Slashdot Mirror
Grieving Father is Begging Apple to Unlock His Dead Son's iPhone (mirror.co.uk)
"A grieving father is begging Apple to allow him access to the photos stored on his dead son's iPhone," reports Time. In September Leonardo Fabbretti's adopted son died of bone cancer at age 13, and the father believes that two months of photographs are still stored on his son's iPhone. Last fall Apple staff attempted to retrieve the photos from their cloud-storage service, but the iPhone hadn't been synced before the 13-year-old's death. "Don't deny me the memories of my son," the father writes in a letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook.
The father's letter tells Apple that "Although I share your philosophy in general, I think Apple should offer solutions for exceptional cases like mine," according to a British newspaper, while 88% of respondents in their online poll believed that Apple should unlock the phone.
"Boo hoo, my emotions are more important than the whole world's privacy."
Sorry, there is literally no way for Apple to build into a phone or an OS a way to unlock it for situations like this that won't also be vulnerable to governments and hackers.
If you never see your son's photos, that will be sad for you.
If Apple actually makes the changes required to make it possible for people like you to get in to phones like these regularly, that will be devastating for all iPhone users everywhere.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Let everyone give up their privacy so you can look at a few pictures on a phone you had plenty of time to ask the password for.
Dude, seriously.
The right to privacy doesn't end at death.
unless it's for my own personal interest. Shoulda though of that before he died...
Where is Spock when you need him?
This elevation of blubbering hysteria to a right that defeats all laws and principles is pathetic. The same thing happened with Google's Mic Drop Send feature, screamy proles demanding apologies.
Do people not play board games any more? You're supposed to look one or two moves ahead, even if it's just checkers.
Finally, "exceptional cases like mine," except that it isn't an exceptional case. It's an emotional case. It's a _less_ exceptional case than the last one where they refused.
As a minor, they are unable to enter into contract. Therefor the phone belongs to the father in the first place.
This is obviously the government trying to sway public support, the entire story being a red herring.
Sig: I stole this sig.
So I take it apple doesn't have something like Google's Inactive Account Manager?
First, my condolences to the father. My kid is in college now, but I would have taken his phone away if he locked me out of it. Why? Trust is always a two way street. Sadly many people neglect that fact, which results in issues like TFA is appealing and a massive amount of social problems. Your kid giving you the password does not indicate that you have to use it, and in a healthy relationship the parent would not even have to ask. The parent not using the password to snoop is the opposite direction on that two way street. Parents need to learn that lesson, or continue down the same old path of "I can't access my kids phone after something happened to them.", and "I never knew my kid was on drugs.", and "I never knew they were seeing an older person which led to something bad.", etc.. etc.. you get the point.
The reason I called this a whopper of a fallacy is that it's an appeal to emotion on a massive scale (child, death, personal loss, disease). No matter how many appeals to emotion you stack up, it's still an appeal to emotion and fallacious argument.
The fact that this massive appeal comes from an adult reeks of propaganda. Adults are often foolish enough to attempt to use an appeal, but media is usually better about not using them when they are so obvious. If it's a legit person and request, I can hope that they learn to rationalize their thoughts and then teach others to do the same.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
He was probably hired by the FBI to write the letter.
They unlocked my late mum's iPhone last October after they were shown the death certificate. No problem.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
wrong.
The dead son might well have been the owner of the phone, he may well also be the named account holder - but all he needs for that is parental consent! It's HIS account.
You don't have to be majority aged to OWN ANYTHING. You DO have to be majority aged to be able to sign a commercial contract. Someone CAN sign it on your behalf, but if that's your name on it YOU are responsible for it.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
"Don't deny me the memories of my son,"
What the actual fuck?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
We have this pedophile who could strike in YOUR neighborhood next! We need to decrypt his phone before he gets to your children.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
He can spend $290,000 to that company in israel to get the photos for him.... If the photos are that important than money is absolutely no object.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
There are two people in my life who know the lock code to my phone. I have given them my lock code in the event it needs unlocked and I am incapacitated or flat out dead. While this is truly tragic, the kid was already dying of bone cancer. It should not even have been a matter of thinking ahead, as his impending death was already likely.
This is all so heart rending, I hate to throw in the bad parenting card but it needs to be played. It is fine for a 13 year old to have a lock code on their phone. It is not fine for the parent to be ignorant of what that lock code is. If a 13 year old has a lock code on their phone, the parent should be regularly verifying the code has not been changed. Let the kid be clever and find other ways to hide things. Lock code changed? Kid won't give it up? Things might have changed but if I remember, you can factory reset a locked phone via iTunes.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Last fall Apple staff attempted to retrieve the photos from their cloud-storage service, but the iPhone hadn't been synced before the 13-year-old's death.
They can give you access to the cloud storage account, and all synced data. They can't decrypt the phone.
What did the FBI say when he asked them for help?
There is no way that any apple owner would be OK with the idea that if they ever forget their password, their phone is bricked. So what do they do when the owner contacts them asking for a password reset?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Think of the children!
