Slashdot Mirror
Apple Refuses To Unlock Bequeathed iPad
mrspoonsi writes "A man whose mother bequeathed her iPad to her family in her will says Apple's security rules are too restrictive. Since her death, they have been unable to unlock the device, despite providing Apple with copies of her will, death certificate and solicitor's letter. After her death, they discovered they did not know her Apple ID and password, but were asked to provide written consent for the device to be unlocked. Mr Grant said: 'We obviously couldn't get written permission because mum had died. So my brother has been back and forth with Apple, they're asking for some kind of proof that he can have the iPad. We've provided the death certificate, will and solicitor's letter but it wasn't enough. They've now asked for a court order to prove that mum was the owner of the iPad and the iTunes account.'"
Just hack it but what are the laws like UK over that??
Apple will do whatever it will takes to demove the family from getting the account access for the following reaons:
1) They want *new* account to inflate the user base.
2) By stalling the request increases the chance that the family decides it's not worth the pain.
3) They don't want to deal with similar cases in the future - there's no money on it. So it's important to them to avoid precedences.
Welcome to this brave new world, where companies decides what you own and the rights you have on it.
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
How dare that consumer act as though Apple's intellectual property was something she could just 'bequeath' because she's all dead or some sentimental rubbish? She should be grateful that they deigned to permit her a limited license!
... but didn't bequeath all her pr0n. The family could take ownership of the device by just wiping it. The stuff downloaded onto it is a different matter, and I think Apple is doing right by not unlocking it.
Did she bequeath the iPad or the apps/data on the iPad and the iTunes account to go with it? I'm pretty sure that even if the device is locked, that you can still do a factory reset on it and then have access to the iPad. Granted you would lose all the apps and data on the device, but you would still have the device to use as you wish.
If she bequeathed the iTunes account, then the account email and password should have been in the will or related documents, if not, then it's reasonable to assume she just left the hardware which you can reset and then have full use of.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
Do that, I will patiently await your investigation and that you return here and tell us all about the laws
It's lethal injection or the chair if you hack an iPad.
Those Apple lobbyists do a great job!
Wouldn't that be easier?
Apple is right, your mother gave you the iPad, not the data on it.
The data does not belong to Apple.
The iPad does not belong to Apple.
Apple should have no skin in this game, they don't own any part of it.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Because if not, it's not like any proof of the authenticity of their claim will make any difference at all.
If you ask me, I think that the necessary information about her itunes account and password, given that the device itself was bequeathed in her will anyways, should have been stored in a sealed envelope which accompanied the physical copy of the will.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It should be hard. The will may have said they could have the ipad. I didn't see anything about the data on it. Soon enough, it will be basic will-writing protocol to include any necessary keys to data as it is with access physical objects.
Wills aside, I'm glad to see one more hurdle in the social engineering chain.
Taking away your right to private property, one cloud at a time.
That's quite a silly argument. Apple does have a stake, precisely because of the data. When a person gives up their iPad in a will, they're giving it up WITH the data. Otherwise they would stipulate they are giving away just the iPad, and not the data on it. After all, how many people do you know who would pass you an iPad with the data still on it without clearing it, or instructing you to clear it if they trust you? If they didn't stipulate precisely what they were giving up, then it is obvious they meant the iPad with the data. Even the most free-spirited layperson I know just told me they wouldn't even give their tablet away with the data intentionally, so if they wrote a will they would say it was the data-wiped device they were giving away. And she's also a grandmother, almost 80 years old today.
By their request for proof, they have clearly indicated that they do in fact have that ability. Otherwise they'd have started and ended the conversation with a simple, "I'm sorry, but we do not have the capability to compromise any users security. Without the login information or passwords we are unable to assist you.". Or something equivalent.
A solicitor is the UK version of a lawyer.
For all you know? Doesn't seem like much.
I'm not sure what kind of real proof would be sufficient for you. DNA testing the screen along with the exhumed corpse of the mother?
My co-worker gave me his personal tablet to use for work purposes (app testing), with his photos and music still on it. He gave it for me and then took an assignment in another office and hasn't cared to ask for it back. I haven't looked to see if I could purchase with his appleId but I don't really care to even try. This kind of thing probably happens all the time, except in your narrow view of the world.
Most people don't give a second thought about privacy, especially when they don't have anything to hide, and I'd bet grandma had nothing to hide on that tablet.
Apple has once again proven their overbearing stranglehold on everything they touch.
Legally, the Executor of the will (or the appointed Administrator if there was no will), should be able to write that letter of consent, if Apple cretinously insists on having one - the Executor is acting on behalf of the Estate, and has similar powers and reponsibilities as a person with power of attorney.
Yet when governments demand that data be provided, all the fuss goes away and gives it easily.
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
Go to Apple store and
- Hello I don't remember my password, and, no, never synced the device since I've no computer
- Well we can reset it but you will lose all your data
Enjoy anew iPad
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
I was recently the Fiduciary, or executor, or an estate where an iPad was involved. I sent a letter, as the Fiduciary, along with my appointment papers, requesting the password, in order that a proper value of the iPod could be determined, which included the data on the iPad. Apple refused. I immediately made an appointment with the Judge of the Probate, and explained the situation. She immediately sent a letter to Apple, demanding that they supply or clear the password, or be charged with contempt of court. They sent the password. Thankfully, this is not a large area, population-wise, that this could be handled quickly. I can only imagine how difficult it could be in a large city.
Fundamentally, I see this as a security issue. If the deceased wanted someone to have the data on the iPad, she should have provided the means to have access to that data. You can't just bequeath it in a will and then expect everyone else to sort it out after you're gone. That's inconsiderate.
It's also hypocritical to hold a company up to high standards for maintaining security and user privacy, and then at the same time blame them for not just rolling over and handing over the means to decrypt that information. It's not Apple's responsibility to give the family that ability, but the owner of that content. If I have years of personal photos that I've encrypted and bequeathed to someone, I'm sure as hell not going to just say, "here, you get this hard drive full of encrypted memories, but good luck decrypting it--I'm taking the decryption keys to my grave." That's stupid.
Even if Apple can unlock that data and eventually does so, think about how that might look to some people, who would NOT want their heirs/family/descendants to have the means to rummage through their personal data. You see this happen all the time--families of the deceased try to weasel their way into secrets and intimate histories of those who died. If all it might take is some lawyers and potentially dubious documentation to get around a dead person's privacy, then I would think twice about leaving any personal data behind.
The mother is in the right place - she could have a word with Steve Jobs and all would get fixed. Shame he's not here on earth to kick ass for her now.
Artificial intelligence is the study of how to make real computers act like the ones in the movies.
If the security is so good that they need Apple to unlock it then they can easily prove that it's their mom's device because the active account on the device is her mom.
No idea who modded you "insightful" - no disrespect to you, I make 1000 silly mistakes a day, but looking at other people's texts/comments is always easier than judging your own words so I DO have some doubts about those who moderated this comment up. Unless someone can point out an error in my argument, but I think it's pretty obvious (well, obviously, otherwise I wouldn't have said it, wouldn't I).
