Disaster Victim Identification & Privacy The Privacy & Security

Disaster Victim

Identification &

Privacy

The Privacy & Security

Research Paper Series

issue #5

The Privacy & Security - Research Paper Series

Edited by Centre for Science, Society & Citizenship Co-edited by University of Westminster – Communication and Media Research Institute ISSN 2279-7467 Disaster Victim Identification & Privacy Authors: Jay Levinson and Avi Domb -The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, School of Pharmacy-Faculty of Medicine Research Paper Number #5 Date of Publication: January 2013 Acknowledgement: The research presented in this paper was conducted in the project “PACT – Public Perception of Security and Privacy: Assessing Knowledge, Collecting Evidence, Translating Research into Action”, funded by EU FP7 SECURITY, grant agreement no. 285635 This paper is an output of PACT’s Work Package 7 “Dissemination and Stake-holder Involvement” All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing from the Centre for Science, Society and Citizenship. Download and print of the electronic edition for non commercial teaching or research use is permitted on fair use grounds. Each copy should include the notice of copyright. Source should be acknowledged. © 2013 PACT

http://www. projectpact.eu

The Privacy & Security Research Paper Series, Issue # 5 1

Disaster Victim Identification & Privacy Jay Levinson and Avi Domb Abstract:Therearenumerousquestionsinvolvingprivacywhendealingwithdeceasedpersons.Thispaperdoesnotpurporttoproposespecificsolutions.Rather,thegoal istobring issues intobetter focus,sothatproce‐durescanberefinedandenactedasnecessary.Keywords:DisasterVictimIdentification,DVI,Privacy,bodyhandling.Shortbiographyoftheauthors:JayLevinson,afterretiringfromtheIsraelPolice,haspublishedmanybooksandarticles.HehaswrittenextensivelyaboutprofessionalmattersincludingahistoryofDisasterVictimIdentificationinIsrael.Inthe1990sheservedforfiveyearsastheChairman,InterpolDVIStandingCommittee.LevinsonholdsaPh.D.inNearEasternStudiesfromNewYorkUniversity.HeiscurrentlyanadjunctprofessoratJohnJayCollegeandamemberoftheeditorialboardsofCrisisResponseandDisasterPrevention&Management.

AbrahamJ.DombisaProfessorforMedicinalChemistryandBiopolymersattheFacultyofMedicineoftheHebrewUniversityofJerusalem.HeearnedBachelordegreesinChemistry,PharmaceuticsandLawStudi,sandaPhDdegreeinChemistryfromTheHebrewUniversity.HedidhispostdoctoraltrainingatMITandHarvardUniversity.CambridgeUSAandwasR&DmanageratNovaPharm.Co.BaltimoreUSAduring1988‐1991.Since1991hehasbeenafacultymemberattheHebrewUniversityfullprofessorsince1999).During2007‐2012heheadedtheDivisionofForensicScienceattheIsraelPolice.Hiscurrentareasofinterestinclude:biopolymers,drugdeliverysystems,bioactivepolymersandforensicsciences.

2 Jay Levinson and Avi Domb

1. Introduction Itgoeswithoutsayingthathandlingofthedeadshouldbedonewithrespectandre‐gardfortheperson’sprivacy.Thatprivacyincludestherecordsofthedeceased,hisbody,andallaspectsthatwere“private”duringhislifetime.This,ofcourse,isanidealstatement.Thereispressuretoreleasemuchdataregardingapersonwithahighpo‐liticalprofile.Thereareothersituationsthatraiseseriousquestionsofprivacy,suchasthediscernedpressuretoidentifyvictimsofcarandaircrashes,andterroristinci‐dents.

2. Victim Identification Superficially,theidentificationofvictimsinadisasterisastraight‐forwardoperation.It is generally accepted that compassion rules after amass disaster such as an aircrash,andinWesternculturenoeffortissparedtoidentifythedeadandbringthemto their final resting place, be it burial, cremation, or other. There are timeswhenemotiontakesover,andgeneralworkingproceduresarecutshorttoexpeditevictimidentification.Inmanycases,though,victimidentificationisquitecomplex,andtherecanbeprob‐lems. There can be challenges in obtaining theantemortem(AM)andpostmortem(PM)informationforcomparison.Thepurposeofthispaperistodiscusssomeoftheprivacy issues involved in obtaining information, processing the data, and makingnotificationsofidentification.Thegoalistocitesituationsandraiseissues.Mostsolu‐tions can comeonly from recognized governmental, international, andprofessionalorganizations.Inrecentyearsthereisagrowingawarenessandconcernforprivacy.DVI,aswell,hasundergonesignificantdevelopmentandchangesincetheearly1980s.Alandmarkwas thecreationof the InterpolDVIStandingCommittee.Thispaper isdesigned toheightenprivacyawarenessasitrelatestoDVI.

3. Defining Terms DisasterVictimIdentificationishardtodefine,sincethereisnoclearanduniversallyaccepteddefinitionofwhatconstitutesadisaster. Onecommonlyuseddefinitionis,“anevent causingdeathand/orextensivepropertydamage,whichover‐ridesusualresponsecapabilities.”1Thus,aroadaccidentwithtenwoundedandtendeadcouldbecalledadisasterinasmallruralarea,butitcouldwellbehandledwithoutspecialdeploymentinamajorurbancenter.Anotherdefinitionis“aneventinvolvinginjury,deathordamagethatconstitutesasignificant disruption to public life.” According to this definition the 28 November1Itisnotinfrequentthattheveryoppositetakesplaceatonestageofanincident.Forexample,ambu‐lancescaninundateanareaandoverwhelminglyoutnumberinjured. Thisdoesnotmeanthatroadscanhandle traffic, nor that hospitals can comfortably absorb all patients. If these incidents arenotdisasters,thenuntiltheirtruescopeisclarified,theyinvolvedisaster‐typedeployment.


1979crashofaNewZealandairplaneonMt.Erebus,Antarctica(257fatalitiesinclud‐ing204completebodiesand139bodyparts)wouldbetermedanincident,notadis‐aster,sincethecourseofpublic lifewasnotdisrupted. EvenwhenthebodieswerereturnedtoNewZealand,therewasnosignificantdisruptiontothepublic.The distinction between a disaster and an incident is subjective. In 1998 in theUnitedStatesmorethan94%of43,020transportationdeathswereroad‐related,yetveryfewinstancescouldbetermed“disasters,”eventhoughinmanycaseshighwayswereclosed(constitutinga“disruption”).In1998nopassengerswerekilledintheUnitedStatesonscheduledaircraft.Inthepreceding year 976 perished in aviation accidents,most notably 228 personswhodiedintheKoreanAirFlight801inAgana,Guam(aU.S.possessionincludedinU.S.Governmentstatistics).Onlythelargeraviationaccidentsarecalleddisasters;small‐eraircraftwhichcrashareagainconsideredaccidents2orincidents(sometimesrele‐gatedtounnoticeditemsintheinsidespagesofthenewspaper)3.Ofthe746rail‐relateddeathsin1997,584victimswerepersonswalkingonorneartracks. Thus, the vastmajority of these rail‐relateddeaths are alsonot considered“disasters.”(Canadianstatisticsshowasimilardangerfromtrespassingontherails.)OntheonehandtheRedCrosscounts700disastersin1999,essentiallyoccurringattherateoftwoaweek. Ontheotherhandthesestatistics includetheThirdWorld,whereevenmajordisastersareessentiallyignoredintheDevelopedWorld.AcynicmightsaythatthislargenumbercanbeconsideredatacitvalidationoftheRedCross’existence and function. Admittedly, however, the Red Cross does not (and cannot)offerassistanceineveryinstance.Another factor influencing the use of the term, “disaster,” is the very subjectiveevaluationofpeoplewhoarequotedandofthemedia.Ifthe“right”people(suchasatelevisionnewsanchorman)callaneventa“disaster,”thereisabetterthanaveragepossibility that the termwillcatchon. Popularuseof theterm, “disaster,”willalsomakeitmuchharderforgovernmentnottoofficiallydesignatetheincidentasadis‐aster.For thepurposeof thispaperonlydeathsexceedingnormal response capabilitiesanddeploymentarebeingconsidered.Anotherlimitingfactoristhatonlydeathsre‐sultingfromsuddendisasteroccurringwithlittleornowarningaredealtwith.Longtermdisasterssuchasdroughtandfaminearebeyondthescopeofthispaper.Another limitation is that thispaperrelatesonly to fatalities in theciviliansector,exceptfornotesonthepropagandauseofbodies,sincetherethethrustistheeffecton the civilian population.. This paper includes terrorism,when the incident takesplaceagainstaciviliantarget.Militaryactionagainstciviliantargetsandtheprivacyconsiderationsinvolvedinidentifyingciviliandeadisalsowithinthepurviewofthispaper.Also included are very large scale events such as earthquakes, where event re‐sponseisgiventomilitary.Thisfitsthedefinitionthatadisasterexceedsusualinci‐dentresponseandrequiresspecialhandling.Ageneralruleinthesecasesofmilitarydeploymentisthatsoldiersareill‐equipped