"I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
Yes because when parents have a child that is dying, the cellphone is EXACTLY what they think about.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
More sleds for the top of the slippery slope.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
More recent iPhones and iPads with fingerprint recognition effectively offer multiple passwords. Such devices can be configured to accept multiple fingerprints. You can teach the device the child's prints and the parent's.
You can teach more recent iPhone and iPads the fingerprints of both the child and parents.
Sorry, there is literally no way for Apple to build into a phone or an OS a way to unlock it for situations like this that won't also be vulnerable to governments and hackers.
Apple already has a solution for this situation on iPhones and iPads with fingerprint recognition. Teach it the fingerprints of both the child and a parent.
Just because I have inherited a vault, does not mean I also get the combination and keys to it. If I want to take the risk of drilling into the vault (and potentially destroying its contents) then that risk is on me.
Secured facilities that self destruct have been around for a long time, it is only now that they have become available to everyone.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
I apple acknowledges it can decode that phone (I am assuming it is an older phone with software Secure Enclave) then it is subject to court order to decode everyone's phone.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
The first thing that phone should have seen before being deployed to a kid is Apple Configurator so that it was supervised and the unlock token was captured. This is a solved issue, and the dad's ignorance is no excuse to violate the world's privacy needs.
"Why do you consent to live in ignorance and fear?" - Bad Religion
nt
There's no such thing as absolute security, the best we can do is raise the cost of cracking. The FBI was willing to pay that cost ($15K+), which no doubt required expensive equipment, physical access to the phone, and specialized knowledge.
I'm sorry but if something happened to my son or my daughter I would just do a password reset on the device. Why can't he? Did he not know the iTunes account it was linked to. Did he never do that. I know he is grieving but its still his responsibility not apples to properly set up a child's device.
I don't know why no one has suggested yet that this is obviously the FBI trying another route to get Apple to create a backdoor into iOS for them by playing the emotion card.
As next of kin/legal guardian he should actually be legally entitled to have access to his accounts, claiming them on the same premise as bank account or other posessions.
Then again IANAL.
I just fucking said that, you tool!
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Daddy should call Cellebrite.
"No exceptions to mathematics."
This is not mathematics, this is a policy decision, an engineering decision by Apple, and change is never more distant than the next firmware upgrade of the phone.
Rules without exceptions tend to fracture under stress. It happens all the time --- and the geek should know better than to bet that the dam will hold no matter what.
Adult to adult I agree. Parent to child you are 100% wrong. It is the responsibility of the parent to be able to check up on a child at any time. As a child gets older and trust is earned, a parent shouldn't feel the need to check up nearly as often. But a parent must ALWAYS have the ability to check up on a child's device in case of emergency -- and the parent has the right to define "emergency." This is the principle under which my children get their devices until they are 18.
Something tells me you forgot to take you medication.
That actually works. I was able to login to an email account, from Google, that I'd completely forgotten about. It even had all the emails I'd collected since 2009 in it. It's amusing that this pops up now because I just went through the process (it was painless and I actually remembered the password) just two days ago.
I'm not sure how that's salient, however. The problem is not that the pictures are in the cloud. The problem is that the pictures are on the phone. Google's Inactive Account Manager doesn't have anything specific to do with the hardware and won't matter if you're unable to get into the hardware itself. Of course, with Google's Android phones - you might be able to mount it and unlock it all on your own using ADB and just mounting the drive as a regular USB drive.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The boy was thirteen. That's not very old, and in my opinion not old enough to own a device with bullet-proof industrial-grade security that admits the parents literally no possibility of access. Children deserve privacy, and thirteen is still very much a child, but they still live in the house, and their parents are still legally responsible for many of their actions.
I have all my kids passwords, and unlock codes, and security questions, and iCloud keychain passcodes, and so on, securely stored elsewhere. This is mostly because children can't be relied upon to remember passwords, but also because they are my responsibility, and so their data is my responsibility too.
While this is technically true, security techniques such as those used by Apple can raise the cost of cracking so high that the lifetime and energy content of the universe are insufficient to undertake the crack. Of course, you have to use a modern phone, and a very long password, but that doesn't change the facts. With the fingerprint sensor, it's quite practical to use a password with entropy high enough that attacks become unfeasible.
For all practical purposes, the number of possible keys might as well be infinite.
Most people act emotionally, with zero understanding of the issue at hand. That is disastrous and the main reason why democracy does not work (everything else that is known works even worse though), as it makes them extremely vulnerable to manipulation.
The simple fact of the matter is that unless some account sharing was requested by the customer and set-up before the data-loss, crypto needs to prevent this type of access or it is broken. If Apple can do anything, then they were selling a defective product.
This is grandstanding by stupid. Some attention-whoring obviously included.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The son may have had some reasons for that. Also, this father is denying himself access by his past actions, or rather lack thereof. That is how crypto done right works.