Make note of the security question options such as:
In what city did your parents meet?
What is the first name of your best friend in High School?
What is the last name of your favorite elementary school teacher?
What is your dream job?
What is your favorite children's book?
What was the first album that you purchased?
What was the first film you saw in the theatre?
What was the first name of your first boss?
What was the first thing you learned to cook?
What was the model of your first car?
What was the name of the first beach you visited?
What was the name of your first pet?
What was your childhood nickname?
Where did you go the first time you flew in a plane?
Where were you on January 1, 2000?
Who was your favorite film star or character in school?
Who was your favorite singer or band in high school?
Who was your favorite teacher?
Wnat is the name of your favorite sports team?
Why was that marked insightful? You don't put the VIN number for the cars you own in your will either, nor do you put the serial numbers from each electrical appliance, watch or other worldly possessions. Why is it suddenly that this is on the family to prove for this particular type of device, A Will is a legal document, if Apple thinks the item might be stolen then it is on Apple to prove it, not the family.
It's also illegal to impersonate a solicitor/layer in both the US and UK; if it is a scam it went from petty theft to actual jail time and a $5000 fine.
Having one sign off is comparable to a Notary in the US witness and stamp a document.
It's only been a year or so since Mat Honan got all his Amazon, Google, and Apple data wiped because someone was able to trick their way into his accounts. Apple got castigated over that, and implemented a lot of extra security to try to prevent that sort of thing from happening again. Well, guess what? You can't have it both ways. One way or the other, there will be problematic edge cases - and this sort of thing is one of them.
#DeleteChrome
Apple is right, your mother gave you the iPad, not the data on it.
The data does not belong to Apple.
The iPad does not belong to Apple.
Apple should have no skin in this game, they don't own any part of it.
Actually, the box says "Your Apple iPad" inferring that Apple still own it and you're just using it. Besides this, your soul is the minimum price for any apple product. The bequeathed couldn't inherit this agreement as the agreement was for his grandmothers soul, he'll need to bequeath his soul to Apple (signed in blood, in triplicate) before they can do anything.
Jokes aside here, Apple is just being a dick, which is really what we can expect from Apple. The inheritor is legally entitled to the data on that device (as they would to any other intellectual properties like writings, patents and works of art created by the deceased) and Apple have the capacity to unlock the device (which is scary enough on its own) but refuse to do so because, because, shut up, thats why.
Also this is in the UK, consumer protection will not be kind to Apple.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Except by your reasoning the entire drive would need to be wiped before it could be turned over.
Any journals written by the person would also need to be erased somehow, since according to you, they turned over the journal not what was written in it.
Apple has a feature called activation lock. Basically the phone checks with Apple's servers to see which Apple ID the hardware was registered to, and will refuse to work unless the previous user first logs into the web interface and removes the lock.
Clearly, Apple cannot afford to take the risk. Why, if they give in just this one time, they set the stage for this family to become kingpins of crime. All they would need is a steady flow of cadavers, forged legal documents, lawyers, and stolen iPads, any of which these sort of experience criminals could find fenced for a-dime-a-dozen.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
They've now asked for a court order to prove that mum was the owner of the iPad and the iTunes account.
The fact the iPad is synced to the iTunes account is evidence they are owned by one and the same person.
The iTunes account has the full name, address, and credit card information of the owner on it (unless she never bought apps). That credit card account is legally tied to the deceased. Apple already holds the evidence in their own fucking billing system.
Well she gave the iPad but not the data in the cloud ... she may be using that now that she is up there.l
Does the UK have anything like Power of Attorney in place that the executer of the estate would have to in fact say that for all legal purposes they ARE the deceased?
Just hack it but what are the laws like UK over that??
The idea is that you can't.
My co-worker gave me his personal tablet to use for work purposes (app testing), with his photos and music still on it.
I can understand if you don't care about the data, but I would still advise you to take a quick look at the pictures and possibly at the browsing history to make sure that you don't need to coat this thing with Purell (or dip it in rubbing alcohol).
Any Geeksquad veteran will tell you that there is a surprisingly large number of people who do ungodly things with their iPads (and I don't mean taking pictures of their tuna salad at Applebees).
You have to be careful with "second hand" devices...
lucm, indeed.
I'm guessing that the GP has never had to deal with a will or death issue of a family member and the transfer of items from the dead to the living. It's not a pretty process, and in a lot of families it's usually only one or two people who end up dealing with this.
Om, nomnomnom...
Too early?
Table-ized A.I.
Does the UK have that stupid digital-lock law? If so, it would be a crime to break the lock even if it was otherwise legal.
The iPad is synced to an iTunes account and since it's locked and no one can open it we know it's the account of the owner of the device. The iTunes account is tied to a credit or debit card is it not? Otherwise the owner would not have been able to get any apps for the iPad. Even free apps require some way to legally verify the "purchaser" is in the location they say they are for licensing reasons.
The bank account/line of credit is legally tied to the deceased. Seems to me Apple is sitting on the very proof they are requiring of the family.
One way or the other, there will be problematic edge cases - and this sort of thing is one of them.
It may be problematic for Apple, but it's not the family's responsibility to resolve it.
Apple chose to hold the keys to other people's valuables. They are responsible for making them available when needed.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
In most English speaking countries outside the US, the concept of 'lawyer' is split into two types of people: solicitors and barristers (though some individuals may practice law as both). Links above explain the difference.
This is indefensible behavior. Apple are being assholes.
Quite the contrary. The Customer is in the wrong, since she did not stipulate to be buried clutching her iPad but instead to pass it on to other beings.
She can't be of the One True Apple Faith, thus she's a heretic.
In the old minicomputer days, there was a practice to create a new root level account, take it's name and password and put them in a drawer in a sealed envelope. If say some admin changed the root password and went on vacation, you took the envelope out, logged in, changed the root password, deleted the account and created a new alternate account with a new envelope.
Of course she would have to change her will ( the envelope ) each time she changed her password. Plus people generally don't think of such things.
The children either want to avoid full probate because of the expense or need to get a new attorney familiar with whatever the affidavit of small estate alternative process is for their jurisdiction.
Sometimes, I just don't understand the Lawyer outlook of the world. If everything is working smoothly between family members, there ought to be no reason whatsoever to involve lawyers, courts, and extra expenses. Yes, there will always be some people who need a legal mediator... but there will always be people who don't need the extra expense and headache.
The idea that the world runs because lawyers exist, and that we must therefore thank them for making life difficult, is perverse and detrimental to society. Sometimes, in order to be helpful, the profession just needs to get out of the way.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Granted Apple would like that, another sale to boost the bottom line. But why would anyone waste spending $1500 or more in basic legal and court fees for an older/used $300~$400 device.
One way or the other, there will be problematic edge cases - and this sort of thing is one of them.
Yep.
This is a case of "silly grandma" for not writing down the password. Not Apple's problem.
No sig today...
Did you miss the part of the summary where the legal executor sent a letter to Apple confirming her as legally dead?
That is the definition under UK law of proving that somebody has died.
...first, there may be content of value on the iPad, like photos or something...
