Late lawmaker posts raise questions about digital life after death
But he's far from the only public figure whose online presence doesn't rest in peace.
The big picture: The ethical questions stretch beyond Washington, underscoring important cybersecurity and legal considerations about what happens to our digital legacies after we die.
It's not just Democrats whose accounts have seemingly posted from beyond: In 2020, conservative businessman Herman Cain's Twitter posted a story questioning the mortality rate of COVID-19 — the month after he died due to coronavirus complications.
There's no official process for handling lawmakers' social media accounts if they die in office, Politico recently reported.
Private citizens share that difficult and relatively novel question of how to handle social media accounts after their loved one dies — and how to safeguard them from being hacked or compromised by scammers.
Zoom out: When someone dies, they leave behind a web of assets, which include their digital legacy, but the process of shutting down or preserving accounts varies by platform.
On Facebook, individuals can submit the account owner's death certificate and documentation confirming they are an immediate family member or executor to have an account deleted. Accounts can also be memorialized, in which case they can be looked over by " legacy contacts."
Instagram will also memorialize accounts with a valid request, which requires proof of death, and says it will delete accounts if requested by verified immediate family members with proper documentation.
X will work with individuals authorized to act on behalf of the estate or with a verified immediate family member to have an account deactivated in the case of the user's death.
By the numbers: A 2019 study from Oxford researchers projected that if Facebook continued to attract new users at the rate it was some six years ago, 4.9 billion users will have passed away before 2100.
State of play: Most states have enacted a law that governs how fiduciaries can manage the digital lives of deceased or incapacitated people.
But typically, to get those rights, it has to be affirmatively assigned in the will, said Retirement Watch editor Bob Carlson, who has written about protecting digital estates from hacking.
"It's just like any other asset, and if you don't lay out the rules for it, then either someone else is going to set out the rules, or there aren't going to be any rules at all," he said.
Threat level: Cybercriminals may prey on people's identities after they die, a process known as "ghost hacking," by compromising a deceased individual's social media accounts, which are less likely to be consistently monitored.
Hackers can alert friends or family of the deceased person with spam or scams — but they're often also after personal information that can be used to obtain access to other accounts.
"It can lead to just a big stockpile of information for the thieves," Carlson said.
The bottom line: For public officials and private citizens alike, there is no clear-cut answer on how to handle someone's social media presence after they die.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Executions are up in 2025 — should death penalty abolitionists change their tactics?
Earlier this month, Florida executed Michael Bell for murdering two people in 1993. He was the eighth person put to death there this year. Bell's execution would have attracted little attention but for the fact that it was the 26th of this year so far — one more than the total number executed all last year. For death penalty abolitionists, this is a discouraging milestone. What's more, there are 10 more executions currently scheduled to occur before Dec. 31. That would make 2025 the year with the most executions since 2015, when 28 people were put to death. This year is also on pace to be the fourth in a row in which the number of executions has risen since the low point during the COVID-19 pandemic, when only 11 people were executed. For the last decade or so, those opposed to capital punishment have been repeating the same mantra as a way to mark the progress of their campaign to end state killing in this country: The number of executions is down. The number of new death sentences is also down. And public support has fallen sharply from historic highs 30 years ago. Each of those developments has been fueled by what I have called 'the new abolitionism.' Instead of emphasizing abstract moral arguments against capital punishment, new abolitionists focus on the death penalty's unreliability as a deterrent and the prospect of executing innocent people. They highlight the pervasive racial discrimination that marks every stage of the death penalty process and the frequency with which executions are botched. So, the question naturally arises: Is the spike in executions so far this year a sign that the abolitionist campaign is running out of steam? If so, is it time for a change in tactics? The answer to both questions is no. We can see why by probing more deeply into the reasons executions have increased this year, as well as examining trends in death sentences and public opinion. We also have to understand that the road to the abolition of capital punishment will not be uniform or smooth. Like other political and legal campaigns, it will move toward its goal in an irregular pattern: two steps forward, one step back. This year's increase in the number of executions is one of those backward steps. Almost half of them have occurred in just two states, Florida and Texas. Driven by a pro-death penalty governor, who has made the death penalty a top priority, Florida executed six people in 2023 but only carried out one execution last year. Texas led the way in 2023 with eight executions, and followed up by putting five more people to death in 2024. But this year, other states, like Indiana, which had paused executions because they have been unable to secure reliable supplies of the drugs needed to carry out lethal injections, rejoined the group of states carrying them out. Some revised their lethal injection protocols or even authorized other execution methods. However, in the Hoosier State, officials do not seem anxious to open the execution floodgates. Republican Gov. Mike Braun has said about capital punishment, 'There are legislators that wonder if it's still relevant. … I'm going to listen to them, the courts, and the broader discussion in general.' And even as Indiana resumed executions, its prosecutors are not pursuing new death sentences. In fact, no one has been sentenced to death there since 2013. That is an increasingly common pattern in states where capital punishment is still an authorized punishment. It is important because the number of new death sentences is a better indicator of capital punishment's status and future than is the number of executions. And new death sentences remain at historic lows. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, there have been only ten new death sentences concentrated in just six states — Alabama, California, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana and Oklahoma. That total is down nearly 30 percent from the same period last year, when there were 14 new death sentences. Abolitionists can also take heart from the fact that surveys of the American public, which indicate that support for the death penalty, at just 53 percent, is at a 50-year low. Abolitionists have shone a spotlight on the grim realities of the death penalty's day-to-day administration, and this has paid dividends in changing the national conversation about capital punishment. And in spite of the increase in the number of executions this year, it remains true that the more people learn about the death penalty, the less they like it.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