The appeal itself is just pathetic and attention-whoring. The most guilty party is the press though. They should not help anybody disgracing themselves publicly this way. This is hugely unethical.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
What emergency requires you to access your child's phone when they are not around? If you suspect something serious is going on (because they keep hiding the screen every time you're around for example) then you ask them to show you. Basically it's "I trusted you but you're acting very suspicious, what are you hiding?" and now they know it's their fault.
You having the passcode however tells them you don't trust them, even if you mistakenly think it has to do with mutual trust. Chances are they'll actually start doing bad stuff because why not, you don't trust them anyways. Not breaking a parent's trust is a very powerful motivator to not do bad things.
When I was young my parents trusted me because of how they raised me. If I screwed up and broke that trust it was then that I had to earn it back. Sad to see that now kids are starting from zero trust and having to work their way up.
If I was a kid these days and my parents required the passcode to my phone I'd just save up some money until I could buy an older used phone and use that for my private communication. Check the "compromised" device all you want. And if I got into some kind of trouble, they would not be the people I'd go to for help. It would be a teacher or guidance counselor as I would trust them more than my parents.
I don't think so. The FBI certainly put the idea there for the wider population, but they just needed to wait for a useful idiot like this to come along.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
On the more technical side the moral duty of any crypto-architect and -implementer is to those that have the key, _never_ _ever_ to anybody else.
This father may have as well burned the photos and than made his appeal.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Completely irrelevant. This is not a legal question. It is technological, and crypto implementers have a strong moral duty to not give access to anybody that does not hold the key as otherwise their product is fundamentally defect.
The stupidity of people that think that the law trumps actual reality is staggering.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
First, most people don't turn on "erase phone after ten incorrect attempts". In that case, and if there is a four digit passcode, then there is a simple solution. Two days of typing, and the phone is unlocked.
Six digits or higher passcode: Simple solution for absolute emergencies if you don't want to violate the kid's trust: Ask for the last two or four digits of the passcode, so that you need four more. Now criminals or FBI can't get in, the parents can get into the phone in a day or two. Asking for the last digits makes it easy to verify: Kid types in the first four digits, you type in the rest, and unlock the phone immediately.
I don't know how old you are. But guaranteed: I've been your age, you've not been my age. I'm a parent, you're not. Guaranteed.
If you suspect something serious is going on (because they keep hiding the screen every time you're around for example) then you ask them to show you. Basically it's "I trusted you but you're acting very suspicious, what are you hiding?" and now they know it's their fault.
Try this hypothetical on for size:
Me: Kathryn, you keep hiding your phone. What's going on? .)
Kathryn: Nothing, dad!
Me: I want to see it.
Kathryn: No, dad!
Me: Show me now.
Kathryn: (angrily) Fine!
Me: (read texts between her and her aunt and grandparents about a surprise party for my 50th birthday . .
Now tell me she won't have that same sense of betrayal and that same sense of "you don't trust me."
If I was a kid these days and my parents required the passcode to my phone I'd just save up some money until I could buy an older used phone and use that for my private communication. Check the "compromised" device all you want. And if I got into some kind of trouble, they would not be the people I'd go to for help. It would be a teacher or guidance counselor as I would trust them more than my parents.
With that attitude, if you were my child, you wouldn't have an electronic device. And if you went and got one behind my back, tacit proof you are untrustworthy.
This is proof enough you know zilch about parenting. You see, in the old days, like when I was raised, parents were parents. Any sense of friendship was secondary. Parents were the authority figures. That doesn't have to mean they were dictators -- but as a child you knew they were in charge. When necessary, "Because I said so" was a perfectly appropriate answer to a child asking, "Why?" Because in life, like at your job, that may be the answer. And your boss will expect you to execute on it. And if you don't you're out of a job.
Your parents are in charge until you're 18. What you have access to, they have access to. Everything you have is a convenience and a kindness afforded to you by your parents. Legally they are responsible for you. You go out and get a job because they say you can -- you have no autonomy under the law. Parents can get in trouble for not knowing what their children are doing. Note that I have never accessed my daughter's phone without her knowledge or permission. But I can in the event that i need to. Why? Because I am the parent. Because I am in charge. And that IS the way it is. And my daughter knows I love her and I trust her. We have a great relationship. But until she's 18, I have the ability to access anything she can access. And that's just the way it is. If she wants to change all of her passcodes when she turns 18, she's welcome to do that and I've told her that. But because I am in charge, and because of my legal responsibility for her and her actions, I will have that ability or she won't have a phone. Or an iPod. Or a laptop. Or whathaveyou.
"I will continue the battle to recover my child’s iPhone data. I will not give up," he said in the interview. "He was also a minor. I have the right to access to the phone. There is in a bit of Dama’s life, and I do not want to be subtracted as well. They told me that the only possible operation is to reset the device, but doing so would delete the data, destroying [the iPhone’s] contents... I understand privacy, but I wonder what if inside a disabled iPhone was the password to block the explosion of an atomic bomb planted by terrorists in Rome, then what do we do? Do we let it explode? "
Jumps from tugging on heartstrings to "but terrorists!"
