Comment on "Does Hitler have a right to privacy?" and other big questions in research ethics.

ryathal@sh.itjust.works ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

• Valmond@lemmy.world ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  USA: IP right is 100 years after the creators death.

  So when did hitlers parents die?

  source

  • ryathal@sh.itjust.works ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    US IP rights are only a good example of a bad example.

    source
  • FiskFisk33@startrek.website ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    US law is an interesting response to an ethics question

    source

    • Valmond@lemmy.world ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Money > humans?

      source
• fonix232@fedia.io ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Also, it is internationally generally agreed upon that criminals forfeit their rights to personally identifying information, such as fingerprints and DNA evidence.

  Given Hitler's regime has been internationally agreed to be war criminals and have committed crimes against humanity, even if Hitler himself chose the coward's way out to avoid being convicted for these crimes, I think we can all agree on him being responsible for these crimes thus is essentially convicted posthumous.

  Therefore combining the two, Hitler was and is a criminal therefore privacy protection laws don't apply, therefore his DNA should be freely usable by the scientific community.

  source

  • Droechai@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Did he get convicted or does the ICC or ICJ need to do a court process? If any state can just allege someone being a criminal to exhume and extract dna without judicial oversight we open a door quite wide for abuse

    source

    • fonix232@fedia.io ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Also while the UN/ICJ/ICC did not commit him due to the suicide, the UN War Crimes Commission did indict him as a war criminal, which, in civilised countries, does mean the withdrawal of certain rights, including the right to privacy, therefore the DNA is still processable.

      source
    • fonix232@fedia.io ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      I do see your point, however the fact that Hitler gave the direct orders (often well documented) that were later deemed criminal, I'd presume that would be enough to assume criminal status.

      Also, yknow, defending Hitler on technicalities is like defending a paedo on the distinction between paedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia - legally speaking you'd be correct, but in reality it just makes you sound like you're supporting the person in their acts...

      source

      • Droechai@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Lol, yeah I really should choose my battles of technicalities better.
        According to another user he seems to have been properly and lawfully declared a war criminal so my point was moot :)

        source