2Unlesstheycrashonpopulatedareas,notdisasters

3In Israelmost aviation accidents involve crop dusting planes that hardly have the potential to becalledmassdisasters.


todealwithcivilianproblems.IndisasterresponseexercisesconductedinIsrael,forexample,privacyissuesareoftenhandledintheextreme,rangingfromtotalinsensi‐tivity to (more often) total secrecy, complicating work by not releasing any infor‐mationtoananxiouspublic.4Theissueofinformationreleaseincludingprivacycon‐siderationsisnotpartofasoldier’straining.In several developing countries themilitary has lined up bodies of deceased per‐sons,allowingrelativestoidentifycadaversandremovethoseofrelatives.5Notonlyis thismethod extremely prone to error, ignoring the physical condition of the de‐ceasedandthepsychologicalconditionoffamilymembers.Itisalsoasignificantinva‐sionoftheprivacyofdeadpersons.Incasesoflargenumbersofdeaths,forexampleinthethousands,theremustbesomeinternationallyrecognizedmethodofidentifica‐tion that is relatively rapidbutat the same time is sensitive toprivacy.TheWorldTradeCenter(9/11)disastershowsthatsuchlargescaledisasterscanhappeninde‐velopedcountries.Howeverasituationoflargenumbersandimmediacywasnoten‐countered,sincebodieswererecoveredslowlyinstages.

Proving Identification ‐ General

DVIispredicatedonthetaskofprovingtheidentityofapersonandshowingthatheis deceased. That proof of death can be presented in one of two ways: (1) non‐corporalevidence6showingthatthepersonisdeceased,and/or(2) identificationofhisbodyorsignificantpartsthereof.7

Non‐corporal Evidence

It isnotnecessary(andsometimesnotevenpossible)toproduceavictim’sbodytoprove thathe is deceased.To cite oneexample, on31 July1992Thai InternationalFlight311 fromBangkok toKathmanducrashedonapproach to itsdestinationair‐portkillingallaboard.AMdatawerecollected,buttheywereoflittleuse.Nowholebodieswereretrieved,andonlyasmallnumberofbodypartswasfound.Inthiscasethedeathsoftwopassengerswereprovenbyexaminationoftheticketsandboardingpassesfortheflightgiveninattheairportbythetravelers.Testimonywastakenthatifapassengerhadhandedinaticketorboardingpassthennottakentheflight,pa‐perworkprocessingwouldhavebeenhandleddifferently.Picturesof the crash siteand flightdatawereexamined,andaprofessionaldeterminationwasmade thatnoonecouldhavesurvivedthecrashimpact.Evenifsomeonehadsurvived,hecouldnothavemadeitaliveoutofthemountainousregionofthecrash.

4Privateconversationwithburialsocietymemberservingreservedutyinarmy,27August2012.

5Anexampleisthe19September1985earthquakeintheMexicoCityarea,killingsome10,000people.

6Explainedbelow.

7Defined in JewishLawaspartsof thebodywithoutwhich aperson cannot survive. SeeDr.DanielMalach,“Partsof thebodywithoutwhichapersoncannotsurvive:Definingdeath,” inAssia,Volume65‐66(inHebrew)(September1999).


In thiscase therewereseeminglynosubstantivequestionsofprivacy,exceptper‐hapsforclose‐upphotographyofthecarnageat thecrashsite.Thosepicturesweretakenbypoliceandmilitarypersonnel.Nopictureswerereleasedtothepublic.AllinvestigationsinBangkok,theairportofdeparture,wereconductedunderpoliceauspices, hence covered by standard police rules of privacy. Inquiries of family re‐garding AM information and reasons the travelerwas on the aircraftwere held inconfidence by the police. Any leaks to the press (and therewere news items pub‐lishedabout specific individuals)were the result of statementsbynext‐of‐kin,whowereexercisingtheirlegalrighttowaivetotalprivacy.

Corporal Evidence

Incomplete Bodies

Sometimesonlybodypartsarefoundafteradisaster.Findingabodypartprovesthatapersonwaseffectedby thedisaster.Partscanbedivided into twocategories: (1)limbs(suchasfingers, legs,etc.)notcriticaltosustaininglife,and(2)findingapartwithoutwhichapersoncannotsurvive.Inoneaircrash(notspecifiedtoprotectprivacy),onlytheshoulderofaparticular

personaboardtheplanewasrecovered.Thiswasdeterminedbyapathologistassuf‐ficienttoprovedeath,sinceitisimpossibletolivewithoutsuchalargesectionofthebody.Thecoffinusedforshipmentwasfilledwiththebodypartandbagsofdirttoarriveattheweightoftheperson.Thecoffinwasnotopenedpriortoburialtoprotecttheprivacyofthedeceased.

Complete Bodies Made Incomplete

In the1970sahotel fire inaLatinAmericancountry resulted ina largenumberoffatalities,mostfromsmokeinhalation.Thehandsandfingersofthevictimsweresev‐eredandsentfordactyloscopicidentification.Hereisquestionisnotofdatabaseac‐cess (thenational fingerprint file), butofbasicmethodology.Do the familiesof thedeceasedvictimshavetherighttoknowthatthisistheprocedureused?