What matters is not photos or something, for Apples, so long as there is no profit to be made, they do not care.
Furthermore, the family only a simple garden variety family of peons, and anything short of the NSA (and/or GCHQ) Apple won't give a rat ass about anything.
It isn't about whether the iPad can be unlocked or not ~ of course Apple can unlock it with ease ( Apple, like any other American companies, must engineer in at least a backdoor in all their products to be utilized by the NSA), it's about the snobbish attitude of Apple towards its customers.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Yep. That sounds like a working security model.
You're right.
If Apple can't plan for a common contingency like this in their security model, then they shouldn't choose to be in control of other people's property.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
I detest Apple but I think they have a point here. If you buy an iPad, you get ownership and the right to transfer the ownership of that iPad. However, when you buy an app, you buy a personal right to use the app. This right is not transferable. If it was, there would be a lively secondary market in apps. The fact that the owner dies does not make the apps transferable either. I assume the will only mentions transference of ownership of the iPad (which is valid) and maybe the apps (which is invalid). If the will doesn't mention other data, they will need a court order. Apple just wants to protect itself but as usual does it in their own arrogant and insensitive way.
Now they just need to prove that the person that died is the person that owned the iPad.
A will is a legal document but it's not in force unless someone petitions the court on behalf of the estate (usually the appointed executor).
The children did not do that.
That is why you can't take a will to the DMV to get an automobile title changed..
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
Jokes aside here, Apple is just being a dick, which is really what we can expect from Apple. The inheritor is legally entitled to the data on that device (as they would to any other intellectual properties like writings, patents and works of art created by the deceased) and Apple have the capacity to unlock the device (which is scary enough on its own) but refuse to do so because, because, shut up, thats why.
So...Apple should unlock devices for anybody who calls them and says "grandma died!"?
No sig today...
Apple is just being a dick, which is really what we can expect from Apple. The inheritor is legally entitled to the data on that device (as they would to any other intellectual properties like writings, patents and works of art created by the deceased) and Apple have the capacity to unlock the device (which is scary enough on its own) but refuse to do so because, because, shut up, thats why.
Or maybe Apple is complying with the law? They have not said no, they have said show us something from a judge. In the US we have probate courts that handle transferring owner of property as stated in a will.
Frankly, it would be more of a security vulnerability to reset a password because you got a letter from a lawyer than instructions from a judge. A letter from a lawyer is social engineering (persuasion), even when real. It lacks legal authority, unlike instructions from a judge. Plus judges orders can be verified.
So...Apple should unlock devices for anybody who calls them and says "grandma died!"?
Didn't read the summary huh, he presented Apple with the will, a legal document that transferred ownership. The only thing that has more power than that is a letter from the Executor accompanying the will.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
They're not. They're in charge with helping you regain control of your own property.
The point here, as has been pointed out here, is that Apple wants proof that the deceased woman in question is, in fact, the owner of that Apple ID. Yes, it's more than a little draconian, and they should have better means of making that connection other than a freaking court order, but the fact of the matter is that security and convenience are on a sliding scale, and while it may be just a tad too far towards security, they're still trying to look out for their customers.
My sig can beat up your sig.
Apple have no legal standing here as a properly written will IS a legal document with the authority to transfer ownership
I don't think the will itself has any authority to transfer ownership. Rather it is the probate court that has such authority and the will is the instructions to the probate court on how such transfers are to be made.
Apple may be complying with the law by requiring instructions from a probate court.
This is a case of "silly grandma" Not Apple's problem.
I believe you're thinking the way Apple's thinking. It's great you're on the same page with them.
Me, I'm thinking about what it'd be like if my mum or dad died and left me their documents in a storage facility. I'd want to be able to read their recipes, look at the photo albums, read letters they'd saved. I'd expect to be able to do that with reasonable ease by providing the same level of proof I'd need to take possession of all the other goods they left to me.
Pretty much what the family has already provided.
If the vendor then chose to deny me access and insist I get a court order, I'd be unhappy, angry and deeply disappointed. And I very certainly would never use that vendor again, and I'd warn everybody I could to stay away from that vendor.
So I think we all owe Josh Grant a vote of thanks for speaking up and warning us about this heartless company. Anyone who values their family's thoughts and images should avoid buying their product, and warn their friends and family away from it as well.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
And Apple asked for proof the Apple account and iPad they're claiming are hers are actually hers. My grandma died recently too; should I be able to send Apple proof of her death along with her will bequeathing me an iPad and have Apple give me access to YOUR Apple ID and all your devices? [Assume for the sake of argument that you have one.]
Have you ever dealt with a death? None of those proof you are the executor. You get a specific document from the courts saying that, yes, this person is by law able to take possession of all of the estate, and distribute it as per the will.
The death certificate just says "this person died".
The will just says 'if I die, id like my possessions to be distributed this way"
A solicitor can write whatever they want. My solicitor wrote a letter I should get all of Job's online content, but they didn't listen to him either.
The only thing that matters is the document saying you are assigned to execute the will and handle all estate matters.
That makes it easy
1. Inherit IPAD
2. Join Police force
3. Profit
It serves everyone right for blindly walking into this situation. Digital content could be regarded as property but it isn't. I suspect the argument made by content owners is that anyone make a copy of a file whereas it takes too much effort to copy a physical item and the copy is imperfect.
But that's not really a good argument. We've already seen from the likes of digital libraries, Ultraviolet etc. that DRM protecting content is viable. The problem is that the DRM is focussed on protecting the content owners, not the individual. So when I buy a video and watch through Ultraviolet, the services offers no way for me to sell my content, or loan it, or even back it up.
What is necessary is content neutral DRM that imbues digital content with characteristics similar to physical content. e.g. when I buy an e-book it should be MY book. How could it do that? Well the book could be encrypted against a key held in a token. The token is given to me and I install it onto my registered devices. I can read the book on any of those devices. If I wish to sell the book, then I transfer the token to someone else and my devices lose the ability to read the book. Now within reason it is essentially property - there is only one readable copy of the book at any given time. I can also sell, loan, donate or bequeath the book by using the service to give the token to someone else. The system could facilitate permanent or temporary transfer of tokens. It could even incorporate a form of "wear and tear" by slowing down the time taken to transfer tokens based on how much they were transferred previously, e.g. a book which has been loaned 100 times might much longer to complete transfer of ownership which would incentivize services to buy new copies.
Aside from allowing people to actually own books or other content, it has other benefits. Many countries treat a license as software and slap a tax on it that other forms of content escape. If I wasn't buying a license but the actual book then I would benefit from the lower rates of tax that apply and the store that sells those books does so for less money. I can move my content to other, better devices, or back it up or do anything else I like with it subject to normal copyright laws.
The problem of course is the likes of Apple, Google, Amazon etc. don't want people to own content and they certainly don't want people to be able to move it around. Therefore it needs someone strong like the EU to define what digital property actually is, the formats it should be in, the framework it must implement and then compel or incentivize platforms to support it.
Didn't read the summary huh, he presented Apple with the will, a legal document that transferred ownership. The only thing that has more power than that is a letter from the Executor accompanying the will.
