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.
The right to privacy doesn't end at death.
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.
This is obviously the government trying to sway public support, the entire story being a red herring.
Sig: I stole this sig.
Then he should have known the password and made sure it was synced properly.
It also doesn't matter who legally owns the phone, since Apple is UNABLE to unlock it.
I used to work for a carrier, we'd have to tell people to wipe their phone all the time when they didn't know the password.
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.
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
if the kid, knowing he was going to die soon, did not export or 'share' his photos, why do you think the father has as right to them?
this was not a sudden car crash. they knew this was going to happen and the father did not get the son to open his phone for him, to at least send over the things that -should- be shared?
how is this a problem that should be solved by the world; and not a parent-and-son-ONLY problem?
we feel for you. but asking now is, well, a bit of poor planning. and no, the world does not just simply weaken its security because of emotional appeals.
the 'patriot act' was done 100% on emotional apppeal, and look where THAT got us! nothing good came from patriot act. and nothing good EVER comes from laws or policies based on pure emotion.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
"Don't deny me the memories of my son,"
What the actual fuck?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
policy (what this is about; its not/never about a single 'phone') should never be made by those who are under emtional stress. this is what gave us the patriot act.
you want more of that shit? then let grieving this and that make our laws. we'll be 100% reactionary and create 10x as many laws for every 'upset parent' in the world.
someone has to stand up and say 'enough is enough' and those who had a tragedy occur are NOT the ones who should ever get to define new laws or rules that the rest of us have to endure.
this is not about compassion; (nice try gov shill) but its about stopping the ever-encroaching 'appeal to emtion' that is crippling this country. yes, crippling. and it has to stop.
call me a monster. I could give a shit what you think about me. the point is that RATIONAL people don't make laws for shit like this.
lots of bad things happen to people, but that's life. it sucks. life sucks, overall. what do you want; every single emotional appeal to justify new public policy?
again, you're an idiot or a shill. go fuck off. we see thru your shit and are not buying it.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
fuck off and die.
those who would weaken security for 'think of the children!' bullshit deserve nothing.
peddle your FUD elsewhere. we're not buying it. we've been thru this too many times to be fooled by this tactic again.
ever see the liberty statue? there's a blindfold there for a reason, mate.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.