Complete Body

MostDVIcasesarebasedonessentiallytheentireorcompletebody,althoughtheremight be somemissing parts orwounddue to injury. This is often (thoughnot al‐ways)thecaseinfataltrafficaccidents.The preferred methods of identification are technical, such as fingerprints, DNA,odontology,etc.,sinceithasbeenlongrealizedthatvisualrecognitioncanbeerror‐prone(LeBon,1897).Thepopulartrendtodayistoidentifyadeceasedbytechnicalmeanssuchasfingerprints,odontology,DNA,oruniquemarkssuchasscars.Personalrecognitionislimited,sinceitispronetomistakes.8Anexampleofthisphenomenon

8Fortheoreticalstatement,“Inthisparticularsituation[Christchurchearthquakeandaftershocks,23Dec 2011], Police are required to follow the internationalprocess of disaster victim identification(DVI).Thisdoesnotrelysolelyonvisualidentificationasithasbeenfoundthatinsuchstressfulcondi‐tions distraught relatives can often mistakenly identify loved ones.” http:// www.police.govt.nz/christchurch‐earthquake/victim‐identification‐process,accessed27August2012.


istheeaerly1980sexplosionintheIsraelimilitaryheadquartersinTyre,Lebanon.Inthat incident 77 persons were killed. Fingerprint examination later showed threemistakesininitialvisualidentification.Therearesomemedicalexaminerswhoprefertobaseidentificationsontwometh‐od,justtoinsurethattherehasbeennomistakeeitherinthecollectionofAMdataorintheAM/PMcomparison.Nevertheless,thereisawidespreadpublicdesiretovisu‐allyidentifyabodybaseduponpersonalcharacteristics.Thisismostoftenastepintheprocessof“closure”inacceptingthefactofdeath(Kübler‐Ross,1969).There are two privacy issues. (1) It is accepted that next‐of‐kin have the right toknowthebasisofanidentification.Doesthegeneralpublichavethatright?(2)Itisgenerallyacceptedthatapersonwhoisnotlegalnext‐of‐kincanbecalledtoidentifyabodyaspartofapoliceorcoroner’sinvestigation.Shouldhebesignedonaconfi‐dentialitystatement?Inhisefforttoidentifythedeceasedheisprivytosuchissuesasconditionofthebody.Verysimply,thereisthelegalissueandasubjectivequestionofdiscretion.Ifanotherperson,behearelativeorneighbor,isinvitedtoviewthebody,shouldhebelegallyboundtothelawsandethicsofmedicalsecrecy.TherearemanyissuesofprivacyinDVI.Themostovertisgraphicphotographyofdeceasedpersons.On6July1989alonepersongrabbedthesteeringwheelofabusheadedfromTelAvivtoJerusalem,forcingthevehiclefromthehighwayintoaravineandleaving13deadatthescene(Levinson,1992).Onewomanarrivedatthemorgue,askingtoidentifythebodyofhersister.Sheknewthathersisterhadbeenonthebusandwaskilled.Sherecognizedhersister’scorpsefromtelevisionnewscoverage.9

Legalisms of Post Mortem Privacy

Therightofprivacyafterdeath isnotatallaclearsubject. Inmanylegalsystemsadeceasedpersonhasnorightofprivacy.Thissituationisslowlychanging.Inrecentyearstherehavebeenlegislativeattempts invariouscountriestoguaranteecertainprivacyrightsof individualsafter theirdeath.Whenthere isno legislationcoveringtherightsofadeceased,orwhenthelegislationisqualifiedbyexceptions,anunclearprivacysituationarises.DVIisanambiguousperiodinaperson’slifecycle,sinceapersoncannotbeconsid‐ereddeceaseduntilhisdeathisproven.ThebasicimplicationisthatduringthestagesofdisastersiteexaminationandAM/PMdatacollection,onecannotsaydefinitivelythat a person is no longer amongst the living. This is particularly true in disasterswhere there are survivors, cadavers, andmissing persons. Even in those countrieswithspecific legislationthatdeceasedpersonslosetheirrightofprivacy,theperiodfrompresumptionofdeathuntilproofofdeathisagrayarea.Itiscommonafteradisasterthatphonecallsfromthepublicarereceivedwithin‐quiries reportingmissing persons. This is true evenwhen the disaster involves airflightswithreservationsbypassengers.Itisallthemoreproblematicwhenconsider‐ing “open population” incidents (non‐reservation trains, floods, earthquakes, etc.).Veryoftenthelistof“missingpersons”greatlyexceedsthenumberofpeopleonflightlogsorthenumberofunidentifiedbodies.(It isverycommonthatwhena“missingperson”isfoundalive,nosuchnotificationismadetotheauthorities.)Theaccepted

9Inconsideringprivacyinpicturesonemusttakeintoaccountclothingaswellasperson.Inthiscaseuniqueclothing(ahand‐madedress)playedpartintheinformalidentification.


procedureistoscanorfiltermissingpersonreports,highlightingthosethataretrulypossible.Forexampleifallunidentifiedbodiesarethoseofadultmales,missingper‐sons reports of children and females can be discounted at leastmomentarily untilmistakescanbefirmlyruledout.Interpol has a DVI program that coordinates DVI procedures and fields teams incountries that requestassistance, “Thepurposeof the InterpolDVI forms is topro‐videastandardisedtool–withinputsfrominternationalexpertsfromdifferentfieldsinvolvedintheidentificationprocess‐thePolice,Odontology,Pathology,Anthropol‐ogyandDNAtoassistcountrieswithmassfatalities,wherecitizensfromanumberofcountries are involved.Anumberof countriesdon’t haveanyDVI infrastructure inplaceatall.SotheInterpolDVIformsserveasaguidelineforinforequired.”10InInterpolprocedurestheAMinformationofplausiblemissingpersonsiscollectedon yellow forms. Once it is determined that the reported missing person is notamongstthedead,thereisaprivacyissue.Howmuchofthefileshouldbemaintainedfor purely record completeness? Should this include only administrative detail orpersonal information proving a non‐identification?What kind of destruction rulesshouldbeapplied?AstotheseprivacyissuesandthedestructionoftheunneededAMyellowformsaboutpeoplelatershownnottobeinvolvedinthedisaster,Interpolhasnorecommendedpolicynordoesitassumeresponsibility,“…regardingthedestruc‐tionoftheforms–italldependsonthecountry–whoareinchargeoftheIdentifica‐tionprocess–inmostofthecountriesdocumentationthatarepartofalegalprocessmust be kept for a number of years – or until an investigation or inquest is final‐ized.”11

United States

IntheUnitedStatestheFederalPrivacyActandtheHealthInsurancePortabilityandAccountabilityAct (HIPAA) isa leadingpieceof legislationregardingprivacy,but itcan be in contradictionwith the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). According toFOIA,a lawdesignedtorequiretransparencyingovernment,an informationdisclo‐surerequestcanbedeniedif“personnelandmedicalfilesandsimilarfilesthatwouldconstituteaclearlyunwarrantedinvasionofpersonalprivacy."Protection,however,appliesonlytotheprivacyrightsoflivingpeople.Therearecourtrulingsthatextendprivacyprotectiontodeceasedpersons.These

decisions have dealt primarily with death‐scene photographs, autopsy photos, andpathologyfindings.AloopholeinFOIAisthepassageoftime.Ifalongperiodoftimehasgoneby, informationreleaseissometimesauthorized.HIPAA,however,extendsprivacyindefinitely,evenafterdeath.Ascontroloveranestatepassestoanexecutor,thepowertomakedecisionsrelatedtomedicalprivacy‐‐includingtheabilitytogivepermissionfor information‐sharingunderHIPAA‐‐ istransferredaswell.KeycasesareNationalRecordsandArchivesAdministrationv.Favish(124S.Ct.1570[2004])andCampusCommunications,Inc.v.TeresaEarnhardt(821So.2d388[Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2002]).1210E‐mailcorrespondencewithHelenaRas,Chairwoman,InterpolDVIStandingCommittee,1October2012.

11Ibid.

12http://people.howstuffworks.com/lose‐right‐to‐privacy‐when‐you‐die1.htm.Accessed22July2012.