Right... There goes any support I had been feeling for him.
(emphasis added)
End of line..
Shouldn't there be a way for the account holder of a minor child's phone to be able to control or reset the security code ? Allow a pass code to be set so the phone is not open but not allow the code to be reset without the account holders pin ? Seems like a straight forward solution to this kind of a problem in the future, not much help to the poor guy now though. I know the account holder can track the location of phones under the account, my sisters kids are always complaining that their dad always knows where they are but they can't track him unless he agrees to load an app, which he is smart enough not to do.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I don't know how old you are. But guaranteed: I've been your age, you've not been my age. I'm a parent, you're not. Guaranteed.
Odds are we're about a decade apart or less. You are correct that I am not a parent. Pretty much all my friends are. I've seen the entire spectrum of child rearing techniques. I know what works and what doesn't.
Try this hypothetical on for size:
Me: Kathryn, you keep hiding your phone. What's going on? Me: (read texts between her and her aunt and grandparents about a surprise party for my 50th birthday . . .)
Now tell me she won't have that same sense of betrayal and that same sense of "you don't trust me."
If all it takes is one instance of her being secretive for you to go all search and seizure on her you've just proven my point. You don't trust her. And how does that scenario play out if you have her passcode? She'll be making secretive phone calls and hanging up when you walk by. Or use the library/school/friends computer because "daddy is spying on her".
With that attitude, if you were my child, you wouldn't have an electronic device. And if you went and got one behind my back, tacit proof you are untrustworthy.
You would be the one setting the tone on that situation initially. You're actions requiring me to surrender my passcode tells me you don't trust me. Me secretly getting a device can not be untrustworthy since you don't trust me to begin with. I can not betray your trust if you haven't given me your trust.
This is proof enough you know zilch about parenting.
I know plenty about parenting. Reproducing does not magically make you an expert on raising kids. I love how parents dismiss people without kids as not knowing anything about parenting. Like I wrote above, virtually all my friends are parents. I've seen what works and what doesn't and how kids react to parents that are way too "invasive".
You see, in the old days, like when I was raised, parents were parents. Any sense of friendship was secondary. Parents were the authority figures. That doesn't have to mean they were dictators -- but as a child you knew they were in charge.
Believe me. My parents were definitely in charge. If I messed up, boy did I get it. But they trusted me. I could go out all day on my bike anywhere within a 3.5 sq km area without any supervision. When I finally got a 1200 baud modem so I could dial up some BBSes I was not supervised because the trusted me. I did not do anything to betray that trust because I didn't want to loose that freedom.
Nowdays society and parents are way more paranoid. Some of it justified, most of it not. Someone else already mentioned "helicopter parents".
Note that I have never accessed my daughter's phone without her knowledge or permission.
Then you don't need her passcode then. If you're going to access it with here knowledge and permission she can unlock it for you.
But I can in the event that i need to. Why? Because I am the parent. Because I am in charge.
And yet you didn't answer my question on why you'd ever need to access her phone without her knowledge and/or permission. Yes, you're the parent. Yes, you're in charge. Yes, you're responsible. But that doesn't mean you should invade her privacy. You don't barge into her room I hope. You knock and wait for permission before entering (for courtesy and legal reasons). That room does not belong to her but you still respect her privacy in regards to it.
Yet with a phone you have no respect for her privacy at all. And the phone, unlike her room, is most likely her property (christmas/birthday gift perhaps?). Yes, you can exercise control over her use of that property but using her property without her permission just doesn't sit right wit
"The father is, was, or is currently owned, paid, threatened or otherwise influenced by law enforcement."
Never attribute to malice what can adequately explained by incompetence.
Just because he is grieving doesn't make his request rational.
I'm not asking an adult for their password, I'm telling my kid that they don't have a choice but to share their password with me. Trust is not a given, especially with a child who is going to push the boundaries to know their place.
The fact that you can't differentiate parental duties from asking a different adult for their password/passcode is a huge psychological deficiency.
I don't find it surprising that you have an expectation of being lied to, and not testing facts to ensure boundaries are established.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
. . . get an axe.
The law is not an ass. No really.
I too enjoy how people that are around parents or have the same 'all my friends have children' and believe that makes them experts.
Have you sat up with your child in a coma while your frantically trying to figure out what they took but can't since you have no access? Sure you can scramble around the house but was it your xanax or the draino? Did they tell their friends, leave a note on the phone or have a fight with a friend? I guess it's fine to sit by and watch them die in the name of trusting them (well up until that point but a bell can't be un-rung). Hell, a lot of parents don't know who their children are friends with these days, let alone what they are actually doing. Trust is fantastic and parents & children should be able to trust each other but some of the outcomes are disastrous and finding out after the first felony/kidnapping/rape/<whatever> is a bad time to learn the trust isn't there (yup, I think in worst case scenarios, probably why I am in infosec). Also to the example you replied to, a daughter who is normally not secretive and suddenly becomes so, is cause for concern. You only get that type of vibe after living with someone for years and years, not just from visiting friends with kids.