For security to be 100% secure, Apple shouldn't even have the ability to unlock the device without the right AppleId and password. If Apple can't unlock my iPad, then I'd hope that some common thief can't unlock it, and the NSA can't unlock it. If Apple can unlock it, then thief and NSA might be able to do it as well.
But also if there is a simple and convenient way for the legal owner to ask Apple to unlock a device, then there is also a simple and convenient way for thief's and NSA to ask Apple to unlock the device.
Are you stupid or just willfully ignorant? Have you heard about the part about furnishing legal documents to prove they were the rightful heirs? This isn't a social engineering hack via telephone. If a thief wants go through this process, he'd also get charges of wire fraud or mail fraud on top of it.
I also hate to break it to you, but one could use the same legal process to do the same to your house, car, banking and retirement accounts. Now you won't be able to sleep at night knowing that all your major assets are not covered by a "working security model".
What else is new? Human interest takes a back seat to Apple's interests. I'd suggest they have no respect for the dead, but in this case, they are respecting the will of Jobs by carrying on as he would.
(yeah yeah, troll modding here I come. He was pretty famous for being a major ass.)
Actually, the box says "Your Apple iPad" inferring that Apple still own it and you're just using it.
Disingenuous bullshit. Ford don't own your car, yet it says 'Ford' right there on the front grille!
Putting all that aside - I'd hate anyone who could look at a dead mothers will and decide to enforce an EULA over a piece of plastic with metal that happened to contain information the children could hold dear. It's just wrong.
It's not a EULA. It is an anti-theft protection measure that the user took themselves. If I forget the password to my keychain, all information is gone. I would be very, very upset if Apple even had the ability to unlock my keychain. iPads can be protected by requiring anyone to have the Apple ID and password to unlock it. Great theft deterrence.
So... all it takes to hack an Apple account is to send them a letter on official-looking paper?
I'll stick with "court order", thanks.
No sig today...
Technically correct, but pragmatically useless. Devices running iOS 7 with Find my iWhatever enabled will not be able to activate, even after a DFU restore, without the original Apple ID and password. The only way around this I know of would be to have an A4 device with the requisite SHSH blobs to downgrade below iOS 7.0, and whether one could then change the Apple ID and restore to iOS 7 I don't know.
FC Closer
If the vendor then chose to deny me access and insist I get a court order, I'd be unhappy, angry and deeply disappointed. And I very certainly would never use that vendor again, and I'd warn everybody I could to stay away from that vendor.
So your mum or dad went to the storage facility. They were worried that someone could break in and steal their stuff, or that someone could trick the storage facility into handing over their stuff. The storage facility offered this security feature: They took a photo of mum and dad, gave them a key, and promised that 100% nobody would get the things except if they match one of the photos and have the key.
If Apple can't plan for a common contingency like this in their security model, then they shouldn't choose to be in control of other people's property.
They aren't in control. The user is in control. It's an anti-theft protection that the user has to turn on themselves. Once they do that, they mustn't forget the password. Or leave it in a will. Like if you don't write the number of your secret Swiss bank account.
If the vendor then chose to deny me access and insist I get a court order, I'd be unhappy, angry and deeply disappointed. And I very certainly would never use that vendor again, and I'd warn everybody I could to stay away from that vendor.
Would you feel "unhappy, angry and deeply disappointed" if Apple handed your account over to the first hacker who sent them a letter on embossed paper?
Apple has a procedure in place for this situation, all you have to do is follow it. You may not like the procedure but it exists for a reason.
No sig today...
A safe is usually inside a building so ownership of the safe is clear.
An Apple account in the cloud? Not so much.
No sig today...
Yep. Granny might have left the iPad but withheld the password for a reason.
It would be sooooo funny if they went through the whole court procedure and found a load of granny-porn on there (and not much else!)
No sig today...
Gender and age mean nothing as far as hardcore stuff goes.
A long time ago I was working as a field tech in a large organization, and the most disturbing collection of hardcore porn that we ever found was on a laptop belonging to a lady in her late 50s. It was a company laptop, not her own.
Some of the stuff was so bad that the cops were called. I was not the one doing the inventory but I remember the face of the dude who did, and I bet he still has nightmares. I won't get into too much details, let's just say that some of the files on that computer would have come up if someone had done a keywords search for "rape" AND "diapers".
lucm, indeed.
Why was that marked insightful? You don't put the VIN number for the cars you own in your will either, nor do you put the serial numbers from each electrical appliance, watch or other worldly possessions. Why is it suddenly that this is on the family to prove for this particular type of device, A Will is a legal document, if Apple thinks the item might be stolen then it is on Apple to prove it, not the family.
That doesn't make sense. If you want Apple to do anything, then it is obviously up to you to demonstrate why Apple should to it. If Apple is asked to unlock your stolen device, do you think the thief should be able to say "it's up to Apple to prove it's stolen, not up to me to prove it isn't"?
Apple should have no skin in this game, they don't own any part of it.
Apple would be (rightfully) slaughtered if they had policies that made it easy for every crook to get a stolen iPad unlocked. So yes, they absolutely have the right to care about this.
>
If Apple can't plan for a common contingency like this in their security model, then they shouldn't choose to be in control of other people's property.
They HAVE planned for it (duh!)
Their plan was to require a court order, ie. a judge looks at their paperwork and signs off on it as "genuine".
No sig today...
The tools for resetting the firmware on an ipad can be found with a simple search. Worst case, jail break it.
And after that who cares what apple says.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Written authorization from the executor of the estate should be all that's required, as s/he is the legal representative of the deceased for the purpose of winding up the estate.
If the license says "non transferable" then that's the end of the discussion.
Not in the UK or EU. Digital sales are treated as sales, not licenses. Doesn't matter what the EULA says, if the said "buy this song" or "purchase app" then you have full consumer protection rights and full legal ownership of the copy. You can sell your legally purchased MP3s.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
What lawyers? Have you seen their accreditation? It's just a piece of paper after all...
They could change the password for the account and give that password to the family, pretty simple really.
Does the UK have that stupid digital-lock law?
Nope.
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
Incorrect. Bought a friends ipad air, I did a complete wipe and DFU restore. IT came up as a "new" ipad, and I was able to giv it my credentials. I never had to know my friends information at all.
They can simply wipe the ipad using any of the well documented techniques online and restore it to Out of the box condition. This has been the case for every single ipad from ipad 1 to current.
Otherwise used ipad sales would drop like a rock as you will need the original purchaser's credentials to ever use it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Let's look at this another way. In the United States if I am the executor of an estate I can get full access to any assets with a certified Death Certificate and copy of the Executor Letter. Any bank will accept that, so why won't Apple?? BTW: The Executor Letter is a court order. Personally I think Apple is being a corporate dick in this case.
"We'll cross the minefield under the cover of daylight..." -A. Rimmer
Bingo!
I have a red envelope in my safe that has ALL my usernames and passwords for everything I own and every account I have online. and Yes I update it quarterly.
If I am dead, I need to give the executors of my estate full control over everything with the least hassle, and that is in the clear written down on the piece of paper in that red envelope.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
What lawyers? Have you seen their accreditation? It's just a piece of paper after all...