HIPAAhasnotsolvedallproblems.AspokeswomanfortheNationalHospitalAsso‐ciationobservesintheaftermathofHurricaneKatrina,“Incaseswhereahospitalistrying to identifyapatient, theassociationsays it isnotclearwhat information thehospitalcanreleaseunderHIPAA.Ahospitalmightwanttoreleasegeneralcharacter‐istics such as gender, height andweight, butwould not be able to release a photowithoutthepatient'spermission.ButtheAssociationrecommendsthatahospitaluseitsprofessionaljudgmentinthebestinterestofthepatient.”Shecontinues,“HIPAAisnotsupposedtogetinthewayoftheflowofinformationthatishelpfulforthepublicgoodintimesofdisasters."13Althoughthisisphrasedintermsoflivepatientcare,thecommentwouldseeminglyapplytoDVIaswell.Althoughgoodjudgmentshouldal‐waysbeused,perhapswhatisneededisspecificlegalguidance.ByUnitedStateslaw,disasterfatalitiesfallunderthejurisdictionofthelocalcountyorstatemedicalexaminer.ThenationalDepartmentofHealth&HumanServicescanprovidetheservicesofDMORTteamsofhandlefatalitiesattherequestofandinsup‐portof the localcoronerorstatemedicalexaminer.Theseteams“donotsupersedethejurisdictionalauthorityoflocalorstateagencies.Soalldecisionsaboutreleaseofinformationaboutdisastervictims–victimidentity,HIPPA,etc.–arehandledbythatlocalorstateauthority;allnewsmediainteractionalsoishandledbytheseofficials.Toprovidedignityandrespectforthevictimsandtheirfamilies,DMORToperationsarenotphotographedasageneralrule.”14Thus,althoughthereisnationallegislation(HIPAA),andtheDMORTteamsaredispatchedbythenationalgovernment,privacyconcernremainsalocalresponsibility.

Norway

Thisisanotherexampleofanon‐EUcountrythathasenactedlegislationtocovertheprivacyofAMinformationinDVIcases.Accordingtoa1999law(Actof2July1999No.64relatingtoHealthPersonnel,etc.,Chapter24)relatingtohealthworkers,den‐talandmedicalrecordscanonlybehandedtootherswiththeexplicitconsentofthepatient. InthecaseofDVIthepatientobviouslycannotgiveconsent,hencetherec‐ordsarehandedoverontheassumptionthatitisinthebestinterestofthedeceased,his familyor society. It is the responsibilityof thepolice to collectnecessarydocu‐mentation, and records canbe given to them in sealed envelopes. The lawappliesequallytodentistsandphysicians.15

Post Mortem Information

BydefinitionPMinformationisthatdataobtainedfromthebodyofthedeceased,andinthecaseofadisaster(notonewhereexhumationisrequired),permissiontocon‐ductanautopsymeansnotonlypathologybutobviouslyrecordingdatafromtheex‐amination. Victim identification is often coupled with tests regarding any possible

13 Quoted in http://www.rcfp.org/reporters‐guide‐medical‐privacy‐law/attitudes‐toward‐privacy‐rules‐may‐change‐times‐disaster.Accessed28August2012

14E‐mail correspondence, Elleen Kane, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Public AffairsSpecialist,OfficeoftheAssistantSecretaryforPreparednessandResponse,12September2012.

15E‐mail correspondencewithDr.SigridKvaal, Institutt forkliniskodontologi,Oslo,Norway.27Au‐gust2012.


criminal examination and/or the effectiveness of safety procedures. After some aircrashes, forexample,keyquestions inautopsiesweretheeffectivenessofseatbeltsanddeterminationifdeathwasfromsmokeinhalationorseatbeltproblems.Publicrelease of these findings is usually phrased in general passenger statistics and notdetailedbypassengername.Legal issues tend to revolve around questions of body part and less so, propertystorage,overthelongterm.

Exhumation

Exhumationofhumanremains,i.e.,thediggingupofabodythathasbeenburied,cantake place for several reasons. Themost common reason is for due cause of deathrelatedtoacriminalinvestigation.Inmostjurisdictionsexhumationrequiresacourtorderorwrittenpermissionbynextofkin.Veryoftenhealthsupervisionisneededatthetimeofexhumation.Aftersomedisastervictimsareburiedrapidlytopreventdis‐ease;exhumationtakesplaceatalatertimeforpurposesofDVI.Generallytherearenounusualprivacyproblems.Forcriminalinvestigationsfamilyconsentoracourtorderaresufficientpermission,andtheinformationderivedfromexaminationofthebodyisprotectedbyusualrulesofprivacyanddisclosure.Exhu‐mation for DVI purposes after a disaster is usually covered by government proce‐dures.

Religion

Examplescanclarifythepoints.TheissueofautopsyinMoslemandJewishcircleshasparticularreligioussensitivity.IncaseswhereallvictimsareknowntobeMoslemorareknowntobeJewishthereisoftenstrongoppositiontoautopsy,incertainMoslemcaseseven to theextentof rapidburialwithoutdefinite scientific identification.Anexamplecanbeseeninthe25February1994massmurderof29ArabsinHebron’sCaveofMachpela;thehastyburialprecedednotonlyvictimidentification,butalsoanorderlycountingofthedead.Thus,therewerenoissuesofprivacyincollectingPMinformation.Itsimplycouldnotbecollected.TheHebroncaseisobviouslyextreme,andfornumerousreasonsexhumationcouldnotbeconsidered.Exhumationisalwaysadelicateissueloadedwiththepsychologi‐calissueofbringingbackaveryunpleasantpast.Thepost‐SaddamHusseinIraqiex‐perience highlights a problemwithprivacy implications. Iraqwas a countrywheremanypeoplehad“disappeared,”andwhenitbecamepoliticallypossible,effortsweremadetoretrievebodiestoaccountforthosemissing.Anothergoalwithprivacyim‐plicationswastodeterminethecauseandmannerofdeath,tobesuremostunpleas‐antandhardlytheresultofnaturalcauses.Partoftheissueisethics;partoftheissueisprivacy.Howmuchshouldafamilybetold?

Problems

Noteveryforensicexaminationgoesasplanned.AfterthefallofSaddamHusseinlo‐cal Iraqis with no forensic experience whatsoever started exhuming bodies usingfarmingtools,thusruininganypossibilityofaforensicexamination.Boneswerebro‐ken,skeletonswereinter‐mingled,andclothingfoundnewowners.Obviously,under


this typeof situation there cannotbe (andwerenot)properprivacyprocedures inplace.

Photography

Non‐intrusive photography (be it traditional, x‐ray, or other) tends to be non‐objectionable,particularlywhenlegalmedicineauthoritiesarejudiciousinuseofthephotographs and present them only in the context of police and courtroom proce‐dures.

Ante Mortem

Determining the identity of disaster victims startswith reports ofmissingpersons.Thiscanbedividedintocaseswithopenandclosedpopulations.Inaclosedpopula‐tiontheprobablenamesofallvictimsareknown,andthereisbasicallyaquestionofdeterminingwhichbodybelongstowhichperson.

Closed Population

Anexampleofthiswouldbeacrashedcargoaircraft.Recordswillshowwhichcrewwereintheaircraft.Theproblemthenbecomeswhichbodyistobeassociatedwitheachofthenamesontheworksheet.Aspecificexampleisthe4October1992crashofElAl Flight 1862 intoBijlmermeer inAmsterdam.The three crewmembers andonepassengerwereaclosedpopulation.Thelistwasaccurate,andidentificationwasamatterofassociatingnamewithbody.(The47killedonthegroundconstitutedanopenpopulation,theaccuracyofwhichwasquitecontroversial.1588personswerereportedmissingontheground;intheendonlythe47werecertifiedasdead.Somefacetiouslycited theavailabilityof government fundsand the grantingof residencyrightstosurvivingrelativesasincentivestofilemissingpersonreports.)