Also, how about acknowledging the fact that the constant connection to the Internet of this generation is vastly different than you and your 1200 baud modem? Did your parents actually understand the risks of the bbs's or what you could do with a computer?
My son had and still does have my code for mine and my wife's phones because shit happens and I would rather he have it and not need it then the alternative, just like I have his. To me it's kinda like owning a gun, I don't want to use it but I'd rather have it than not, especially when it's needed.
There are all manner of hardware hacks. They require specialized equipment and knowledge--presumably this is how the Israeli company got in.
If it were a debate, the you would be right in the identification of an appeal to emotion fallacy.
But this is not a debate, it is a request for mercy. It is not an argument for reason or policy change, it is a request for an exception to the rules. Allowing it or denying it is entirely Apple's choice, and they can choose either way and still be right.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Very sorry for this father. But I believe Apple has the right to deny this. Honestly, the story writer is trying to use a grieving father's emotions to hijack Apple, and ignorant of privacy and security, which I find stupid and sickening.
Forward this parent to a company that can do the data recovery, at whatever cost -- whether it's hundreds of thousands, or millions. He'll complain, but then Apple responds "That's what it would cost us to do it, because that's how we would have to do it. Pay us or pay them, we don't work for free."
This would also work strongly toward the legal case here, saying "It's possible, just very expensive, and we have no intention of changing this."
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
My oldest son is 12 (turning 13 soon) and I recently gave him an e-mail address to use for class. I informed him that I have the password to his account so I can check it to make sure he's being safe online. I also told him if he tries changing the password without first informing me (whether because he wants to keep me out or whether he fears someone else knows his password), I've taken steps to allow me to reset the password and re-gain entry.
I'm sure that he'll eventually earn enough trust to have an e-mail account (and one day social media accounts) without me constantly looking over his virtual shoulder, but he'll need to earn it.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Odds are we're about a decade apart or less. You are correct that I am not a parent. Pretty much all my friends are. I've seen the entire spectrum of child rearing techniques. I know what works and what doesn't.
I really guessed you as being late teens. Based on your reply, I'd guess mid-to-late 20's. You don't say how old your friends' kids are. Regardless, you don't know what works and what doesn't. At best, you know what works for your friends' kids. If you try to use those techniques on any future children of yours, without modification, almost guaranteed you will fail. Because every child is an individual. One set of friends doesn't use the exact same techniques as another set. This is, truly, a job you learn by experience. And observing and babysitting are in no way the same as parenting. You aren't having to make the hard decisions for those children and you get to give them up when your friends get back. Think you can learn how to run a train just by watching different engineers? And they let you pull a lever or two every so often. But that is not the same.
If all it takes is one instance of her being secretive for you to go all search and seizure on her you've just proven my point. You don't trust her.
You set up the scenario -- she was being secretive and hiding the screen. I played a parent that trusted the daughter but questioned her hiding the screen. And the result is that she now doesn't trust me. I didn't have reason to not trust her before, but you indicated hiding a phone screen is a sign of secrecy so I investigated and that was the result. Your idea, not mine.
But let's step back from this discussion and focus on the idea of trust. Picture an all-American average family -- mother, father, two kids; let's assume one girl and one boy. Let's look at how trust works in this situation:
Now who has broken the trust here? If the family works as it generally should, it's the child. And it's not necessarily malicious (although down the road it could be). But this is what happens. Will there be times when a parent violates the trust of a child? Probably in some way. But due to the nature of the relationship the child is likely to forgive the parent, especially if the parent is apologetic and genuine. The parent made a mistake and the child understands that, because of the parent's history, it's probably a one-time thing so the trust with the parent rebuilds pretty easily. The child is inexperienced in life, learning to make decisions and pushing boundaries. It is the parent's responsibility to set boundaries. Which brings us back to our discussion.
The parent sets the boundaries
I'm the dad of a 12 year old son. If something were to happen to him, I'd be devastated and would want any scrap of memory of him to cling to. Any last photo or video would be as precious to me as a ton of gold. My knee-jerk reaction is to cry out "Apple, please unlock this phone for this grieving father."
Of course, we all know that knee-jerk reactions are rarely the right ones. After I got past my initial would-be response, I realized just what was being asked here. This is the same request that the FBI was making. Unlock "just this one" iPhone. Let's assume Apple grants this request. Let's also leave the police/FBI out of this so as not to muddy the waters. (Though, we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking they wouldn't pounce the second this request was granted.) After this iPhone is unlocked, another grieving parent would make a similar request. And then another one. Maybe a parent of a runaway who happens to have his/her kid's phone would ask for an unlocking. And then the parent of a teen they suspect to be suicidal. The unlock requests would pour in and would expand in scope until the security on the phones was worthless.
