Dr Edina Harbinja is a Senior Lecturer in Media/Privacy Law. Her principal areas of research and teaching are related to the legal issues surrounding the Internet and emerging technologies. Edina is a pioneer and a recognised expert in post-mortem privacy, i.e. privacy of the deceased individuals. She has published widely on aspects of internet law and regulation and has been a visiting scholar and an invited speaker to universities and conferences in the USA, Latin America and Europe. Her research has been highly impactful. She has been able to influence and inform American, the UK and Australian legislators and court cases over the past 5 years, as well as big tech companies, the legal profession and civil society. Her public engagement has been very extensive. She has published pieces in news outlets, websites, practitioners’ magazines etc. (e.g. BBC Tomorrow’s World, BBC Ideas, The Nature Outlook, The Guardian, The Verge, The Daily Mail, The Conversation, The Law Society Gazette, The Legal Practice Management Magazine etc.).
Edina holds a number of appointments and memberships outside Aston. This includes, inter alia, membership of the Advisory Council at Open Rights Group, Senior Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy, membership of the Executive Committee, British and Irish Law, Education and Technology Association (BILETA). Edina is also an alumna of the Leadership Foundation’s Aurora programme and the UK Digital Economy Ambassador, as a part of the CHERISH-DE Digital Economy Crucible Programme, Swansea University.
Edina is a chief editor for the EUP book series ‘Future law’, along with Prof Lilian Edwards and Prof Burkhard Schafer, and she has guest edited tech law journals as well. She is also a peer reviewer for a number of journals in the area of IT and law and has reviewed research proposals, book proposals and monographs. Edina has led small grant applications as a PI, and have so far been successful at two important awards.
Edina’s research interests are in the area of privacy and data protection, post-mortem privacy, digital regulation, digital property and AI. Find her on Twitter at @EdinaRl.
Areas of Expertise (5)
Privacy and Data Protection
Intenet Law and Regulation
New Technologies Law and Regulation
University of Strathclyde: PhD, Law
University of Sarajevo: LLB
1st class hons.
University of Strathclyde: LLM, IT and Telecommunications Law
- Open Rights Group : Member of the Advisory Council
- Higher Education Academy : Senior Fellow
- British and Irish Law, Education and Technology Association (BILETA) : Member of the Executive Committee
- Death Online Research Network : Member
- Society of Legal Scholars : Member
Media Appearances (5)
Data of the Dead: Virtual Immortality Shows Holes in Privacy Laws
Gadgets 360 online
"In most countries in the world, the data of the deceased are not protected," said Edina Harbinja, a senior lecturer in media and privacy law at Birmingham's Aston University.
Data of the dead: Virtual immortality exposes holes in privacy laws
“In most countries in the world, the data of the deceased are not protected,” said Edina Harbinja, a senior lecturer in media and privacy law at Birmingham’s Aston University.
What Happens to Your Emails After You Die
Bloomberg Businessweek online
Death provides a sweet release from the hell that is replying to email, but it raises questions about who gets to look at your inbox after you’re gone. Laws governing digital content in the U.S. are all over the place—emails, pics, direct messages, and social media posts can be treated differently after you die—so know what options you have to protect yourself and your company, says Edina Harbinja, a senior lecturer at Aston Law School in Birmingham, England, and an expert in postmortem privacy in emerging technologies. Here are edited excerpts of her conversation:
What happens to our online identities when we die?
The Guardian online
When it comes to the choice between allowing relatives access to your accounts or letting a social media corporation use your data indefinitely after your death, privacy is a fundamental issue. Although the former makes us sweat, the latter is arguably more dystopian. Dr Edina Harbinja is a law lecturer at Aston University, who argues that we should all legally be entitled to postmortem privacy.
Data ownership after death is 'a complete legal mess'
The Japan Times online
Britain, like most countries, has no laws on digital inheritance, which makes such cases complicated, said Edina Harbinja, a senior lecturer in media and privacy law at Birmingham’s Aston University.