Open Population

Inmore thanone case, “missing”personshavenotmadealimonypayments, some‐timesinexcessofmorethantenyears;policeestimatethatthemissingpersonsre‐portscanbegeneratedbythedesiretotrytoforceamore‐than‐routineinvestigation(Welton, 1993). Hodgkinson and Stewart (1988) also record this phenomenon ofmissingformanyyears;theyinterpretitasasearchbythefamilyforclosure.Follow‐ingtheAMIAbuildingbombing(18July1994)inBuenosAiresonepersonreportedhimselfmissingasanegoploy;anotherpersonreportedmissingwasindeed,missing‐‐‐formorethantwentyyears!Inonemiss‐identificationinAMIAthedeceasedwasfoundsometimeafterwardsoperatingabakeryinUruguay.TheWorld Trade Center bombing (11 September 2001) in New York is a classiccaseofopenpopulation. It isalsoa landmark inprivacyconcerns, fromplanningofthe attack to post‐disaster DVI. Regarding victim identification, release of personalinformationhasgeneratedcasesofidentitytheft.Severaljurisdictions,fromNewJer‐sey in theUnited States to Iceland, have begun to restrict data access. Therewerenumerous9/11incidentsoffraudinvolvingprivacyinformationandidentitytheft.Ayearafterthedisasteroneofthepersonslistedasdeadreceivedatrafficticket.


Investigationshowedthathewaskilledinthedisaster.Hisidentityhadbeenstolen.16Inadifferenttwistanotherpersoncalledthepolicefromhismobilephone,statingthathewasdyingundertherubble.ThecallwastracedtoNewark,NewJersey,andthecallerwasarrestedonchargesofattemptedinsurancefraud. It isaninterestingquestionhowmuchdetailinthesecasesshouldbereleasedtothepublicfromapointofviewofcrimeimitation.

Semi‐closed Population

Anairlinemanifestcanbeconsideredasemi‐closedpopulation. Thenamesofcrewmembersmightbeexact,butpassengerlistsoftenhaveamarginoferror,eitherduetolast‐minutechangesortofactorssuchasspellingerrors. Again,however,victimidentificationbecomesthechallengeofreconcilingthepassengerlistanddeterminingwhoisuninjured,hospitalizedanddeceased.Therecanbeunanticipatedmattersofprivacy.Inonenotedhijacking,forexample,amarriedmanwasfoundtobeensconc‐ingwithhissecretary,muchtothesurpriseandangerofhiswife.Arewetosaythatthisadventureistoopiquanttocoverupwithprivacyrestrictions?Howmuchoftheromanticdetailiscloakedwithinvasionofprivacy?

4. Discussion Inmostopenpopulationcases it isnecessarytoestablishmissingpersons lists17‐‐‐names, which will be the focal point of antemortem investigations. With an openpopulation thebasisofbuilding files ispredominatelymissing‐persons reports, de‐veloped either through police questioning or reporting by the public. This is verydifferentfromordinarypoliceactivity. Inroutineworkmissingpersonsreportsarefiledbeforeitisknowiftherewasany“incident.”Indisasterworkitistheincidentwhichinitiatesthereport.Thenetresultisthatinanopenpopulationdisasterinci‐denttherewillbemorereportsofpeoplemissingthanpeoplereallymissing.Anotherdifferenceisthatingeneralreportingnotificationismadedirectlytothepolice,whichfunneltheinformationtothespecializingunit.Afteradisasterthereislessprivacyinthelists.Recipientscanbeprivatecompaniessuchasairlines,municipalities,etc.Itisincumbentonthemtomaintainprivacyandpassinformationtothepoliceforfurthertreatmentaswarranted.Unrelatedtotheissueofprivacybutworthyofnote,itisrarethatafamilywillcan‐celareportafterthepersonturnsupsafe;removalofthepersonfrommissingpersonrollsisdoneonlyasaresultofpoliceinvestigationorinquiry.AcriticalaspectofDVIistheabilitytocollectrelevantAMinformation.Akeywordis“relevant.”Atthestagewhenitisuncertainifaparticularpersonisamongstthedead,thepro‐cedure endorsed by Interpol is to fill out a lengthy and quite complete AM infor‐mationform,18sothatthedatacanbecomparedwithunidentifiedbodies.TheInter‐

16[NewJersey]Star‐Ledger,22September2002.

17Forsituations involvingmilitaryactionthe InternationalCommitteeof theRedCross(ICRC)hasaCentralTracingAgencytolocatemissingpersons(militaryandcivilian).

18Interpol Disaster Victim Identification Form (Version of 2008) and instructions for use. Seehttp://www.interpol.int/INTERPOL‐expertise/Forensics/DVI‐Pages/Forms.Accessed15August2012.


polformshouldbecompletedbysomeonewithcloseconnectiontothemissingper‐son,sincetherearenumerousquestionsofaverypersonalnature.MissingintheIn‐terpolformisanareaforasignedstatementregardingprivacywaiverandlimitationsonthepermitteduseoftheinformation.TheaccompanyingInterpolguidegivesspecific instructionsforfilingtheAMformwiththeparallelPMform,whenthereisanidentification.Ifthemissingpersonturnsoutnottobeamongstthedead,noinstructionisgiven.Itcanbecontendedthatfroma privacy perspective the bulk of the form (personal information) should be de‐stroyed,thoughadministrativepagescanbekeptforrecord‐keepingpurposes.Thereare thosewhocontend to thecontrary thatall recordsshouldbekept for file com‐pletenessandforpossibleuseincaseoferror.Thereisnouniversallyacceptedinter‐nationalguideline.When confirmation of identification is needed, there is an inclination to shortenworkandcollectonlyrelevantAMdata.Forexample,ifthedeceasedisthoughttobea certainpersonandhasnohands, thereare thosewhodonot collect fingerprints.Although this might seem logical and be time‐saving in the short run, themethoddoes not take into account the possible finding of detached fingers at a later time.(Although suchbodyparts canbe associated throughDNA, thatprocess canbe ex‐pensiveand timeconsuming.)Asaresultof thisphilosophy, IsraelhasdevelopedashortenedversionoftheInterpolDVIform.TherearenumerouslegalandprivacyconsiderationsinAMcollection.Therequest‐ing of medical and dental files from physicians and dentists is questionable, sincethereisnofirmevidencethatthepatienttreatedisdeceased.Therehavebeencasesinwhichthefilesprovedthattherewasaidentificationexclusion,thusopeningrec‐ordswithoutappropriatepermission.InoneDVIcasefollowingabusbombingaden‐tiststatedthathehadnorealobjectiontoprovidingapatient’sfile,howeverhewant‐edtocoverhimselflegallyandaskedthatthepoliceobtainacourtorder.Onesourcecouldnotsaythathisrequestwasoutoforder.19IntheUnitedStatestherequestforfilesisusuallycoveredbytheHealthInsurancePortabilityandAccountabilityActof1996(HIPAA;Pub.L.104‐191,110Stat.1936,enacted August 21, 1996), Section 164.512 (g) (1) of which states, “Coroners andMedicalExaminers:Acoveredentitymaydiscloseprotectedhealthinformationtoacoroner ormedical examiner for the purpose of identifying a deceasedperson, de‐termineacauseofdeath,orotherdutiesasauthorizedbylaw.Acoveredentitythatalsoperformsthedutiesofacoronerormedicalexaminermayuseprotectedhealthinformationforthepurposedescribedinthisparagraph.”Thereare,notsurprisinglyqualifications and conditions such as, "when probable identification is suspected."Theauthorizationdoespermitan “agent” (presumably lawenforcement) to receiveandforwardfiles.20

19Dr.RobertGoldberg, a lawyerand forensicpathologistnowpracticing in theDominicanRepublic,agreeswiththerequestforasubpoenaasalegalrequirementinhisworkingenvironment,particularlyifthepatientwhosefileisrequestedturnsoutnottomatchanyofthePMfiles.Ifthereisanidentifica‐tion,thegoverninglawisstraight‐forward.Telephoneconversation,18August2012.

