Neumann: Digital treasures play a role in estate planning

February 29, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Commentary

By Matthew D. Neumann

neumann-matthew Neumann

Here is some interesting food for thought. In December 2011, Facebook introduced “Timeline.” At first only available to select users, it will become mandatory for all Facebook users in the coming weeks. More than just a new feature, Timeline is a redesign of Facebook’s user interface that reorganizes the structure and presentation of a user’s profile. Changing from the old “profile” format, Timeline now allows users to experience and consume information in a chronological, graphical timeline.

Think of it as a living, digital journal. You go about your life. Some things are mundane: taking pictures; writing down your thoughts and mood (status updates); talking with people; making new friends. Other things are significant: graduating from school; getting married; getting a job; the birth of your first child. Facebook will chronologically record and organize all of this information. With your assistance, Facebook will, in effect, record and chronologically organize your life.

The implications that stem from this are many (and most pre-date the release of Timeline). The most obvious implication is that at the end of your life you can look back and, in some sense, relive your life in a chronologically organized timeline. You can see photographs from when you were 16. You can relive the party you went to back in college. You can see all the well wishes you received when your first child was born.

Another obvious implication is that other persons (with, or perhaps without, your permission) can “live” your life for the first time. Likewise, you will be able to “live” the life of your family, friends and acquaintances. From there, the implications may be less obvious, but no less significant. Companies. Advertising agencies. Government. Investigators. Lawyers. Law enforcement personnel. Employers. Each, for different reasons, would jump at the chance to “live” your life.

A less obvious implication of Facebook – one that Timeline helps brings into focus – is the potential of Facebook for future generations. Today, even among the most diligent and heritage-minded persons, the tangible things that have survived from our ancestors are limited. For some (if not most), our basic knowledge and awareness of our ancestors is limited once we move beyond the two generations that came before us. Of course we know our parents. Of course we know our grandparents. How many people can name their four great-grandmothers or eight great-great grandfathers? Sadly, probably not many. Facebook may have the potential to change this.

I’ll admit that I can’t tell you the names of my four great-grandfathers. I can’t tell you what they looked like. I can’t tell you their hobbies. I can’t tell you what was on their minds on April 18, 1875. And I can’t tell you who wished them a “happy birthday” when they turned 30 years old. If you could travel into the future and ask my great-grandson the same questions, he might be able to tell you the answers. He would log into Facebook and go to the “Family” or “Ancestors” tab. He would navigate through a digital representation of his family tree, and within minutes, he would be traveling backward through my digital life. If he was so inclined, he might use the opportunity to get to “know me” in some small way. He could see pictures of me when I was 16, relive that party I went to in college, relive the birth of my son (his grandfather) and watch videos I made so my descendants could learn about me.

If you accept what I have described above as plausible and believe that a digital copy of your life can be recorded and potentially exist forever, the ability to protect, control and ensure the preservation of this digital information takes on an increased importance. What steps should we as a society take to ensure this protection and preservation occurs? Facebook offers a very simple approach to the issue by making it easy to transfer a decedent’s account to a memorialized status.

A more robust way to approach the issue is estate planning. The intersection of estate planning and technology presents a variety of interesting legal issues, the predominant of which is how to protect and manage digital assets that come in a variety of flavors – online financial accounts, digital media, digital records, etc. As other authors have pointed out, one’s Facebook profile or Timeline could be considered a digital asset that should be taken into account during the estate planning process.

An even broader way to approach the issue is the concept of a public utility. It is interesting to note that Facebook may exhibit two characteristics of historically regulated utilities: (1) arguably Facebook provides a product/service that serves an important public interest; and (2) Facebook, given its land grab on the social networking market, may have natural monopolistic tendencies that insulate it from competition. While it may be too draconian to imply that government intervention is a real possibility for Facebook, these are interesting issues to think about as Facebook continues to grow and becomes more embedded in our lives. At minimum, if we take seriously the idea that we can build, whether through Facebook or some future social utility, a comprehensive and navigable digital family tree for our society, including everyone in the conversation (i.e., framing the issue of digital preservation on a collective, societal level) might be worthwhile.

Given the exponential rate at which technology develops (if you believe Moore’s law), it’s hard to predict what the future may hold. These sorts of issues will only grow in importance as new technologies develop and our digital society ages. Although I am sure there are some octogenarians fully capable of sending a friend request or “liking” someone’s status update, generally speaking, those persons in the later stages of life are not full-fledged members of our digital society. It’s only a matter of time, however, before Generation Y and the Millennials – generations fully immersed in our society’s technological development – reach old age. As this occurs, as technology moves forward and as new issues develop, it is important that we continue to consider the long-term preservation of the digital treasures we create.•


Matthew D. Neumann is an associate attorney with Hackman Hulett & Cracraft, practicing in the areas of civil litigation and utility law, with experience in cases involving utility regulation, insurance coverage and defense, eminent domain, and general real estate and business matters.  He can be reached at 317-636-5401 or The opinions expressed are those of the author.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues