This paper presents the results of the first qualitative empirical study on digital legacy and post-mortem privacy in the UK, shedding light on experiences, practices, perceptions, and limitations in the field. Our research confirms and extends existing theoretical and doctrinal work, validating key arguments, assumptions and ideas. The study unveils critical issues surrounding awareness, platform behaviours, and the limitations of current practices, exacerbated by the global impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic. Central to our findings is the overwhelming lack of awareness among users, practitioners, platforms, and regulators, highlighting a pressing need for increased engagement from the media, academics, and professional associations. The study identifies key drivers for change, emphasising the role of individual grief, high-profile cases, and technological advancements. Legal professionals, facing obstacles in the absence of clear regulations, exhibit leadership and creativity in addressing client needs, claiming a new expertise in the evolving field of digital legacy. Contrary to the clear call for law reform among practitioners, regulators acknowledge the growing importance but prioritise other areas, necessitating a cross-cutting reform approach. Concerns about platform cooperation, jurisdictional differences, and the inadequacy of existing solutions emerge, urging a re-evaluation of technological and in-service solutions, such as Facebook or Apple Legacy Contact. Education and media literacy are identified as pivotal components, addressing the broader landscape of digital legacy and privacy. Our findings underscore the urgent need for legal and policy reform, conceptual clarity, and a review of technological solutions. The study's impact extends beyond empirical evidence, informing subsequent research on user perceptions and guiding the development of policy and law reform proposals in the underexplored realm of digital legacy and post-mortem privacy.

e.harbinja@aston.ac.uk #online harms, duty of care, platform regulation, online safety This article critiques key proposals of the United Kingdom’s “Online Harms” White Paper; in particular, the proposal for new digital regulator and the imposition of a “duty of care” on platforms. While acknowledging that a duty of care, backed up by sanctions works well in some environments, we argue is not appropriate for policing the White Paper’s identified harms as it could result in the blocking of legal, subjectively harmful content. Furthermore, the proposed regulator lacks the necessary independence and could be subjected to political interference. We conclude that the imposition of a duty of care will result in an unacceptable chilling effect on free expression, resulting in a draconian regulatory environment for platforms, with users’ digital rights adversely affected. Content Not Available

Ob vernetzte Fabriken, intelligente Social Bots oder autonomes Fahren – smarte Produkte sind in aller Munde. Das vorliegende Buch erweitert in der 2. Auflage das Spektrum der Themen, die in Zukunft die rechtliche Diskussion beherrschen werden, bis hin zum Weltraumrecht. Es erörtert Fragen künstlicher Intelligenz und autonomer Systeme, insbesondere unter haftungs- und produktsicherheitsrechtlichen Aspekten; ein praktischer Teil stellt ausgewählte Anwendungen des Internets der Dinge vor.