Parliamentary Contributions (1)
The Internet: to regulate or not to regulate? publications
Communications and Digital Committee
Edina Harbinja, Henry Pearce
Posthumous medical data donation (PMDD) for the purpose of legitimate, non-commercial and, potentially, very beneficial medical research has been sparsely discussed in legal scholarship to date. Conversely, quite an extensive social science and humanities research establishes benefits of this practice. It also finds that PMDD enables individuals to employ their altruistic motivations and aspirations by helping them participate in ‘citizen's science’ and medical research, thus supporting efforts in finding cures for some of the acutest diseases of today. There appears to be no jurisdiction where a regulatory framework supports and enables PMDD. This paper analyses whether and to what extent law and policy should enable this practice. We take a comparative approach, examining the position under both US and UK law, providing the first comparative legal account of this practice. We do not aim to suggest a detailed legal solution for PMDD, but rather key considerations and principles for legislative/policy reforms, which would support the practice of PMDD. We discuss organ donation and provide a comparative outlook with the aim of drawing lessons from this practice, and applying them to the regulation of PMDD. Our analysis is both normative and black letter since we consider arguments regarding the necessity of organ and data donation, as well as the law that regulates these practices.
This chapter examines the concept of digital assets from an angle that has not yet been explored in legal scholarship around digital death and the transmission of digital assets on death. Digital death is conceived herein as the death of an individual who leaves behind various digital fragments of their identity, either in the form of digital assets broadly or as digital biographies, dossiers, autobiographies and archives. Digital death causes uncertainty as to what happens in this dispersed, interconnected and often unregulated digital space, which Kasket lucidly entitles The New Elysium.
The paper is a first thorough examination of what happens to one’s emails on death. The paper demonstrates that some content of emails can be protected by copyright and transmitted on death accordingly. The paper then analyzes the contractual provisions of the main email providers, Google and Microsoft, in order to determine how these contracts, regulate the transmission of emails on death. The author finds that these provisions complicate the issues of property and transmission of digital assets and do not offer a meaningful control over the assets for their users. The paper adopts a novel focus introduced in the author’s earlier research, the idea of post-mortem privacy that is the right to privacy after death. This concept serves as an argument against the default transmission of emails on death without the deceased’s consent, whether through the laws of intestacy or by requiring the service providers to provide access to the deceased’s emails. Finally, the paper canvasses a solution which combines law and technology. It is argued that much more control should be placed in the hands of emails users. Post-mortem privacy, a potentially contested phenomenon, only accentuates the need to better account for the interests of the deceased, having in mind the volume of personal data and personal nature of emails. Therefore, an in-service solution is promoted, backed up by policy and legislation.
Harbinja, E., Leiser, M.R., Barker, K., Mangan, D., Romero, Moreno F., Dushi, D.
The British Irish Law Education and Technology Association (BILETA) has concerns about the broad scope of the proposals in the White Paper and how the proposals will be applied to platforms. The White Paper proposes co-regulation by a new regulator called OfWeb. Previous attempts to regulate broadcast and press (Ofcom and IPSO) might provide insights on what its scope and application might look like, but there are different principles, issues, and regulatory designs needed for platforms. If establishing a new regulator proves necessary (and we are sceptical in this regard), the key requirement is its independence. The White Paper proposes that OfWeb will be granted a delegated power to define an online harm any way it wants . This is not only ripe for abuse, it does not meet commonly accepted ‘quality of law’ and ‘reasonable foreseeability’ standards. Furthermore, it could also subject a regulator to the whims of political and industry influence. This is potentially undemocratic and does not meet rule of law standards required in a democratic society. Despite parity between the offline and online world listed as a specific objective, the scope of powers goes far beyond parity to what is permitted by UK substantive law in the offline world. It regulates users and tech companies through the imposition of a “duty of care” applicable to content that is not necessarily unlawful, but regarded as harmful.
Lucien Castex, Edina Harbinja, Julien Rossi
To be on the Internet is to exist as a data being constituting profiles that exist alongside the physical individuals and outlive them. In the future, the Internet will therefore contain more post-mortem data than personal data relating to living persons. What should be done with these data? The law has long remained silent on this issue and only covers personal data up to the death of the person concerned. A comparative analysis of the evolution of the law in the United States and in France reveals a difference of perspective leading to two different approaches: one based on the right to privacy and data protection, and the other based on inheritance law, which treats post-mortem data as heritage.