20“TheME/Coroner,Police,[orother]LawEnforcementcansendonetoactashis"Agent"andpickuprecords,buttheremustbeforapossibleorprobableidentificationneededtoidentifyadeceasedindi‐vidual.” Dr.Normal Goodman, retired coroner fromPennsylvania. 20August 2012. Thiswould pre‐


One recommendation is that the dentist or physician involvedmake copies of alloriginalmaterialprovidedtomedicalexaminers,sothatcomplete filesare21emain‐tained.GovernmentAMfilesprovidelessofaprivacyproblem,sincetheinformationiscol‐lectedwithstipulationsofuse.InIsrael,forexample,thereisbasicapprovalthatpo‐licefilesbeusedforDVIpurposes.TheIsraelimilitary(IDF)isnotallowedtosharepersonnelfileswiththeIsraelPolicewiththeexplicitexceptionofDVI,evenintotallyciviliandisasters.Inspecificlanguage,theIDFcannotreleaseapersonnelfiletoassistinacriminalinvestigationsuchasmurder,butitcanprovidethatfiletoidentifythepersonasadeceased.The transfer of AM files to foreign sources is more problematic than might bethought.Perhapsthefirstconcernisthattherecipientbeobligatedtothesamelawsofprivacyasinthesourcecountry.Thereshouldalsobestipulationsoncopyingrec‐ords,purgingunnecessarydata,andreturnoffilesafteruse(eveniftheyarephoto‐copies).Thereisalsoabasicquestionoftowhominformationandfilescanorshouldbegivenforsecurityandprivacyreasons.A procedural question involving privacy, also found in other cases, was encoun‐teredsubsequenttoaplanecrashontheIndianSub‐continent.AprivatecontractorhandledDVIforthelocalpolice.ThebasicprivacyissuearisesifAMinformationcanbehandeddirectly to theprivate company acting as an agent for thepolice or if itshouldbe channeleddirectly through thepolice,which thenas agovernmentbodytakesresponsibilityforitsuse.In another instance an American airline crashed with Israeli passengers aboard.TheairlineofficeinTelAvivwasgivenAMfilesofthepassengers.Theprivacyissueissimilar ‐‐‐ directpresentation to theairlineor transfer to theFBI representative intheAmericanEmbassy,whotakesresponsibilityandforwardsthematerial.Sometimes the reactions of families to requests for AM data can be quite unex‐pected.OnewomanwasaskedforaDNAsamplefollowingherfather’sdeathinanaircrash. Her unexpected and blunt responsewas, “Talk tomy lawyer.” Therewas abasicprivacyissueinvolved.Itseemedquiteprobablethatthedeceasedwasnotherbiologicalfather,afactwhichshedidnotwantknown.There are instances inwhich a family’s reluctance to provide AM data remains amystery.AfteranaircrashinatopographicallyproblematicareainAfricaoneIsraeliwifewasaskedtoprovideAMinformationtohelpidentifyherhusband’sbody.Thehourwaslate,andshetriedtoinsistthattherequestbedeferreduntilmorning.NotallAMinformationisaccurate.Onenot‐so‐bereavedmotherwasaskedtopro‐videAMinformationaboutherill‐behavedsowhowaskilledinashoot‐outwiththepoliceinanincidentabroad.Themotherinsistedthathersonnevertookanymedica‐tions.Asitturnedout,basedonautopsyresultsitwasabsolutelycertainthatthesondid take drugs, and not of the type that could be calledmedicine. Did themotherknow andwas hiding the fact? Should she be told, or is that a violation of her de‐ceasedson’sprivacy?

sumably excluded non‐government persons and entities. A complicating factor in using non‐governmentsourcesismaintainingchainofevidenceincasesinvolvingacriminalaspect

21HowardS.Glazer,DDSFAGD,e‐mail,18August2012.


Thiscasemighthaveitsownnuances,butitisnotentirelyunique.Inthisauthor’sexperienceseveraldisastervictimswere identifiedbasedupon information in theircriminalfiles.Noteveryidentificationfromcriminalfileshasalinktocrime.InIsraelfingerprintsofallpolicepersonnelaretaken(1)aspartofabasicsecuritycheckbeforehiring,and(2)forexclusiononevidencereceivedforexaminationfromcrimescenes.InoneJe‐rusalembusbombingthebodyofapolicemanwasidentifiedbaseduponfingerprintstakenforthispurpose.Thereisnoprivacyissue.Inpurelylegalistictermsthebomb‐ing is a crime scene, hence there is no problem using the policeman’s fingerprintstakenfortheabovedefinedreason.

Access to Databases

DVIofteninvolvescitizensofnumerouscountries.Thisisverytruewithaviationdis‐astersinvolvinginternationalcarriersandotherdisasters(e.g.,thetsunamiof2004)hittingtouristareas.WiththisinmindInterpolhassetintomotionadatabase(Reso‐lution AG‐2005‐RES‐07) to identify and link Missing Persons and/or UnidentifiedBodies (MPUB). This includes applications for general police work and DVI. TheMPUBdatabase,maintainedatINTERPOLHeadquartersinLyon, isdesignedforde‐centralized access of AM and PM DVI information by National Central Bureaux(NCB’s) andDVI teamofficials.When fullyoperational thedatabasewill include itsownsearchcapabilitiesandwillinterfacewithotherdatabasesforothers,forexam‐ple,fingerprints,DNA.

Air Crashes

DVI in air crashes is often a complex operation that includes extensive effortswellbeyondamerecomparisonofAMandPMmedicalinformation.ThecauseofacrashmightnotbedirectlyrelatedtoDVI,butvictimidentificationisan important part of the general investigation. Understanding the crash can oftenclarifywhybodiesareinaparticularcondition,howtheaircraftfell,andwherebod‐iesmight be found and recovered.Here, examinationof bodies cannot bedivorcedfromthegeneralinvestigation,thusprivacydoescomeintoplay.InMay,2007theUnitedStatesNationalTransportationSafetyBoard(NTSB)madepublic audio recordings of the air traffic control transmissions associated withSwissairFlight111thatcrashedoffthecoastofNovaScotia,Canada.Awrittentran‐scriptof the conversationhadbeen releasednineyears earlieralmost immediatelyaftertheaccident,buttheNTSBhadrefusedtoreleasetheaudioonprivacygrounds.ThecontentionwasoddlyenoughnotAmerican.TheNTSBpostulatedthatundertheCanadianAccess to InformationActandPrivacyAct itwas forbidden torelease theaudio recordings, since they contained personal information andwere an infringe‐mentonprivacy.Thelegalpredicamentbecamemorecomplicated.In2006theCana‐dian Federal Court of Appeal rejected this contention. Recordings of four other airtrafficcontrolconversationsfromotherairaccidentshadbeenreleased.TheCanadi‐an declined to hear an appeal, and air traffic control audio recordings weremadepublic.Itcanbearguedthatreleaseoftranscriptsissufficientparticularlywhencon‐sideringtheprivacyofinformation,howevertheincidentshowsthedetailedinterestinwhattranspiresinthemomentsbeforeanaircrash.