Dewey, Cheatem and Howe.
I have read most of the comments up until now. Frankly, most seem as if they were written by a bunch of Apple haters.
The article clearly states that while Apple acknowledges the woman is dead and the person to be the executor of her account, they require a court order and/or proof she is the rightful owner of the device. Why?
We have no reason to doubt the the executor or the heirs that the device belonged to her. But, being unable to provide the unlock code to her iPad nor her Apple Id and associated password (which, could instantly demonstrate it was her device via their FindMyIPhone service), Apple is unwilling to unlock it. They demand further proof of ownership (or, prior ownership).
Why?
First, there are DRM considerations. When a person uses an Apple device and "purchases" certain products through iTunes, they have a non-transferable license to use that material. Unlocking the device, without court order, could subject Apple to litigation by the owners of the DRM software.
Let's assume that the person presenting the iDevice is the legal heir to the device (i.e. it belonged to the deceased and bequeathed to them). Apple is asking for a court order directing them to access the device and remove their legal liability for providing such access to the data on the device and the the violation of privacy. If it were a house or vault, would you not want to make sure that the person you are giving the keys has a legal right to enter the premises?
Next, let's consider the owner has email accounts. The iDevice will, likely, automatically access those email accounts. Services such as FaceBook, Yahoo!, Hotmail, and GMail try to protect the ownership of the private content of those systems - people have a right to an expectation of privacy - even after death. It's in their terms of service. As an heir, you may or may not have a legal right to access those accounts of the deceased individual.
Just last year, I think it was, there was a case where the family of a deceased soldier wanted access to his email. It was denied by the company until a court order was granted.
If Apple unlocks the device and such services are accessed without human interaction (originally, the grandmother had access since she knew the code), you have just violated her privacy (dead or not). Would YOU want to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit where there was information in those private accounts that caused harm to another individual she communicated with via those email accounts? Perhaps, she had a secret life and wanted it kept that way? Maybe she was the mistress of a married man and the disclosure would bring that to light, destroy what was left of his marriage, or open him to a civil litigation? Or, maybe, even a claim against the family of the deceased woman which might go after her assets.
We all kick and scream here about privacy. And, when a company, such as Apple ACTUALLY tries to do the right thing in protecting it, they are scorned and hated. That's why I say it sounds like most of the posts here are from Apple haters.
Let the family produce a court order to have Apple access the device. Apple can look up the serial number (assuming she registered the device) and find the associated Apple ID. And, one would presume they could then unlock the device if in their physical possession (assuming, there isn't some master unlock command they can send). They would, legally, have to wipe the DRM material from the devices or follow other instructions in the court order. And, to keep themselves out of trouble, delete the email accounts and other apps that might automatically log in to a private system BEFORE turning it over to the Executor (unless, the court order grants them legal and civil protection).
Pictures and documents might be stored on cloud services vs on the device itself. In that former case, I hope the family has the passwords to those services so they can access them.
As I get older, I realize that there is a possibility I could die anytime
It's only been a year or so since Mat Honan got all his Amazon, Google, and Apple data wiped because someone was able to trick their way into his accounts. Apple got castigated over that, and implemented a lot of extra security to try to prevent that sort of thing from happening again. Well, guess what? You can't have it both ways. One way or the other, there will be problematic edge cases - and this sort of thing is one of them.
Apple has to stand their ground here, otherwise they would be promoting murder. Who wouldn't kill their grandma to get an ipad?
Apple has a part in making sure their locks are good. If I lose my passcode to my iPad I'm out of luck. Regardless of how compelling the story is it doesn't change their unlocking policy. If they could convince the police that grandma was involved in some sort of illegal activity and get a court order they may have better luck.
Incorrect. Bought a friends ipad air, I did a complete wipe and DFU restore. IT came up as a "new" ipad, and I was able to giv it my credentials. I never had to know my friends information at all.
Then your friend had never registered it with iCloud.
They can simply wipe the ipad using any of the well documented techniques online and restore it to Out of the box condition.
No, they can't. Go try this with your iPad Air:
1) Make sure you can find it via Find My iPhone, if not, get it registered with iCloud
2) Back it up
3) DFU it
4) Reinstall it
The first thing it will do is say "hey, this iPad is registered with iCloud, you need to enter that user's password before you can do anything with it".
>> You're saying they should just hand over the keys to anybody who calls claiming "grandma died"?
>
> Yep. That sounds like a working security model.
There are these things called legal documents. They establish ownership of personal property and can allow for transfer of such property. Been like this for centuries. Millenia even.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
this article justifies my reasoning to give up on apple products. they make great products but when its comes to solving problems, you're pretty much screwed. I've had similar situations. Other than hardware reset of the devices (and losing content), I've received no help from apple.
I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
This is why it is vitally important to have *TWO* wills for any piece of electronic equipment, the open one and the sealed one. The sealed one contains the passwords.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Perhaps, but anything not belonging to third parties DOES belong to the deceased and should be bequethed as directed.
Now, getting a court order in a case like this should be trivial: the order is quite specific, the motion to the court to make the order simple, and the evidence clear.
In Liberty, Rene
Why not just get access to the email address and send the password reset. Now you have access to the device password and password access to device. It's not that complicated.
Well journals couldn't be secured that much in the old days. Now we can hence we have no excuse not to respect the privacy of the dead.. Following ur logic if u found a journal which had a lock in it u wud still have had to break it if u were not given the key. Hence breaking in :)
I can't speak for data ownership for the others but at least Google has its Inactive Account Manager which lets you "will" your data to someone else. You can also, at any time, download all your photos, video, and other content using Google Takeout.
I can't speak for data ownership for the others but at least Google has its Inactive Account Manager [google.com] which lets you "will" your data to someone else. You can also, at any time, download all your photos, video, and other content using Google Takeout [google.com].
Which doesn't help you if you don't have the username and password. If the sons had the Apple Id and Password, there would be no problem. Let me summarise what actually happens:
1. If you use a passcode (4 digit PIN or more) and forget it, nobody can access the data on your device anymore. However, you may be able to reset the device.
2. If you haven't turned no theft protection ("Find my iDevice") you can always wipe the device, So you just have a new, empty device. If "Find my iDevice" is turned on then you need the AppleId + Password to wipe the device.
3. If you wiped the device, have AppleId + Password, and used the free iCloud backup, then all the data can be restored from the cloud.
It seems that "Find my iPad" was turned on and they don't have AppleId + Password.
You mean like a court order, which is an official looking piece of paper....dumb ass.
I would never claim even close to 100% security (in fact, when I hear that term, "100% secure", it is something that means Murphy (or Muphry [sic]) is right around the corner.
However, I do like the fact that Android uses dm-crypt. AFIAK, the standard is well documented, well tried and true, and doesn't have any backdoors in it. Of course, they can be added, but for any disk encryption implementation, it is as good as it gets. iOS encrypts as well, but I am leery of its "magic chips" that control the keys, as opposed to just typing in a long passphrase on device bootup, then using a short screen lock PIN when the device is running. (You can separate the two via a root app or via "su -c vdc cryptfs changepw newpass" on a root ADB shell.) I am far more confident that my insanely long passphrase (similar to "correct horse battery staple") will do a decent job in warding off a brute force attack, than trusting a chip which I know has a backdoor in it.
