How about this for the plot: Witness a high profile crime & then get a witness protection just to avoid getting tracked by FAANG! :)
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-01-18/woman-ruled-dead-in-2017...
Only if you don't violate the copyright of the dead person - which, depending on the country, can last 50 to 90+ years after the person's death. Thus to publish you'd have to get the right to do so from said person's estate.
There are many instances where private correspondence, etc. has been banned from publication/the public domain for this reason.
There are some resitcitions there, for example the Private letters and Diaries would still be covered under copyright and the estate of the person could come after you for Copyright violations if it was with in 70 years of their death.
Also the Estate of a person could absolutely sue you are defamation provided the Estate has a person actively working to police that activity and the resources to hire a lawyer to do it.
So your position that "dead people have no privacy" is really false as they have just as much privacy as people alive it is just most dead people do not have anyone around that will expend the resources to enforce it like a live person
The relatives of the deceased can sue you for defamation damages to their reputation (e.g. the widow might assert that the claim about her deceased husband damages her own personal reputation, and if so, perhaps she would have standing but only as far as her own name was slandered). The relatives or the estate can not successfully sue you for defamation of the deceased him/herself.
This is a decent precedent - https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/vol...
The situation in UK seems to be the same - https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2012/news/mps-rule-that-y...
This article lists many interesting famous situations from history - https://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/18/defaming-the-dead/
It's even possible that defamation that happened while the victim was alive gets ignored if they die before the case is settled - for example, Ohio code (http://oh.elaws.us/orc/2311.21) explicitly asserts that libel and slander cases (unlike pretty much everything else) should end in this case.
A famous case is Michael Jackson and the 2019 documentary "Leaving Neverland"; when he was alive, he successfully won a defamation case against Victor Gutierrez with a pretty much equivalent case, however, as this happened after his death, those managing his estate were not able to bring a defamation suit for this documentary because those defamation laws did not apply any more.
Law stackexhange has a quick summary at https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/28842/can-you-libel-...
Hmm, I wouldn't be so sure. Ancestry, FamilySearch, and other genealogical databases may yet have him in there, along with tons of information that ancestors literally voluntarily supply, including photos (for posterity). I see that as a good thing though. I can learn about my ancestors and see pictures of them and read stories about them.
What's on those sites is based off source materials. And those are generally disparate: oral witnesses, family members, documents found in private archives,... but also public records found in your city archives.
Where I live, different offices kept population records through out time e.g. city hall, the Church,... You can easily walk in, and access records from the 18th century and figure out when someone was born, who they married to and when they died.
However, legal provisions prohibit access to those public records pertaining to births, marriages and deaths which are less then 100 years old. Meaning you don't get access to lists of names of all everyone were born in 1936.
Why? Privacy for the living. e.g. someone could walk in and assert that your parents aren't your real parents.
Moreover, privacy legislation states that you need consent from living people before you can publish personal information regarding their names, addresses and so on. It means that even if someone passes away, you can't just publish that they were married or about their children if any of those are still alive.
Publishing pictures is even more fraught. You need consent from the person depicted, and consent from the photographer. That means ascertaining whether they are still alive, or getting consent from their estate in the case of the photographer. In the latter case, it might mean you may have to wait for 70 years after their death before those pictures enter the public domain. Genealogy websites allowing people to simply upload pictures without constraints expose themselves to copyright liability in that regard.
... and then there's the issue of how those legal provisions are upheld on the Internet. For instance, any ancestry/genealogy site who wants to operate in the EU has to comply with EU legislation including GDPR, copyright, right to be forgotten and so on.
For sure, being able to dig into your own ancestry and being able to rely on other people's work through digital technology is awesome. But, as with anything digital, it does come with the same challenges that confront any business case leveraging personal information.
TL;DR: Genealogy is fraught with legal challenges. You don't just get to publish, let alone scour and use those data without consent.
I wonder if at some point we'll see deep fake profiles being made like that for obfuscation. 40 accounts with my name on facebook, all with similar but different histories and similar but different friends and travel histories. One of them is the real one and the rest deep fakes. Instead of being lost in silence, we can lose ourselves in noise.