Not only that, but Apple would have to decide the merits of each case - a virtual minefield. One wrong unlock and they gave the contents of the phone to someone who really shouldn't have it (maybe an abusive parent trying to track down a teen who just escaped that situation) or refused to unlock for someone who is in the exact situation they've unlocked for in the past. Either way would be horrible PR.
I feel for this dad, I really do. I wish him and his family the best and hope he finds peace after his son's death. Still, I couldn't in good conscience support unlocking the phone. I really do wish there was some way of retrieving the photos without a special "we promise it's a one time thing" unlock - and maybe Apple can help with that. Other than that, though, this is one of those cases where "doing the right thing" either hurts a small number of people right now or a large number of people later on. Either way, you're going to hurt someone and I'd side with protecting everyone else's privacy over helping a grieving dad.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Amen. Just amen.
When I go out I tell my wife where I'm going. Does she trust me? Absolutely. Have I given her reason to not trust me? Never. But I have long since subscribed to that way of thinking -- "I'd rather you know and not need to know that not know and need to." My wife points things out to me when I'm driving. Most of the time I've seen them too, sometimes not. Sometimes I get a little angry. I'll immediately apologize and reinforce that I'd rather her tell me she's seen something and find out I'd seen it too instead of not telling and find out I missed it.
It's all about safety. And it's not even paranoia; I just think this is a good safety principle by which to abide. And I'd argue it even enhances trust, because it says "You have no reason to know, but I'm going to tell you anyway, because I have nothing to hide."
He was USING the phone for the last two months, but hadn't sync it to iCloud during that period? Also, usually the person with the phone is taking pictures, no so much in them. If the kid was terminal and in the last few months, what would be on there?
I too enjoy how people that are around parents or have the same 'all my friends have children' and believe that makes them experts.
Never claimed to be an expert. I just really hate the "you don't have kids so you don't know anything" attitude. Sometimes it takes an outside view to get the whole picture. How does a parent know how their kids behave when they are not around for example.
Also to the example you replied to, a daughter who is normally not secretive and suddenly becomes so, is cause for concern. You only get that type of vibe after living with someone for years and years, not just from visiting friends with kids.
Never claimed that I would pick up on a behavior change in someone else's kid. But if a child starts being secretive close to your birthday then a few other indications would be in order before assuming they're up to no good. And the grandparents should know better than to get the kid to be sneaky near a paranoid parent. :)
Also, how about acknowledging the fact that the constant connection to the Internet of this generation is vastly different than you and your 1200 baud modem? Did your parents actually understand the risks of the bbs's or what you could do with a computer?
The only difference is that it's slower. I was still communicating with people I had never met before. And yes, my dad was quite aware what a computer and a BBS was.
My son had and still does have my code for mine and my wife's phones because shit happens and I would rather he have it and not need it then the alternative, just like I have his. To me it's kinda like owning a gun, I don't want to use it but I'd rather have it than not, especially when it's needed.
I have no issues white people mutually agreeing to have access to each others phones.
I really guessed you as being late teens. Based on your reply, I'd guess mid-to-late 20's. You don't say how old your friends' kids are. Regardless, you don't know what works and what doesn't. At best, you know what works for your friends' kids. If you try to use those techniques on any future children of yours, without modification, almost guaranteed you will fail. Because every child is an individual.
You're doing a lot of assuming. :) I never said this will work with your kid. Never said it will work on my kids if/when I have any. I was just countering your logical fallacy that I can't know anything about raising kids because I don't have kids.
You set up the scenario -- she was being secretive and hiding the screen. I played a parent that trusted the daughter but questioned her hiding the screen. And the result is that she now doesn't trust me. I didn't have reason to not trust her before, but you indicated hiding a phone screen is a sign of secrecy so I investigated and that was the result. Your idea, not mine.
Oy, you sure love twisting things around. Guess I was not clear enough. Chronic hiding of her screen may be cause for concern if there is other evidence. It's your daughter, you should be able to tell if it may be something benign or serious. You're scenario would probably play out more like you innocently ask her what's she doing and her answering back with a big smile "Noooothing". Hmm. Birthday is close, that might be it. Let's see if this behavior continues after my birthday. And even if you did mistakenly accuse her you can always apologize and ask for forgiveness. Losing trust over one indecent is nothing compared to loosing trust when you demand her passcode and possibly after a secret search.
And it was you who made this specific about your daughter. I was talking more in general. On how your daughter reacts, you're the expert. I can't argue with you on that specific case except for one point. You may think she doesn't resent you for invading her privacy but there's no way to really find out unless she goes super private when she hits 18.
It also depends on the parent. If they've snooped through their kid's rooms or tried listening in on conversations in the past then demanding a passcode is just a big invasion of privacy. On the other hand if they're like you where you haven't given the kid any reason not to believe you won't go snooping then it may work.