Acrashon18August1980inRiyadh,SaudiArabiaraisesaninterestingpoint.TheSaudiAirlinesjetreturnedtotheairfield,whensmokewasdetectedinacargocom‐partment. Only twenty‐three minutes after touchdown, however, were the doorswere opened.All301passengers aboardwere dead.Autopsieswere conducted forthepurposeofDVIaswellastoverifythatcauseofdeathwassmokeinhalationandnotseatbeltfailure.Privacylawswereintheirinfancy.Isitaninvasionofprivacytostatewhichpassengerswerewearingseatbeltsandwhichnot?Muchhasbeenwrittenandundoubtedlymorewillbewrittenabouttheexplosionaboard Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie and the subsequent crash of the aircraft. Thetragedypiquedpubliccuriosity,bothforthemagnitudeofwantonmurderandforitslateDecembertimingdisruptingaholidayseasonformuchoftheWesternworld.Thenamesofthedead,bothpassengersontheaircraftandlocalresidentsontheground,have all been published. The seat assignments, an important factor in DVI (withrecognitionthatpeopledochangeseatsduringtheflight),arepublicknowledge.Thetravelers’ reasons for going toNewYork have also beenmade known.One personwasreportedlyonhiswaytonotifyinghiswifethathedecidedtodivorceher!Wheredoescuriosityendandinvasionofprivacybegin?Lockerbie also raises institutional issues of privacy. The police investigationwithDVIimplicationswasextensive.Somethingsweredoneright.Otherthingsweredonewrong.At leastonemistakewasmade inshowingabody.AcomputerprogramforDVIprovedunsuccessfulandwassupplantedwithamanualsystem.Humanremains(technically speaking, evidence)were transmittedoutside the chainof command.Aquestioninprincipleishowmuchoftheofficialrecordshouldbeprotectedbypriva‐cy legislation.Thereareramifications.Whichbodieswerewronglypresented?Whyweresomebodiesidentifiedfasterthanothers?(allowingonetoultimatelydiscoverthenamesofthevictims,availabilityofAMinformation,andconditionofthecadav‐er).

Press, Media, and Academia

Majorformalmediaarebound(atleastintheory)bygovernmentprivacyregulations.Theycanfacecensureandfinesiftheyviolatethelaw.Traditionaldisasterresponseanalysis assigns a primary role to the established media as a means of conveyingmessagestothepublic.TheriseofinformalsocialmediasuchasTwitterandFacebookhaschangedthepic‐tureconsiderably.Thesemediahavetransformedwhatwasoncethepassivelistenerintoanactivecommunicator.Thesemediahavebecomeasourceofnews,especiallywhena formalnews infrastructurehasbrokendown.The socialmedia sources arenottrainedreporterswhohaveatleastsomebackgroundinsortingfactfromfiction,truthfromrumor.Nevertheless,thesocialmediaplaysignificantrolesindisasterre‐porting‐‐‐bothpositiveandnegative.Duringadisastersocialmediadonotnecessarilyadheretolegalstatutes,particular‐lyregardingprivacy.Todayweareinanerawheremanypeopleareinconstantposi‐tionofaphotographicdeviceandmobilephone,oftenwithan Internet connection.Theyhavetheabilitytoreporteventsinrealtimeof,andtheyoftenmakeimmediateon‐the‐spotorspur‐of‐themomentpostings.Theaveragepersonisnotwellversedinthelegalintricaciesofprivacylegislation,nordoesthisenterhismindashequickly


reportshisscoop.ThesensationalismofadisasterandrelatednewsscoopoverrideconsiderationsofmedicalorDVIprivacy.Agraphicpictureofabloodycrashorex‐plosionisoftendisseminatedwithoutconsideringthedeadcaughtinthephotograph.Althoughtoday’sprivacylegislationisrelativelyrecent, it iswrittenbeforetheeraofi‐phonesandotherinstantcommunicationsgadgets.Whatisperhapsnecessaryisarevisionofprivacylaws,takingthesolefocusoffestablishedmedia,journalists,andprofessionalinvestigators,andapplyingbasicprinciplestotheaveragepersonwithcameraormobilephone inhand.This issue includesnotonlyDVI,butalsogeneralreporting.Agoodpartofthecurrentsocialmediasecurityeffortisbaseduponnotdivulgingprivacyinformationinsituationsthatcanbehackedoraccessedbyothers.It iscer‐tainlysoundpracticetobecarefulwithonlineinformation,in‐publicpronouncementsthat can be overheard, etc. Disasters do not fit this definition. They happenwheretheyhappen,anduntillawenforcementcontrolsaresetup,thesite(andsights)areopentoall.

5. Historical Cases

History or Curiosity

Therearestrongreasonstocometoacarefulunderstandingofhistory.Accuracyoffacts is critical in our understanding of past events, so that we can examine fromwherewecomeandavoidre‐makingmistakesinthefuture.Therehavebeennumer‐ous cases in which new information has come to light. Sometimes this is from ar‐chives.Sometimesitisfrompersonaltestimony.Inthepurviewofthispaper,some‐timesitisfromprocedureswhicharerelatedtoDVI.Althoughthesearenotdisastersperse, thecasesraisesimilar issues.There isa fine linebetweenourneed‐to‐knowfor the purpose of historical understanding and the right to privacy of a deceased,evenifheisadespicabletyrantsuchasAdolfHitler,whodeservesnohonor.

Adolf Hitler

Perhaps themostdefinitive statementabout thedeathofAdolfHitler is thatat thetimeofthiswritingheiseitherthelongestlivingpersonintheworldorsurelydead.Thequestioniswhendidhedie.22WasitintheFührerbunkerinBerlininApril1945,ordidheescapeandpassedawaylater.ThisisnotatypicalDVIcase,butHitlerwasnota typicalperson.Thebasicquestion isproof that thevery fragmentaryremainsfounddid,infact,belongtohim.Thisisnottheforumtodelveintoallofthefacts,testimony,andmythsconcerningHitler’sdeath.Suffice it tosaythat thegeneralperception is thathecommittedsui‐cideandcommandedthathisbodyandthatofEvaBraun,hisgirlfriendwhomhehadjustmarried,beburnt.GovernmentcommissionsintheFederalRepublicofGermanyandintheSovietUnionhavetriedtodeterminewhatexactlytranspired.Thereisoneinterestingquestionofprivacy,however,thatshouldbeaddressed.

22V. K. Vinogradov et al. (eds),Hitler's Death: Russia's Last Great Secret from the Files of the KGB,Chaucer Press, London, 2005. Also D. Marchetti et al, "The Death of Adolf Hitler: Forensic As‐pects",JournalofForensicSciences2005Sept;50(5),.


Firsttosetthebackground,asAlliedtroopscompletedtheencirclementofBerlin,thecitywasliterallyablazeandinastateofconfusion.Thousandswerekilled.Manymorewere left homeless andwithout possessions. Shelterwasmore a question ofluckthanplanning.Hitler’sbunkerwheretheFührerspenthislastdayshadasuper‐ficialairof tranquility,but itwasartificial. Itwasclear that theendwasathand. ItwasinthisatmospherethatHitlerreportedlycommittedsuicide.Whatdetails are appropriate to release concerning thepersonwhowasprobablythemosthatedmanof the twentieth century?There is thequestionofwidespreadclosure,restingcertainthatthemanisdead.Thereisalsothepurelylegalconsidera‐tionofprivacy.Assupporttotheongoingdebatetherehavebeendiscussionsofden‐talwork,andmorerecentlyDNA.TherehasevenbeenaphotographpublishedofacorpsepurportedtobethatofHitlerwithabulletholeintheforehead.ThisisnotanargumenttoconfirmorrefutetheHitlersuicideon30April1945.Itisonlyanopportunitytoraisethequestionofprivacyincasesofoverwhelminghistori‐calinterest.

John F. Kennedy

Thereisnoquestionwhatsoeveraboutidentificationofthebodyofthe35thAmericanpresident. It is clear that JohnF.Kennedy(1917‐1963)wasassassinatedwhile inaDallasmotorcade.Anautopsywasconductednotforidentificationpurposes,butra‐ther for forensicpurposes toretrievebullets,determine theirsequenceandsource,andunderstand the causeofdeath.Again the issueofprivacyafterdeath is raised.Afterbeingsealedfromthepublic,manyautopsypicturescannowbedownloadedonthe Internet.23Inaddition tounpleasantwoundsandautopsyprocedures, therearepicturescertainunbefittingtotheimageofapublicfigure.

