Privacy protection does not cease to exist at death, as privacy laws protect information until 50 years post-mortem. So, why does the protected information of public figures often find its way into the public domain long before this embargoed period elapses, sometimes almost immediately after death?
Firstly, the primary question is: What defines a public figure? Some individuals are public figures long before their deaths, while others become public figures at the time of their deaths or shortly thereafter. Various factors may cause protected information to become vulnerable, thus necessitating more stringent measures to protect the privacy of those who die as public figures. These vulnerabilities might arise from the public identifying as fans or critics of these figures, each group having its own vested interests in grieving or forgiving by understanding the circumstances surrounding the deaths. Additionally, the circumstances surrounding the deaths might figuratively deem these deaths as public, assuming that knowing these details could be in the public interest to ensure immediate safety, explore public interest litigations, and envision future safety for an informed public.
Essentially, the knowledge and understanding of the circumstances surrounding public figures’ deaths could be the expectation of those surviving them. This brings us to the secondary question: Who can be categorized as the survivors? Can fans, critics, or peers rightfully claim to be survivors?
Finally, the tertiary question is how survivors use the disclosed protected information to their advantage without putting the legacy and memory of the deceased at a disadvantage. In a nutshell, the question is whether one, while living, wants to avoid being a public figure so that public interest in their protected information is non-existent. This is crucial since how public interest might arise after one’s death could depend on the manner and mode of death, over which one has no control while living, whether in the public eye or in private.
Ultimately, it is always difficult to choose between speculating on obscure differentials and knowing the definitive specifics surrounding deaths, which may matter to those surviving the deceased, whether or not they are deemed survivors. However, once protected information is disclosed, speculation may never end, and the definitive may always appear translucent. Interestingly, survivors might assume they have responsibly managed the legacy and memory of the deceased, who, ironically, cannot provide feedback from the afterlife on why their protected information could not wait 50 years to be disclosed. Perhaps, the protections on information safeguard the inquisitive survivors more than the oblivious decedents.
Deepak Gupta is an anesthesiologist.
