It's amazing how rude Facebook, reddit, and in this case, greedy companies, can be. If he cared enough about anyone knowing who he was, he'd have told someone. This is just blatant disregard for a man's privacy.
He posed for a number of photographs and videos. He interacted with many people. He never expressed the desire to remain anonymous that you intuit. If someone wants to slip away quietly into the void, there are much better ways to do it than this path.
I'd argue it's honoring him and the honorable life he seems to have led to pursue this investigation. Not to mention there may be a number people who will get peace from the knowledge that a friend or family member of theirs has passed. That seems like the kind of thing that a kind, caring person would want.
The article at least hints to the fact that MH was weary about digital evidence:
"He asked Mostly Harmless if he could take a picture. Mostly Harmless hesitated but then agreed"
Are there better ways to slip into the void than going into the wilderness without even a phone?
He didn't go into any wilderness. He traveled one of the most popular hiking trails in the country. Went into stores. Stayed in campgrounds. Let himself be photographed a bunch of times. Why he hesitated that once, I don't know, but I seriously doubt anyone would have pressed him if he'd just declined.
Better ways? A boat out into the ocean. Hiking out West or in Alaska. Or South America. Going deep into an unpopular cave. Hiking in a desert.
There are many, many places more "wild" than the popular hiking trail in Florida where he passed. If he'd wanted to slip away quietly, he seems like he had the means and the intelligence to have figured out how to do that successfully.
Wouldn't the more wild places be better known to someone very familiar with the options? Someone starting out in denim jeans doesn't strike me as that type. Seems more like the sort to which any long distance trail would appear appropriately wild.
He didn't say his name, though. At minimum it's a desire to stay pseudonymous, and I think it should be respected.
The idea that privacy can be violated like this solely because random Facebook users are interested in it and on the off-chance that family he hadn't interacted with in years might find some abstract comfort despite not being close at all is just incredibly bizarre.
I find it somewhat poetic that he was heading for the Keys. As this is exactly the person you meet down here, many people are known only by their given nickname and many times like this gentleman seems to be, have been successful and just want to get away from the world. You can sit in a bar next to a fishing bum and a billionaire and not know who is who. He is exactly the type of person the Key's attracts and it is ashame he did not reach his goal. Point being I understand the utilization of a given nickname, it is almost a second birth name of a new life, a new life that they themselves are seeking. Thus the name can sometimes become more important than their birth name.
I've thru-hiked and "no one" goes by their real names out there (for long). It's just not the way trail community works. There are many people I met and all we know name-wise about each other are our trail names.
I suspect those that didn't want to be on social media at all would have declined to be in the GoPro video for a longer discussion (as I likely would have, but I wouldn't have stopped a passing hiker doing a GoPro recording since that's more in the realm of a dashcam kind of thing). Fellow hikers tend to be respectful about such things.
The laws and principles of privacy protection are generally built from the perspective that people have privacy interests that need protection, but dead bodies aren't people anymore and have no privacy rights. We do have certain restrictions about the deceased, but those are designed to protect the interests and privacy of their surviving family, relatives and friends, not the deceased themselves.
For example, we can read and even publish the private diaries and intimate correspondence of dead people, and the only privacy that needs to be accounted for is the interests of other parties in that correspondence and the (living) people talked about in these messages - but the dead don't care about anything any more, or at least that's the general assumption.
If I somehow legally obtain your diary and publish juicy exerpts and facts from it (publishing all of it would be restricted by copyright), then you may have grounds to sue me for violations of your privacy. If you're dead, your heirs can't do that, they can protect their rights (e.g. the inherited copyright), but not your privacy. It's similar for defamation; after you're dead, defaming you does not violate the rights of anyone - anyone living, that is.
In my local jurisdiction, I would not necessarily expect that to be protected by privacy law even if I was living (you may have grounds, but good luck!) - and it would be protected by copyright either way.
Trail names are ubiquitous, and generally aren't used for pseudonymity to protect one's privacy.
I don't think it's a reasonable presumption based only on the fact that he hadn't mentioned his legal/previous name that this person did not want to news of his death to reach people from elsewhere in his life.
Maybe he wanted privacy but didn't expect to die. He likely had someone in his life who is wondering what happened to him and I think it's good that people are trying to give them closure.
Why do those people deserve to know anything? They obviously haven't sought it out, and given he hadn't contacted them in years, it's completely pointless to assume they were close.
Answer: They don't.
Privacy should be respected, even in death. Especially in a case like this.
Having only read this article, is there somewhere else that you've read about the case to conclude that he has no family or friends who've been looking for him? It could be that they've been looking in the wrong place, or are older and not on the FB and other fora where this case is being discussed to connect the dots. And similarly, how can you conclude he hadn't contacted them in years (though it's obviously been years at this point), we know nothing of him prior to starting the hike in 2017.
How do you know? You didn’t know about MH case until now? 2years on. what’s not saying his parents are elderly and are not on the internet? That his friends are not recognising him due to the hiker association and maybe the beard and hat has altered his appearance a lot. Especially with the weight lost he would of experienced during the hike.
He wrote whole notebooks, that doesn’t scream I’m walking into woods to die and don’t want anyone to know. It was the AT and then the FL that’s hardly the wilderness.
He could of just been a private person and never thought he see the hikers again so didn’t give to much away. He could have experienced some sort of mental illness and wasn’t in his right mind to know what he wanted.
Without citing philosophers, how do you reach the conclusion that your identity, once dead, (and therefore your vital status) is a private information?
Privacy is for the living. The dead are instead owed respect. If he had wanted particular things to happen after his death he could have written a will. Absent that, I think it's reasonable that the people who found him do what they they think most respectful.
The duty of respect for the dead also doesn't trump the needs of the living. If there are people out there waiting for his return, they should be told. I know somebody who's son disappeared, presumably in shame, after he failed out of college. For years and years it hurt her daily to not know . Eventually he got back in touch. If he had died before doing that, she would have deserved to know that her wait was over.
His privacy is a really important issue. People have a right to disappear. No one has a right to take this away from someone else. You own your body.
People seems to excuse themselves trampling on others privacy just so they can be part of a podcast. It's lame. Your family doesn't own you, you don't own them.
> If he cared enough
This bit is wrong. He might have cared and he seems to have gone to great lengths to protect his privacy.
Points of thought
1) Some people think dead people have zero rights. You are in or out on this.
2) We don't know for sure he wanted to disappear after his death.
I think when one dies, his heirs or estate assume the rights of what to keep private or not. In this case, they need to find those individuals to notify them.
