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.'"
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Well she gave the iPad but not the data in the cloud ... she may be using that now that she is up there.l
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...
They didn't get an appointment, probably because there's no substantial assets (real estate, automobile) subject to probate or they got around probate with those other assets using joint ownership.
The will shows who the deceased at one point in time said should have the rights to the property.
The problem the children have is the will is not in force unless a court says it is .
There could be multiple wills. They all start "Last will and testament". People step forward on frequent occasion with an updated will or contestation of a singular will. A court sorts this out. That is why the uniform commercial code says that proof of executorship/administration, even when issued by the court, be accepted if dated within 60 days. In this way, the person or entity accepting the authority of the court from that document be held without blame according to safe harbor provisions.
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
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.
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 !
Now they just need to prove that the person that died is the person that owned the iPad.
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.
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.
Probate is a standard part of English Law
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
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.
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
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.)
So, when they were the subject of severe criticism for having lax security (justified in my opinion) after someone used social engineering to reset a reporter's Apple ID you hated them then, and now that they responded to that criticism and improved their security to be less convenient they're still to be hated?
Got it.
You're a very angry person when it comes to Apple. How much of your time would you say you spend raging on the internet because people buy products from a company you don't like?