Abstract
The digital footprints of today’s internet-active individuals are a testament to their lives, and have the potential become digital legacies once they pass on. Future descendants of those alive today will greatly appreciate the unprecedented insight into the lives of their long-since deceased ancestors, but this can only occur if today we have a process for data preservation and handover after death. Many prominent online platforms offer nebulous or altogether absent policies regarding posthumous data handling, and despite recent advances it is currently unclear who the average Australian would like their data to be managed after their death (i.e., social media platforms, a trusted individual, or another digital executor). While at present the management of deceased accounts is largely performed by the platform (e.g., Facebook), it is conceivable that many Australians may not trust such platforms to do so with integrity. This study aims to further the academic conversation around posthumous data by delving deeper into the preferences of the Australian Public regarding the management of their data after death, ultimately to inform future development of research programs and industry solutions. A survey of 1020 Australians revealed that most desired a level of control over how their data is managed after death. Australians currently prefer to entrust the management of their data to a trusted close individual or a third-party software that they can administrate themselves. As expected, social media companies ranked low regarding both trust and convenience to manage data after death. Furthermore, we found that the more active internet users have stronger desire for control over their data after death, as did people with children and those with greater levels of formal education. Unexpectedly, marital status, age, and gender did not predict preferences for posthumous data control. Future research focus should be to conceptualise and develop a third-party solution that enables these preferences to be realised. Such a solution could interface with the major online vendors (social media, cloud hosting etc.) to action the deceased’s will – erasing select data, while sharing other data with selected individuals.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agarwal, S., Nath, A.: A comprehensive study on scope and challenges in digital inheritance. In: International Journal of Scientific Research in Computer Science, Engineering and Information Technology, pp. 98–104 (2021)
Allison, F., Nansen, B., Gibbs, M., Arnold, M.: Bones of contention: Social acceptance of digital cemetery technologies. In: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2023)
Arnold, M., Gibbs, M., Kohn, T., Meese, J., Nansen, B., Hallam, E.: Death and Digital Media. Routledge (2017)
Australian Communications and Media Authority. Communications and media in Australia series: How we use the internet (2022). Canberra: Australian Government Retrieved from https://www.acma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-03/HOWWEU~1.PDF
Baack, D., Rogers, J., Clow, K.E.: Citizen preferences regarding new city services: demographics predictors and patterns of opinion. J. Nonprofit Public Sect. Mark. 8(1), 41–53 (2000)
Bellamy, C., Arnold, M., Gibbs, M., Bjørn, N., Kohn, T.: Death and the internet: consumer issues for planning and managing digital legacies (2013)
Brubaker, J.R., Callison-Burch, V.: Legacy contact: designing and implementing post-mortem stewardship at Facebook. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2016)
DeCoster, J., Gallucci, M., Iselin, A.-M.R.: Best practices for using median splits, artificial categorization, and their continuous alternatives. J. Exp. Psychopathol. 2(2), 197–209 (2011)
Djamasbi, S., Wilson, E.V.: The relationship of demographics to consumers’ use of an extended range of e-health services. In: 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2015)
Graham, C., Arnold, M., Kohn, T., Gibbs, M.R.: Gravesites and websites: a comparison of memorialisation. Vis. Stud. 30(1), 37–53 (2015)
Gulotta, R., Kelliher, A., Forlizzi, J.: Digital systems and the experience of legacy. In: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (2017)
Hankvist, A., Karlsson, O.: Sociala medier -- en förtroendeingivande marknadsföringskanal? (2015)
Hsieh-Yee, I.: Can we trust social media? Internet Ref. Serv. Q. 25(1–2), 9–23 (2021)
Kamp, A., Alam, O., Blair, K., Dunn, K.: Australians’ views on cultural diversity, nation and migration, 2015–16 [Journal Article]. Cosmopolitan Civ. Soc. Interdisc. J. 9(3), [61]-83 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.309803171145554
Lambert, A., Nansen, B., Arnold, M.: Algorithmic memorial videos: contextualising automated curation. Mem. Stud. 11(2), 156–171 (2018)
Liu, H.: Assessing Trustworthiness in Social Media: A Social Computing Approach (2015). https://doi.org/10.21236/AD1007384
Mali, P., Prakash, A.: Death in the Era of Perpetual Digital Afterlife: Digital Assets, Posthumous Legacy, Ownership and Its Legal Implications. SSRN Electronic Journal (2020)
Morgan, A.J., Ferguson, Y.M., Trauth, E.M.: Consumer demographics and internet based health information search in the United States. Int. J. E-Health Med. Commun. 6(1), 58–72 (2015)
Nansen, B., Gould, H., Arnold, M., Gibbs, M.: Media, mortality and necro-technologies: eulogies for dead media. New Media Soc. 25(8), 2163–2182 (2023)
Phang, C.W., Kankanhalli, A., Ramakrishnan, K., Raman, K.S.: Customers\textquoteright preference of online store visit strategies: an investigation of demographic variables. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 19(3), 344–358 (2010)
Prates, R.O., Rosson, M.B., de Souza, C.S.: Making decisions about digital legacy with Google’s inactive account manager. Human-Computer Interaction–INTERACT 2015: 15th IFIP TC 13 International Conference, Bamberg, Germany, September 14–18, 2015, Proceedings, Part I 15 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22701-6_14
Radu, A.C., Orzan, M.C., Dobrescu, A.I., Arsene, O.: The importance of trust and privacy in social media. Int. J. Acad. Res. Econ. Manag. Sci. 5(2), 51–59 (2016)
Rajković, B., Đurić, I., Zarić, V., Glauben, T.: Gaining trust in the digital age: the potential of social media for increasing the competitiveness of small and medium enterprises. Sustainability 13(4), 1884 (2021)
Sikun, Z.: The trust of different age groups to information released by different agencies on social media platforms. Malays. Bus. Manag. J. 1(1), 35–39 (2022)
Tang, J., Liu, H.: Trust in Social Media. Springer International Publishing (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02345-3
Acknowledgments
Dr Arash Shaghaghi (project lead) acknowledges the partial funding from Deakin Cyber Research and Innovation Centre.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Ethics declarations
Disclosure of Interests
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2025 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing
About this paper
Cite this paper
Reeves, A., Shaghaghi, A., Krebs, S., Ashenden, D. (2025). Data After Death: Australian User Preferences and Future Solutions to Protect Posthumous User Data. In: Clarke, N., Furnell, S. (eds) Human Aspects of Information Security and Assurance. HAISA 2024. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 722. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-72563-0_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-72563-0_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-72562-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-72563-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)