President Ocasio-Cortez isn't as far of a reach as it once was
In a move that surprised many on both sides of the political aisle, progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) recently voted — with an overwhelming majority of House Democrats and Republicans — to support funding for Israel's Iron Dome defense system. To be sure, Ocasio-Cortez's vote made little difference to the final tally. The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), which could have cut U.S. support, was shot down 422-6. Nevertheless, voting to support continued funding was extremely revealing for what it says about Ocasio-Cortez's grander ambitions. Indeed, not only did her vote mark a clear break with other members of the progressive 'Squad,' who made up five of the six objections. More importantly, it positioned Ocasio-Cortez closer to the Democratic mainstream at a time when her name has been brought up as a candidate for the Senate, and potentially even President. Further, this vote positions the congresswoman well vis-à-vis Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who trails Ocasio-Cortez by 19-points (55 percent to 36 percent) in a poll reported by Politico. This is not the first time Ocasio-Cortez has broken from the progressive wing in order to strengthen her candidacy for higher office, although it is the most serious. In 2021, in the wake of another war between Israel and Gaza, Ocasio-Cortez publicly lobbied against Iron Dome funding only to reverse course and vote 'present.' At the time, MSNBC called her actions a bid to 'preserve the possibility of challenging Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.' Much like that vote, Ocasio-Cortez has maintained her image as a critic of Israel, but one who recognizes its right to exist and to self-defense, albeit her recent statements make it clear that she has an extremely narrow definition of 'self-defense.' This position, much closer to the wider Democratic Party and national electorate, is also in stark contrast with other progressive rising stars, such as Zohran Mamdani. Mamdani, the front-runner to be New York City's next Mayor has said Israel should not exist as a Jewish State, expressed support for the anti-Israel Boycott, Divest, Sanctions movement, and who has taken a decisively one-sided view to Hamas's Oct. 7 attacks as well as the ensuring war. And yet, given the vastly different circumstances between the 2021 vote and present day, Ocasio-Cortez's July 18 vote carries considerably more weight. For months, even as many have doubted Ocasio-Cortez's viability for statewide or national office, she has travelled the country, drawing thousands to her rallies. Even in red states and districts, voters are coming out to see her. At one rally in Plattsburgh, N.Y., a district represented by Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik, Ocasio-Cortez reportedly drew a full 10 percent of the entire town. In that same vein, she has shown herself to be unmatched at fundraising ability. According to a Wall Street Journal analysis, Ocasio-Cortez has raised $15.4 million this year, nearly twice as much as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and 23 times more than Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), the longest serving woman in the House. Moreover, virtually all (99 percent) of Ocasio-Cortez's contributions have come from individuals — her average donation in the second quarter was just $17 — rather than big-spending political action committees. Tellingly, almost three-quarters (72 percent) of her contributions have come from out of state, with a significant share also being spent on advertising in states other than New York. In fact, at this point — three years out from the 2028 elections — Ocasio-Cortez is seemingly more popular, marketable and noteworthy than former President Barack Obama was three years before the 2008 election. Obama, it will be remembered, was not even included in polls during the summer of 2005. His first appearance in a national poll came that December but was still considered such a longshot that his next appearance did not come until October of 2006. Conversely, the Race to the White House polling aggregator shows Ocasio-Cortez (12 percent) in fourth place, and she's consistently a top five finisher in individual polls. Polymarket even shows her having the second-best odds, 17 percent, behind only Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) at 21 percent. Additionally, in Democratic primaries, the left-wing of the party tends to dominate, giving her a considerable boost, particularly given the enthusiasm she tends to generate among this group. Taken together, it increasingly appears that Ocasio-Cortez's growing national appeal supports her growing political ambitions. However, as I've stated elsewhere, there are legitimate reasons to doubt whether her viability for higher office corresponds with her aspirations. Aside from her age, she will turn 39 three weeks before the 2028 election, and inexperience, Ocasio-Cortez's political leanings could alienate a sufficient number of swing voters. The 2024 election indicated that Americans, including a significant number of Democrats, do not want a far-left Democratic Party, and Ocasio-Cortez has historically been squarely on that side. Likewise, even if she is taking steps to quietly move to the center on some issues, she may be underestimating the potential damage it may do among her own base of support. Just days after the vote on the amendment, a far-left group defaced Ocasio-Cortez's Bronx office, painting 'Ocasio-Cortez funds genocide' in red paint. Her campaign advisor has also said that they've received death threats due to her vote. Without downplaying the seriousness and inexcusability of political violence, it is doubtful that the far-left would stay away if Ocasio-Cortez began to be considered a legitimate frontrunner in the next three years. Furthermore, were she to become the party's nominee for either the Senate or the presidency, there is likely a 'built in' vote among Democratic voters who would support the party, regardless of the candidate. That's especially true given that she addresses critical needs for Democrats — their lack of fresh ideas, new faces and overall lack of energy. Of course, this is certainly not to suggest that she will be the nominee. She may very well decide that making a run at the Senate first makes more sense. Her appeal may also begin to fade between now and 2028. Ultimately, the prospect of Ocasio-Cortez becoming Democrats' 2028 presidential nominee is not out of the realm of reason, and even looks considerably more plausible than it did just one year ago. Douglas E. Schoen is a political consultant who served as an adviser to President Clinton and to the 2020 presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg. He is the author of 'The End of Democracy? Russia and China on the Rise and America in Retreat.'
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Former Democratic North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper will run for Senate in 2026
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Former Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper will run for the U.S. Senate in North Carolina, giving Democrats a proven statewide winner in an open-seat race that is expected to be one of the most competitive 2026 contests. Cooper made the announcement Monday with a video released on social media and his campaign website. The former two-term governor will immediately become the front-runner for the Democratic nomination in the race to succeed retiring Republican Sen. Thom Tillis. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley plans to run for the GOP nomination, with President Donald Trump's blessing, according to two people familiar with his thinking who were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly before an official announcement. Whatley, the former North Carolina GOP chairman, received Trump's endorsement after the president's daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, passed on the seat. Cooper's candidacy is a big recruiting win for Democrats, who see the open seat as a top pick-up opportunity in what will be a challenging year. To retake the majority in 2026, Democrats need to net four seats, and most of the contests are in states that Trump easily won last year. Trump won North Carolina by about 3 percentage points, one of his closest margins of victory. Trump endorsed Whatley on his Truth Social platform Thursday night, posting that should he run, 'Mike would make an unbelievable Senator from North Carolina.' Ex-U.S. Rep. Wiley Nickel already has been campaigning for the Democratic nomination for months. Party primaries would be March 3. Cooper, 68, has been on statewide ballots going back a quarter-century — serving 16 years previously as attorney general before being first elected governor in 2016. With a political career going back nearly 40 years, Cooper has had a knack for winning in a state where the legislature and appeals courts are now dominated by Republicans. State law barred Cooper from seeking a third consecutive gubernatorial term. He spent the spring on a teaching gig at Harvard. State and national Democrats were longing for Cooper to join the race well before Tillis announced June 29 that he would not seek a third term. That news came after Trump threatened to back a primary candidate against him as Tillis opposed Medicaid reductions in the president's tax break and spending cut package, Democrats haven't won a Senate race since 2008 in North Carolina, where independent voters tend to vote Republican in federal elections. Statewide races can be financially exorbitant because there are so many television markets — hundreds of millions of dollars are expected to be spent in the race. Cooper's recent political history has painted him as a fighter against what he's considered extreme Republican policies, while at times finding consensus with GOP rivals. When asked by The Associated Press last December about a Senate bid, Cooper replied: 'If you're going to run for public office again, you must have your heart and soul in it, you must have the fire in the belly." As governor he steered the state through the coronavirus pandemic, Hurricanes Helene and Florence and a law that became an early flashpoint in the culture wars over access to public restrooms by transgender people. That 'bathroom bill' was rolled back early in Cooper's first term, and the state's economy soared during Cooper's tenure, marked by big jobs announcements and low unemployment. While Cooper also managed to get Medicaid expansion approved and a landmark greenhouse gases law enacted, he fell short in stopping legislation that widely expanded private school vouchers and narrowed abortion rights. Cooper's perceived accomplishments raised his national profile in 2024, making him as a potential running mate for Kamala Harris until he said it 'just wasn't the right time' for him and for North Carolina. Republicans have argued that Cooper remains susceptible politically, citing what they consider an extreme record supporting abortion rights and opposing school choice that led to many vetoes. They've also cited a gubernatorial administration marked by spending overruns at the state Department of Transportation; its response to Helene and delays in rebuilding or renovating homes after Hurricanes Matthew and Florence; and executive orders that restricted businesses and school instruction during COVID-19. As for the roaring economy, Republicans credit themselves through lower taxes and deregulation. Tillis' retirement announcement heartened far-right Republicans and strong Trump supporters who have been unhappy for years with his willingness to challenge Trump's actions and his Cabinet agency choices. Republicans had deferred to the president's daughter-in-law Lara Trump, who is a North Carolina native, North Carolina State University graduate and a popular former RNC co-chair with Whatley during the 2024 election campaign. She posted on the social media platform X on Thursday that she would not seek the Senate seat.