Of course, there are remote attack vectors, but on a local level, dm-crypt is pretty secure.
LMOL ok moron...yeah that's planning....where is this listed that you need a court order. Let's see that advertised. Google should be drawing up commercials, "you don't need a court order to bequeath your android device to your loved ones"....
No they don't have a procedure. If they did they would have instructions about transferring an iPad to someone else. But yeah Apple is going to get deluged with a bunch of official looking letters....FYI a court order is an official looking paper. Pinhead.
That may be true, but I don't see how you giving someone your iPad creates an obligation on the part of a 3rd party to help you read it. If you're going to give someone your iPad after you die, give them the password, too. Maybe dear old mum is quite happy for them to have the physical device, but didn't want her children pawing through her digital life. Who is Apple to decide that?
Quite possibly. Were I Apple, I'd want to help out, but I also wouldn't want to set the precedent that you can call me up and ask me to unlock someone else's device and I'll do it. Now if you give me solid legal cover, like, oh, say...a court order, then absolutely I can help you out.
It would not be the first time the deceased left a will with a prank inside. Given the vulture-like disposition of some relatives, she might have left the map to her fortune inside the iPad. I would. Without the password, the data would be lost, as the password is used to encrypt the data.
Bullshit. If his mother had left him her journal, which had a lock on it, would you consider it reasonable that a locksmith refuse to open the journal based on the same argument?
This idea that the "data" is somehow magically separate and distinct from the device is as ridiculous as Descartes idea of mind-body dualism.
Or to put it another way: If they found a piece of paper with her password on it, unlocked the device and sold all the pictures on it, would this be illegal? According to your theory yes, as they don't "own" that data.
They own the physical device, including the configuration of electrons contained within that device. Apple not allowing them access to that configuration is a convenient fashion is just a jerk move by Apple. Luckily now that this is getting some press, the will likely back down. It's unfortunate that this is what it takes for people to do the right thing nowadays though....
No, but you also can't call the manufacturer and insist they unlock it for you. If they happen to offer that service, sure, you can use it, but the manufacturer might very reasonably require you to prove you have the legal authority to do so, which is pretty much what Apple is doing.
Christ have you read any of this thread or even TFA? It's in England there is no probate!
From wiki:
...
"A representative example of a complete probate clause, from the 14th century (or earlier) onwards
"This will was proved at London before the worshipful Sir Richard Raines, knight, Doctor of Laws, Master Keeper or Commissary of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, lawfully constituted, on the twenty third day of the month of June in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred and ninety seven, by the oath of Mary Bathurst, relict and executrix named in the said will, to whom administration was granted of all and singular the goods, rights and credits of the said deceased, sworn on the holy Gospel of God to well and faithfully administer the same. It has been examined"."
More like.. Here at google, you don't need a court order to get access to accounts you don't own, we give that information away to anyone!
I subscribe to a service called PrimeCuts. It's a service that gets music in the hands of mobile DJs and radio stations, with the full blessing of the RIAA (not that I necessarily desire to be in the RIAA's good graces, but if the Tannenbaum and Thomas-Rasett cases prove anything, it's that they aren't fair regarding noncommercial infringement, thus, commercial infringement in the context of being a mobile DJ would involve that much less fairness...). I cannot (legally) sell the CDs they send me on eBay. I'm pretty sure I can't even legally give them away, for free, even as a permanent transfer. My only recourse, should I wish to absolve myself of the CDs, is to sell my DJ business. The discs are a business asset and they can be permanently transferred as a part of the whole business being transferred, but not as discs by themselves. I think that there is merit to some sort of parallel in this case.
Usual not-a-lawyer disclaimers apply, but my logical reasoning says that a permanent transfer of the iTunes account would allow for digital content to be used by the beneficiary of the will. The apps/music/videos are still tied to the same iTunes account and aren't being transferred between accounts (a requirement for your 'secondary market' analogy to apply), but the account is being used by the beneficiary of the will. Now, for this to work, there needs to be a few things determined:
1.) is digital content given to an account, or a human?
1a.) If account, is it a reasonable argument that since the iPad was left, that the account is an inexorable part of the device? e.g. if a house is stated in a will, but the keys are not, is the beneficiary thus not allowed to enter the house?
1b.) If human, does the Apple EULA explicitly state that the rights cannot be transferred within a will? If so, it seems grounds for a court battle, since intellectual property is transferred all the time as a part of a will - art, vinyl records, DVDs, computer software on plastic disc, etc. Is there sufficient legal precedent to state that content purchased from Apple is not subject to the same laws that allow DVDs to be subject to the terms of the will?
2.) Could it be argued that the only reason this case exists is because there is a passcode on the device, without which, Apple probably wouldn't have been contacted in the first place?
3.) It is entirely possible that there are notes, voice memos, photos, and videos that were generated by the deceased, not by Apple or its licensors. Apple's withholding of the passcode prevents the user from accessing that data, which seems like shaky ground as well.
Then again, this is the problem with 'magic boxes' - people don't quite understand exactly how things interrelate, which means that things that aren't explicitly specified are subject to ambiguity for no reason.
Resorting to name calling because your argument is weak, is pretty typical. Apple has a procedure in place for this situation, it's codified in a giant set of books entitled "LAW". Follow them, and it works.
Uh no. It will give you access to many things and help pave the way. If the policy of a company is not disclose the information without a court order, the Executor can request one on behalf of the Estate. If the court agrees the request is reasonable (in this case, it probably is), you get the order. Just make sure to file in the right jurisdiction so the order will be followed. Often, this is based on the state where the company filed their incorporation papers.
That's why you designate an Executor in your Will and Last Testament. The Executor doesn't have to be a family member so the responsibility doesnt have to fall upon a grieving family. Executorship gives them the legal authority to act on the deceased's behalf with the courts. But, I am not sure that every state or other countries have to honor that authority. And, if you don't have a Will, the responsibility goes to the State's Probate Court - seldom a good idea. Write a Will and assign an Executor.
If I could hatch and execute a plan like this, you can bet that I would set my sights on a prize a little bigger than a few 400 dollar iPads.
as long as you can unlock the device its self easy enough assuming she just has the stock unlock style. you connect the ipod to a 3rd party soft where to dump the mp3s and data. then go ahead and just reflash the ipad under a different account then send all the data back i have done this.
The tools for resetting the firmware on an ipad can be found with a simple search. Worst case, jail break it.
And after that who cares what apple says.
Since iOS 7 if you DFU restore a locked iPad it will be bricked without the Apple ID that locked it. This is an anti-theft measure installed after they had major criticism for their security being too lax.
I have fond memories of the good old days when I packed up all that Apple crap and sold it.
They are not obligated to violate any contacts they had with the deceased. They also are not obligated to violate the person's privacy.
