time.

The tension between memorial preservation and respect for posthumous privacy remains largely unresolved, with each situation requiring a nuanced and personalised approach.

The modification and falsification of memory

The possibility of modifying or deleting posthumous content poses a real risk of rewriting personal history. Who can delete compromising photos, remove comments or add false memories?

Deepfakes and artificial intelligence amplify this danger by enabling the creation of false interactions with the deceased. These technologies, explored in our article on AI and grief, raise profound philosophical questions.

Should memory be preserved as it is, with its imperfections, or embellished to keep only the best? This decision engages our relationship with authenticity and biographical truth.

The current legal framework and its limitations

Legislation on posthumous data struggles to keep pace with technological evolution. In Switzerland as in Europe, the law remains fragmented and often unsuited to contemporary digital realities.

Current legislative texts were designed before the explosion of social networks and cloud computing. They do not anticipate the complex situations generated by our digital life after death.

This inadequacy creates legal grey areas where families and platforms navigate without a clear compass, each interpreting the legal framework according to their own interests or understanding.

Swiss legislation on posthumous data

In Switzerland, the FADP (Federal Act on Data Protection) protects the personal data of the living, but its application after death remains unclear. Do personal data lose their legal protection with death?

Heirs can claim certain rights over the deceased's digital estate, but these rights vary depending on the nature of the data and platform policies. Bank accounts are transferable, but what about personal emails or private photos?

Swiss courts are beginning to address these questions on a case-by-case basis, gradually creating case law, but the absence of a clear legislative framework remains problematic.

GDPR and digital death in Europe

The European GDPR explicitly states that its provisions no longer apply to deceased persons. Each member state can therefore define its own rules concerning posthumous data.

This freedom has created a legislative mosaic: France allows heirs to access accounts under certain conditions, Germany favours the complete transmission of digital estate, other countries remain silent on the matter.

Several landmark rulings have attempted to fill this void, but European harmonisation remains necessary to ensure consistency in the treatment of cross-border digital legacy.

Philosophical reflections: identity and digital immortality

Digital presence after death questions our very conception of identity. Does digital identity survive the physical person? Does an active Facebook profile still represent the deceased or does it become a simple memorial artefact?

Digital immortality fascinates as much as it worries. Projects for virtual recreation of the deceased, explored in our article on the metaverse and death, promise a form of continuity beyond biological death.

For loved ones, this digital persistence can bring comfort or conversely prevent the grieving process. The tension between technological innovation and fundamental human needs remains at the heart of these debates.

Concrete examples and use cases

The ethical issues of digital memory are not merely theoretical. They manifest daily through concrete situations that affect thousands of families.

From digital memorials to digital wills, solutions are emerging to meet families' practical needs. These tools illustrate how technology can serve memory whilst respecting the dignity of the deceased.

Examining these use cases allows for a better understanding of the real challenges faced by families and the solution pathways that are gradually taking shape.

Digital memorials and commemorative pages

Digital memory platforms like Wolky offer spaces dedicated to tribute and remembrance. Accessible 24/7, these digital memorials allow loved ones to share memories, photos and testimonies, creating a living collective memory.

These tools nevertheless raise ethical questions: who controls the published content? How long should these pages remain active? Is moderation necessary?

Wolky offers commemorative pages (Memories) that respect the dignity of the deceased whilst providing a secure sharing space. To understand the evolution of these tools, consult our article on the future of obituary platforms.

Digital wills and advance directives

A digital will allows one to clearly express their wishes concerning their personal data after death. Which accounts to delete? Which to transfer? Who can access what?

Several specialised services offer to manage this digital legacy: secure password storage, automatic transmission to designated heirs, execution of posthumous instructions. These tools remain underused, but their adoption is progressing.

Anticipation remains the best approach: establish a list of your accounts, define clear instructions, designate a trusted person. These simple steps prevent loved ones from having to guess your wishes at an already difficult time.

Towards an ethics of digital memory

Building an ethics of digital memory requires a societal dialogue involving all stakeholders: platforms, legislators, citizens and funeral professionals.

Platforms must adopt transparent and respectful policies. Legislators must adapt the law to digital realities. Individuals must anticipate and communicate their wishes. This collective approach, explored in our article on technological innovations in the funeral sector, is essential.

Digital education plays a crucial role: raising everyone's awareness of the importance of these questions allows for serene preparation of one's digital legacy. The balance between innovation, respect and dignity remains the objective to achieve in order to truly honour the memory of the deceased.

The digitalisation of memory raises fundamental questions about our identity, our legacy and our relationship with death. Between preservation opportunities and manipulation risks, between the right to remembrance and the right to be forgotten, the ethical issues are numerous and complex. The current legal framework, whether Swiss or European, still struggles to keep pace with technological innovation.

Faced with these challenges, one thing remains certain: digital memory must be considered with respect, transparency and dignity. It does not replace grief, but can accompany it constructively. Digital tools, when designed ethically, enable the creation of accessible and lasting spaces for remembrance.

Wolky is part of this approach by offering respectful commemorative pages where families can honour the memory of their loved ones, share memories and build a dignified and controlled digital legacy.