Tsar Nicholas II

WhathappenedtothelasttsaroftheRomanofffamily?Historyrecordsthathewasexecuted.Itisclearthatthereisalegitimatejustificationtoclarifyproofofdeath,buthowfardoesthatextendintothelastminutesofthedeposedRussianruler?Inthepost‐midnighthoursof17July1918Nicholasandhisfamilywerebroughtto

abasementunderthepretenseof theirwell‐beingasoppositionforcesclosedinonYekaterinburg,wheretheroyal familywasstaying.Afiringsquadawaitedinanad‐joiningroom.Nicholaswasthentoldthatheandhisfamilywerealltobeputtodeath.Nicholaswasthefirsttobekilled.Somesayhewasshotinthechest.Otherssaythatthathewasshotinthehead.Inrecentyearsthediscrepancyhasbeenresolved.Whenhisremainswerediscovereddecadeslater,itwasshownthattherewasnodamagetotheskull.Yes,hehadbeenputtodeathbywoundstothechest.Inthe1990sthebodyofNicholasIIwaspositivelyidentifiedbyDNA.Thecauseofdeathcanoddlyenoughbedefinedashavingbeendeterminedbytheresultofanau‐topsy, which under usual circumstances inmost jurisdictions would be defined asconfidentialinformation.24

23http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/history/news‐jfk‐autopsies‐and‐conspiries‐photos. This isjustonesite.Accessed5December2012.

24The issueofautopsy results is curiously ratherobscure in termsofprivacy,at least in theUnitedStates.”TheDepartmentofHealthandHumanServicessaysthatifstatelaw‘providesforthereporting


ClearlyovershadowingthecauseofdeathanditsprivacyissueistheclearfactnowestablishedbyDNAthatallmembersoftheroyalfamilywereexecuted.Therearenosurvivors.25Thereisnoheirtothethronethatseveralpretendershavetriedtoclaimand“inherit.”26IsreleaseoftheinformationjustifiedbecauseofthehistoricalprominenceofNich‐

olasII,eventhoughitmakesnomajordifferenceinourunderstandingofhistory?

Propaganda

InrecentyearswiththeincreasedprevalenceofInternetasameansofcommunica‐tion, therehasbeenan increaseduseofextremelygraphicpictures forpropagandapurposes.27Established media in many countries have censored gruesome photo‐graphsandvideoclips,howevertheInternetisveryminimallysupervised,ifatallinsomecountries. (Thereare,of course, countrieswithsignificantcensorship tostiflefreedomofspeech.)Ithasoftenprovidedaccesstofootagethatisoverlydescriptiveandbrutal.28The viewing of blood‐and‐guts pictures upsets many people. When consideringthesephotographsandvideos, somepropagandistswant to showthematerialwiththe express goal to upset viewers for the purpose of persuasion that the supposedperpetratorisinhumane.OneexampleisthecivilwarinSyria,whereonecommenta‐tor removedbodyparts fromabag, accused theoppositionof inhumane slaughter,andproceededtoillustratehispointbyexplainingwhereeachpartcamefrominthebody.29Although there was no name attached to the body parts, this procedure isbothdistastefulandobjectionable.Itcertainlygoeswellbeyondthelimitsofhumandignity,anditraisestheDVIfactthatthefacemightwellberecognizedbysomepeo‐ple.Theaccuracyofmanypropaganda‐oriented reports is oftenveryproblematic andbeyondthescopeofthispaper.Theallegedperpetratorsarenotnecessarilytheper‐sonsorgroupresponsible.Forthispaperthecentralquestionistheissueofprivacyindisplayingcadavers.(AfamousdisplayofbodiesforidentificationandpropagandapurposeswasattheBerlinExhibitionHallinAugust1945.30Evenwiththedisclaimerofnotdealingwithaccuracy,thesubjectcannotbetotallydismissed.Shouldthebodyofadeceasedpersonbedisplayedforpropagandapurposes?Dis‐playsofbodiesarecommonatwakesandfuneralsaccordingtoChristianpracticeandIslamic law. When this is done to honor the deceased, there can be no objection.

ofdiseaseorinjury,childabuse,birth,ordeath,orforpublichealthsurveillance,investigation,orin‐tervention,’HIPAAdoesnotpreventit.”

25Evgeny I.Rogaev,etal.Genomic identification in thehistorical caseof theNicholas II royal familyPNAS2009106(13)5258‐5263;February27,2009,doi:10.1073/pnas.0811190106.

26See[UK](Daily)Telegraph,16January2010.

27ReportbyGalBerger,IsraelRadioSecondChannel,20November2012,1030hours.

28For example, executions in Syria. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvp1HXjXWIs. Accessed 24November2012.

29Berger,loc.cit.

30Wikipedia,BombingofBerlininWorldWarII,accessed5December2012.


Should this be done, however, for political purpose orwhen violentmarks can beseenonthebody?Autopsyreportsshouldhaverestrictedaccess.Certainlytheirpublicdisclosureforpoliticalpurposesshouldbecriticized.ThecaseofMohammedSadallahhasinterest‐ingramifications."…thereweresignsonSaturdaythatnotall thePalestiniancasualtieshavebeen

theresultof Israeliairstrikes.Thehighlypublicizeddeathof four‐year‐oldMoham‐medSadallahappearedtohavebeentheresultofamisfiringhome‐maderocket,notabombdroppedbyIsrael.The child'sdeathonFriday figuredprominently inmedia coverageafterHisham

Kandil,theEgyptianprimeminister,wasfilmedliftinghisdeadbodyoutofanambu‐lance. "Theboy, themartyr,whoseblood is still onmyhandsandclothes, is some‐thingthatwecannotkeepsilentabout,"hesaid,beforepromisingtodefendthePales‐tinianpeople.ButexpertsfromthePalestinianCentreforHumanRightswhovisitedthesiteon

SaturdaysaidtheybelievedthattheexplosionwascausedbyaPalestinianrocket."31HowwasthebodyofMohammedSadallahidentified?Wasthereaprofessionalau‐topsytodeterminetheexactcauseofdeath?Shouldhisfacewithbloodfromwoundshavebeenmadepublic?Leaving thepolitical issuesaside, this case certainly raisesissues of professionalism and privacy. Given the politically charged atmosphere, isreleaseofanautopsyreportjustifiedunderthesecircumstances?

References Bouckaert,Peter.2003.TheMassGravesofMahawil:TheTruthUncovered.NewYork,NY.HumanRightsWatch.Hodgkinson,PeterE.andStewart,Michael.1998.Missing,PresumedDead.InDisas‐terManagement.1(1):11‐14.

Kübler‐Ross,Elisabeth.1969.OnDeathandDying.NewYork,Macmillan&Company.

LeBon,Gustave.1897.TheCrowd:AStudyofthePopularMind.London,T.F.Unwin.

Levinson,Jay.1992.TheCrashofBus405:VictimIdentification.InInterpol Interna‐tionalCriminalPoliceReview.May–June.

Welton,Bernard.1993.CrisisManagementLecture:ElAlAircraftCrash/BijlmerDis‐aster. In InternationalAssociationofAirport&SeaportPoliceYearbook.11‐16. PortCoquitlam,BritishColumbia,Canada.

31IPTNews,19November2012.Quotedbyhttp://www.investigativeproject.org/3820/ little‐lives‐on‐the‐front‐line‐of‐the‐propaganda.Accessed22Nov2012.

Documents

Disaster Victim Identification & Privacy The Privacy & Security