With no explicit permission how is Apple to know that the dead person was going to be ok with their family trampling thru her files, browsing history, email? its one thing to give out the device, but its another to give out the data and should be spelled out explicitly.
As a compromise Apple could either remote wipe it for them, or give them a new one. I support their stance to keep private data, well private.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
He was distinguishing between official looking and actually official. I'm sorry that was too subtle for you
Apple should have no skin in this game
In which case they should just walk away... but wait. They are being asked to provide access to it. Guess they are back in the game, by specific request.
In which case it is not unreasonable that they ask for proof over who exactly owns it.
Apple an reset the password is nothing else.
But that's not the issue.Apple isn't saying they can't, they are saying they don't want to.
"But also if there is a simple and convenient way for the legal owner to ask Apple to unlock a device"
So having a will, a death certificate, a solicitor, and willing to personally meet with Apple is now simple and convenient?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
They have all the freaking documentation they need to prove that gramma died!!! QUIT BEING A TROLL!!!! >:(
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
I'd be surprised if there were no way to bypass that.
You know apple has a backdoor. If you gave them a locked machine they could unlock it. Which means there is a backdoor...
I haven't looked into it recently so you could be entirely correct. But I'd be very surprised if you can't root a locked ipad.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Because they sold a metal safe that can be unlocked with a proprietary key and they're the ones holding the key. If you wish to make yourself the keymaster, you're opening yourself up to being asked to do some unlocking once in a while.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I'd be surprised if there were no way to bypass that.
You know apple has a backdoor. If you gave them a locked machine they could unlock it. Which means there is a backdoor...
I haven't looked into it recently so you could be entirely correct. But I'd be very surprised if you can't root a locked ipad.
The "backdoor" is the Apple ID - you need that password to bypass the lock. Apple obviously has this (well, they have a hash of your password and the ability to reset it). If they want to unlock it all they have to do is reset the password to the Apple ID. They don't need a special backdoor to get around this.
This feature was added because of the massive theft problem and the "easy" way to circumvent the security - just restoring the device then, boom, you have a new iPad/iPhone that you can sell on.
Now the Apple ID that is entered when "Find my iPhone/iPad" is turned on (and it's on by default, or at least you are prompted during setup to turn it on) you absolutely cannot restore the device without it. You can get as far as wiping the device, but from then on it will be impossible to restore it in working condition since the installer will fail the server check because the device is locked. It will prompt you to put in the Apple ID and password.
It used to be far more trivial to convince Apple to do a password reset, but it resulted in a social engineering security breach, so now they are *much* more stringent about it.
Now, as to whether you can root a locked iOS 7 device to get around this, I have no idea.
So having a will, a death certificate, a solicitor, and willing to personally meet with Apple is now simple and convenient?
It has entered this thread quite late, but there is a big problem: If the old lady hadn't died, and had forgotten her Apple Id and password and went to the Apple Store, Apple wouldn't just reset the iPad. They would want some serious proof that it is really hers, and that she isn't trading in stolen iPads. That's the point of "Find my iDevice". Making it hard for crooks to access stolen iPads, which is unfortunate if the legal user forgets his password.
Now even with will, death certificate, and solicitors, the heirs can at most prove that they have the rights to the iPad that the mother used to have. But that might still mean no rights at all, if the iPad was stolen. They'd still have to proof that their mother was the legitimate owner in the first place.
Apple has to stand their ground here, otherwise they would be promoting murder. Who wouldn't kill their grandma to get an iPad?
If your cynical like that... A slightly less cynical scenario: Thief steals an iPad but finds it is locked. Now by bad luck the thief's mother dies and leaves him everything in her will. The thief goes to Apple with the stolen iPad, claiming it belonged to his dead mother.
The rooting operation typically takes place at the firmware/bios level. At that level, iOS 7 is irrelevant. If you wipe... utterly erase storage memory on an ipad or smart phone that still tends to leave the bios/firmware memory intact. Access that, trigger the flash program... and simply overwrite. You'd need a default ipad rom to write but those can't be hard to find.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Because dipshit cars are registered in people's names when they register the car. Why the fuck was this dumbassery marked insightful?
Monstar L
I was just speaking to the "rights holders own the data" statement, that's all. Just pointing out that lumping Google in with others who don't provide a means to download or transfer ownership of your data is incorrect.
> Apple has once again proven their overbearing stranglehold on everything they touch.
AKA “security.”
> It may be problematic for Apple, but it's not the family's responsibility to resolve it.
It *is* the family's responsibility to have the Apple ID if they want the data that is locked up in that Apple ID.
It's not Apple's responsibility to be iPad hackers because the guy was given an iPad but not given the keys to the account that is currently running on the iPad. You reset the iPad and you sign in with your own Apple ID. It is a very basic system of user accounts.
It is standard that when you sell or give away an iPad or even a Windows PC, the data does not come with it.
A certified Death Certificate and copy of the Executor Letter will not enable you to get into the deceased online user accounts. For that, you would have to know the username and the password. That is how online user accounts work.
If you want to pass on the contents of an online user account, you need to put the credentials in your will.
In case I die, I gave my girlfriend the username, password, and encryption key for my online backup service so she can get the data if it is useful. I did not just give her my MacBook Pro. If I gave her the MacBook Pro, that would be giving her the MacBook Pro, not the data.
> Personally I think Apple is being a corporate dick in this case.
If you are responsible for the private user accounts of a billion people and their linked credit cards and all of the data on all of their iPads, iPhones, iPods, and Macs, then your customers expect you to be a dick about security. That is how security works. You can't talk your way into someone else's account. If they want to give you access, they have to give you the username and password.
> If Apple can't plan for a common contingency like this in their security model, then they shouldn't choose
> to be in control of other people's property.
If the user can't plan for a common contingency like this in their will, then they shouldn't put their data into an Apple account.
How much more basic can security get than “if you want to give someone access to your account, you have to give them the credentials.”
The user is responsible for their data, not Apple. You can backup an iPad to a Mac or PC running iTunes, which is almost all of the Macs and PC's in the world.
If you want to pass on data, YOU HAVE TO PASS ON DATA. You can't just pass on an iPad and expect to get access to all of the user's online accounts.
Do you think that this guy got access to all of his mother's Yahoo, Google, Facebook and other accounts without even having her username?
Think for a second.
Yes, the user is in control:
- of passing on the account credentials to someone else
- of passing on the data to someone else
- of backing up their own data
The user is not in control:
- of Apple
- of Apple's security policies
The Apple ID does not just give a user access to a particular iPad. It also gives them access to all of the user's other Apple devices, all their iCloud documents and backups, all their iTunes purchases, their credit card information, and their personal details.
If I can steal an iPad from you and then make a convincing case to Apple that they should give me your Apple ID and password, I can then wipe your iPhone, Mac, all your online backups, all your documents, and then use your credit card to buy a bunch of new Macs and iPads and iPhones from the Apple Store.
Apple has been criticized in the past for resetting the password too easily on an Apple ID. In this case, the user does not even have the Apple ID, and they are not even the person who created the account. Apple is not being unreasonable at all.
Google doesn't need to brag about the lack of security on Android.