But let's step back from this discussion and focus on the idea of trust. Picture an all-American average family -- mother, father, two kids; let's assume one girl and one boy. Let's look at how trust works in this situation:
Not going to quote all that. :) One friend has a couple of kids and they've been using tablets from a very young age. And yes, she had full access to their devices. The devices we're still her property in fact. So I agree with you fully here. It's at this stage where you learn how responsible they are online and teach them how to avoid dangers. But there comes a point where you don't need full access to their device. That's where the trust part comes in. You trust the won't drink at a friends house, you trust the won't wreck your car and you trust they will operate online as you taught them.
If they ever break that trust, that's when the restrictions should kick in. And if you determine they can't be trusted with a device, don't give them a personal one. Give them a one that's yours then feel free to be able to check it out. If they don't like it they're perfectly find to decline and get internet access elsewhere.
I sense this is not how your childhood went. Substantially this is how my childhood went. Substantially this is how my children's childhoods are going.
Correct. My parents gave me freedom and trust based on my past behavior. If a new situation came up th
This isn't a problem. All the father has to do is pop out the SD card and put it in another... oh
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Maybe ask the FBI?
Maybe he wants his kid to grow up sneaky? I can't fault it as a strategy.
He'll have to follow through by cracking down real hard whenever the kid lets operational security slip.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I too enjoy how people that are around parents or have the same 'all my friends have children' and believe that makes them experts.
They should hurry up and have children while they still know it all.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I too enjoy how people that are around parents or have the same 'all my friends have children' and believe that makes them experts.
Never claimed to be an expert. I just really hate the "you don't have kids so you don't know anything" attitude. Sometimes it takes an outside view to get the whole picture. How does a parent know how their kids behave when they are not around for example.
Allow me to make it clear by citing an example. When I was 15 years old, may parents were the stupidest nastiest assholes in the world.
By the time I turned 21, it was amazing how much they had learned in those few short years.
Ever have kidney stones or given birth? No? Tell us all exactly how that feels, but only if you haven't experienced it.
You are no different than every other childless person who knows more about having children than people who actually have children. You won't believe that, but that is part of the proof.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I'm sure that he'll eventually earn enough trust to have an e-mail account (and one day social media accounts) without me constantly looking over his virtual shoulder, but he'll need to earn it.
35 is the recommended age for today's parent/child relationship. Until then, they aren't quite ready.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
With the FBI hiring an Israeli company to hack into Apple's iPhone, you should be asking the FBI for help. Creating a back door so that you can retrieve photos of your deceased son will also create the unintended consequence of rendering the encryption useless like it currently is since it has been cracked. It will only be a matter of time before someone other than the FBI will either steal what the FBI and this company created or figure out on their own how to exploit this same vulnerability unless Apple patches this vulnerability. Fortunately for people who rely on secure encryption, the FBI and this firm will not be interested in helping Apple secure their iPhone from this vulnerability since they also lose the ability to hack into iPhones if Apple plugs this hole.
He should have had a talk with his son about his impending death, and asked him what kind of funeral he wanted, who to give his toys to, who should get his iphone password, etc.... and they should have written this onto a piece of paper sealed into an envelope with the promise that he would only open if in the presence of persons A,B & C after his death.
Apple shouldn't do have to do something thing because he didn't prepare his son for death.
It can work I suppose, but not everyone needs it.
As a child, I never had a single restriction like all my friends seemed to have. I was really into computers too and was online and could do whatever I wanted to. I didn't have a curfew or anything like that but I respected general safety "rules" very much. I'm 28 now and I am pretty much as reserved as a person can be. I never got into trouble and I never wanted to get into trouble. Having no limits didn't cause me to do anything wrong or get into any danger. I was smart enough to prevent myself from doing that I guess?
Dying of cancer, so he knew what was going on. This isn't hard people. Ask for the PW while they're still alive. Better yet, offload those pictures ahead of time.
You are no different than every other childless person who knows more about having children than people who actually have children. You won't believe that, but that is part of the proof.
Sigh. I you mistakenly believe that just because you have hundreds of hours of experience with a handful of specific children only you can know anything about raising children in general. Parents are experts on their children. They do not necessarily know more about raising other children than a childless person does. If the childless person had more exposure to different types of kids then they would be more knowledgeable in general to a parent's specific knowledge. Plus there are some really bad parents out there. Having kids didn't make them experts.
I never claimed I know more about how to raise a child. All I wrote was how a child/teenager might feel/react in a specific situation. It's not child rearing. It's psychology.
There are two groups in this discussion. Those who feel that they need to control every aspect of their child and those who give their kids more freedom. I'm not a believer in the strict/authoritarian child raising. And there are studies that show that it can causes behavioral problems and low self esteem plus depression and anxiety.
You are no different than every other childless person who knows more about having children than people who actually have children. You won't believe that, but that is part of the proof.
Sigh. I you mistakenly believe that just because you have hundreds of hours of experience with a handful of specific children only you can know anything about raising children in general. Parents are experts on their children.
Hell, I was a hockey coach and president of a youth sports league. As in hundred of children.