You're way off on the facts. Put your bleeding heart back in your body.
> Me, I'm thinking about what it'd be like if my mum or dad died and left me their documents in a storage facility
No, no, no. The woman died, and SHE DID NOT LEAVE HER DOCUMENTS TO HER SON. That is the whole problem. He wants them anyway.
To continue your analogy, if your parents did not leave you the number of their storage locker, did not leave you the passcode to the building, did not leave you the key to the storage locker, and you went to the storage facility to get your deceased parent's documents without all of that, THEN YES YOU WOULD NEED A COURT ORDER TO GET THE CONTENTS OF YOUR PARENT'S LOCKER. At the very least you would need that.
> Anyone who values their family's thoughts and images should avoid buying their product,
Anyone who values their family's thoughts and images SHOULD SHARE THOSE THOUGHTS AND IMAGES WITH ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE FAMILY, and also BACKUP THOSE THOUGHTS AND IMAGES. Apple provides a 1-click iPad backup to any Mac/PC running iTunes, and a Mac can further be 1-click backed up to an external hard disk. AND, there are about 1000 ways to share media from an Apple device user to any other user.
The user is responsible for their data, not Apple.
The user is also responsible for passing on account credentials if they want to pass them on, and if they don't, then their family is responsible for getting a court order in order to untangle all of that.
Apple has instructions for transferring an iPad to someone else.
There are all of 3 steps:
1. Back up your device.
2. Go to Settings > General > Reset, then tap Erase All Content and Settings.
This will completely erase your device and turn off iCloud, iMessage, FaceTime, Game Center, and other services.
If you're using iOS 7 and have Find My iPhone turned on, your Apple ID and password will be required. After you provide your password, the device will be erased and removed from your account so that the next owner can activate it.
3. Contact your carrier for guidance on transferring service to the new owner.
What to do before selling or giving away your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5661?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US
So, again, if you want to will your iPad to someone, you have to give them the Apple ID account credentials and the decryption password for your iPad so that they can wipe it and activate it for themselves.
If you want to will some data to someone, that is a whole separate issue. There are about 1000 ways to do that, both using Apple tools and 3rd party tools. It has nothing to do with iPads or Apple ID's.
One way NOT to will some data to someone is to lock it up in an Apple ID account and not give them the credentials for that account. That is how you DON'T share your data. That is how you keep data private.
Every problem with a will has to be resolved in court. If a person has no will, the court makes all the decisions. If you say the deceased wanted to will you the contents of their safe but you don't have the combination and you want the safe manufacturer to give you that combination, you will need a court order. Safe manufacturers are not in the business of cracking safes for anyone with a heart-wrenching story. A court has to decide if the story is true and what to do about it.
My brother committed suicide and its was 2 weeks and tons of emails to get his Facebook page removed.
Teh Evilz that iz Apple enthusiasts are always at the ready to cruzify them.
Since it appears that the haters have forgotten to take their Ritalin, and are now in the
!!! Ponies! mode, here is the end of the article:
Since publication, Apple has acknowledged it misunderstood the request to unlock the device. The company has now restored the factory settings. It maintains a court order would be needed to access the iCloud./i>
Shame on you for 6 weeks Samzenpus. Couldn't put that the device is in use now, eh? The only argument left is whether or not she intended her family to have unfettered access to all her personal info on the computer. Perhaps the fact that she did not give them her passwords is illustrative that she might not have.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
That is why you can't take a will to the DMV to get an automobile title changed..
Actually you can, just did it not more than 6 months ago in the state of Florida. As the PoA, and I did the same thing in Ontario(cdn). In both cases I had to do a written and sworn affirmation that what I was doing was totally within my rights as the PoA, and was acting in good faith at the behest of the person in the will.
Om, nomnomnom...
If you remove the harddrive and mount it, can you see the files on it from another OS? In order to save them? If so, then do that, wipe the drive and reinstalliOS. Or is that impossible in an iDevice? I don't have obne so I don't know..
It's only been a year or so since Mat Honan got all his Amazon, Google, and Apple data wiped because someone was able to trick their way into his accounts. Apple got castigated over that, and implemented a lot of extra security to try to prevent that sort of thing from happening again. Well, guess what? You can't have it both ways. One way or the other, there will be problematic edge cases - and this sort of thing is one of them.
===
This is different when you provide a death certificate, a will, a notarized or legally (court recognized document). Probably best to call a kid or hacker who can bypass the security that Apple thinks is unbreakable, as that will cost less money than all the fees for the other documents.
If there are no personal pictures on the cell, my recommendation is to just trash it.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
I Am Not A Lawyer. I am, I hope, a reasonable, educated human being. Those of you screaming "Moron!" at each other are working very hard to make anyone who reads your comments write you off as a raving loon instead of a reasonable, educated human being. If you can't maintain some sort of civility, no one really cares what you say. I cannot speak to the legality of Apple's actions here, in either the USA or England. I reasonably figure Apple DOES have people who can speak to that and advise them. I also haven't seen anything that indicates the screamers have any more real expertise than I. What I do know is that I don't want Apple to guess at what I want done with my property, or to take the word of my relatives as to what I intended. That's what probate courts are for, folks. If one is truly empowered to handle and dispose of portions of the estate, a competent court of jurisdiction can easily certify that -- and no one else can. A will is only a legal document when a probate court says it is. Wills get tossed out every day. And in my day job (customer service for a utility company) I hear about six times a day from people who claim to be the "executor" of someone's estate -- only to back off the claim when we suggest they need to prove it. I want Apple to insist on a court order if someone should come in to ask them to bypass my account security. If I didn't give them the passwords and codes to do it themselves, they should -- they'd BETTER -- assume I don't approve.
It would if full disk encryption was on and the user didn't leave their encryption key/password.
My fiancee has a hard copy with all my passwords, PINs & usernames in a strongbox in a sealed envelope. I have hers in the same in my strongbox. If anything happens to either of us, the other one can move forward with anything that might be password protected. Yes we update regularly since passwords change (or they should). Why couldn't Mum write it down somewhere? I have a friend from high school who died a few years ago. His widow modified his FB page to be the page for the scholarship foundation created in his honor. She had the pw and posted that she was going to change the page.
"If stupid things work...then they are not stupid."
Apple should have no skin in this game, they don't own any part of it.
Has anyone stopped for a second to consider that there are a lot of attempts to use social engineering tactics to get into a person's account, and/or unlock a stolen device?
Apple gets reamed when a prominent user's account is hacked using similar social engineering tactics, but is supposed to let it pass when someone uses easily forged documents?
I give Kudos to Apple (or anyone else) for being pedantic about authentication. Court orders are far more difficult to forge than a death certificate or a letter from a solicitor.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
The ability to unlock isn't the same thing as the ability to authenticate. Many documents (such as a will, death certificate, and notes from a legal professional) are easily and commonly forged. Fraudsters use this route all the time to pull identity theft.
A court order, on the other hand, is positively verifiable.
Here, I think any company (Apple or otherwise, be it a bank, Google, Amazon, whatever) is damned if they do, damned if they don't, so they aught to go with the most secure option.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.