They do not necessarily know more about raising other children than a childless person does. If the childless person had more exposure to different types of kids then they would be more knowledgeable in general to a parent's specific knowledge.
Well, you are conversing with a fellow who knows both. But the difference between my child and all of the others is marked. to me. Just like the other people's children are different - to them.
Plus there are some really bad parents out there. Having kids didn't make them experts.
And there are people without children who would be crappy parents. And there are people who think they are great parents that some others think are crappy. ANd the people they think are crappy think they are crappy. Some people beat their children, some don't. The statement isn't dealing with that.
But assuming that a person loves their children and wants them to grow up to be successful, probably most parents are not bad. Some may become overprotective, but then we are back to the hwo's crappy mode.
If I might be gushy, a normal parent loves their children. Not in the way they love their spouse, but love nonetheless. Powerfully. As noted, it isn't thee love they have for their spouse. But in the abstract, when I dealt with all the other people's children, I might say I loved them all - although as you might expect, a number were annoying shits. But It wouldn't be anything like the love a person has for their own children. And therein lies the difference. It's a hellava bond.
And if you don't see or understand that there can be that difference, can be that exceptional bond, there isn't any convincing you.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
said everyone, always.
Very, very well said.
Speaking as a parent...
As a family, we operated in the spirit of trust. I observed the sort of person my son was becoming, and we allowed him privacy. We talked to him when things didn't seem to make sense, and always resolved everything without having to go snooping.
I didn't want to teach my son that he needed to hand passwords over to authority figures. I wanted to teach him to respect privacy.
So, are you going to tell me that I'm not a parent because I disagree strongly with you on how to raise a child?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I think that this is a good point; it could be a nice feature to add to the offers of Apple, Google and Microsoft some of the capabilities of enterprise MDM, providing access redundancy for mobile devices; when this redundant access is used it could display a pop up alert on the devices associated to an account in the same way that when a new device is added to such account, only with the aditional info of wich external account was used to manage the device.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
Not at all. You see, you're actually in this. You've made your judgments on how to handle one situation vs another by knowing your son. No parent is the same and no parenting style is the same. But when I get some arrogant SOB asking why I need the passcode to my daughter's telephone, and by his own admission is not a parent, it gets my hackles up. Because he's never been in this situation.
As a fellow parent, I'm guessing you'd agree that making a statement such as:
grimr:
You are correct that I am not a parent. Pretty much all my friends are. I've seen the entire spectrum of child rearing techniques. I know what works and what doesn't.
works about as well as saying, "I'm not a doctor. I've seen the entire spectrum of therapies. I know what works and what doesn't." There are responsibilities in which experience is not a big deal. But I'm guessing you'd agree that, in terms of parenting, experience really is a big deal. And the thing of it is, that experience is built up by growing with the child from day one, not simply observing friends every so often for a few hours each time.
grimr:
Actually, if she's a teenager then I know how she'd react.
I'm not arrogant enough to say how your son would react if you structured your parenting the same way we have. And I hope I've not come across as trying to dictate The One Right Way -- that was never the point. All I've been trying to do is point out to someone who's not been a parent that he has zero basis to question why a parent chooses to have the passcode to a child's telephone, the impact to that trust, and a way in which it could very reasonably and in a non-offending manner be part of the parent-child relationship. Because it depends 100% on the environment in which the child was raised and the parenting style.
Personally, I'd be utterly devastated if I didn't have the passcode for my child's device available to me in an emergency. I don't expect I'll ever need it -- she's a great kid. I've never used it. She can trust me on that point. I actually considered using it once -- she'd had a nickname for me in her contacts and changed it back to my regular name. I was going to go in and change it back to the nickname. But I considered that she could think of it as a violation of trust. So I didn't do it. Reinforcing the trust issue (although she doesn't know that) and still allowing me access if I ever need it -- for any necessary circumstance.
"I'm a parent, you're not. Guaranteed."
I'm a parent, and I agree with the poster you said that to. I could have written what that poster did, and then presumably you would falsely guarantee I'm not a parent.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Additional context in his response told me he wasn't a parent. And I wasn't wrong, so . . .
And I fall back to: I'm no expert in your child. You're no expert in mine. You raise your child your way, I'll raise my child mine.
The porn on the phone is going to be child porn. If I was dying of cancer at 13, I'd be using that to get girls in my class to send me naked picts, no question about it. Kids don't wait until high school to start sexting each other, and dying kids get a ton of pity.
The kid's parents should be glad Apple isn't landing them in felony charges by letting them take possession of the unencrypted files. I'm just glad there was no such thing as sexting back when I was that age, or who knows what sort of illegal stuff I might have in old computer back-ups.
Anyway, pretty stupid of the parents not to have their kid's phone lock code, especially if he was terminal. I'll grant that in their situation I probably wouldn't be thinking of that beforehand either, but it's still stupid not to retain access to a kid's very expensive devices regardless of the circumstances.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You