"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
It fascinates me how many people want to stifle those they disagree with; are willing to put up with the chilling effects.
In what way?
No one is denying him the right to say or believe anything he likes, just that saying or believing those things also has consequences like jeopardising your employment as the CEO of a company that relies on 90% of its funding from a company with a CEO who believes the opposite thing to you.
Mozilla as a company is looking out for its image. There's no attempt to "stifle" his beliefs, just noting that they are incompatible with the job position he held. Having that job is not a right. Holding those beliefs is a right he has. Only one of those things has been put in jeopardy.
i'm sorry but i genuinely fail to see the importance of any of this "personal view" stuff. a technically-competent person who has been with it almost since the beginning: they were the CEO of Mozilla for about a week. someone as technically competent as brendan should have absolutely no difficulty firewalling personal from professional: why do we have to have idiots believe otherwise? could someone therefore please explain to me in simple language what's really going on?
Simple. You are free to believe what you like, but that does not mean that what you believe or do that is a matter of public record (like donating to a homophobic campaign) means that you are free from consequence.
You are free to tell your boss he is a cock, but that doesn't mean you are immune from the consequences of that action.
He is free to be a homophobe, but as the public face of a company, he may face scrutiny for that.
can we stop speaking of marriage as a right in the same vein as life liberty and speech? No where in the constitution is marriage a "right" and homosexuals are already a protected class these days. If the issue were reversed for example and he was a gay CEO and he donated to gay causes, would you support the majority having him get fired (sorry resign) I wouldnt
It's only a "right" insofar as the government has a set of circumstances that apply to some married couples but not others. For example, tax purposes.
Either all married couples get the same entitlements, or none of them do.
"So I don't want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years we've been going," he told the Guardian. "I don't believe they're relevant."
If only everyone lived by this creed the world would be a better place. He was correct, his donation in private has NOTHING to do with the job he has been doing at mozilla for 15 years. Why only now do they make a big deal about it?
No, it has nothing to do with his job performance, but he is now the public face and representative of a corporation. His right to do what he likes and think what he likes are not at issue here - he is free to do them, and to donate to any political cause he likes (which is a matter of public record), but that does not mean that the decision is free from consequences.
The right to say and believe what you want is not carte blanche to avoid the repercussions of said beliefs; it might jeopardise your position as the head of an organisation that draws a lot of its funding from a company whose management believe differently than you do.
Since nothing is stopping gay couples from having ceremonies and living as if married, as far as I can tell, gay marriage is all about forcing acceptance and government benefits. It's just more of today's entitlement society where someone wants something from the government. Of they want the government to force companies to give them benefits. It has absolutely nothing to do with love.
Here is where your argument falls down. It's not about "wanting something from the government" or "an example of entitlement society", it's about *being treated the same*.
Married couples get those benefits. Gay married couples do not (and are actively prevented from it by homophobic laws in some states).
The argument is about levelling the playing field.
Either everyone gets those benefits or no one does. The objection is that married couples are treated differently if the couple happens to have the same gender.
The muddy water false equivalence argument that homophobes have brought up (what's to stop two roommates getting married for the benefits, or two sisters etc) is no different to the current situation as it applies to heterosexual couples - what's to stop two heterosexual people marrying to claim the benefits by "gaming the system"? Namely that *they are then married* and that has certain legal and societal implications.
Yes, that's normally how it works. You can work either directly, or indirectly for someone. Your CV normally states who you directly worked for though - your direct employer, but there's nothing to list your indirect clients under those employment entries on your CV in the blurb, that's what most normal people do.
Perhaps your amazement over this revelation is because you're confusing "working for" for "employee of". The latter is something quite different, and not something I said. The latter is what you list on your CV under "Employment", the former is what you enter in the description for those clients you indirectly worked for under those entries if you wish to name them because you think they sound good.
The direct quote from you is "She used to work as a lawyer for Apple", which would fit your definition for "employment" which is what you're clearly trying to infer here without directly lying, when the truth of her actual employment is much closer to "working for a company that had a client".
What proof can you offer that her role during that time included work on Apple cases, other than the fact that she was employed at a law firm that Apple used? Evidence enough that you can assert that she "worked as a lawyer for Apple for crying out loud"?
Face it, you've been called on weasel words in an attempt to draw a direct connection between a sitting judge and Apple based on circumstantial evidence.
Well, clearly not Apple or she'd "get them off" in the other trial currently against them at this time - the employment collusion/anti-poaching case that she is involved in.
Unless you think Apple are telling her to let that one go to avoid suspicion.
From 2002 - 2008 that private practice was McDermott Will & Emery, for whom Apple was one of their clients who she worked for.
If you're going to scream shill you may want to check you're not wrong first. Unfortunately you are, so it's not surprising you opted to post anonymously to avoid such embarrassment that stems from failing to check facts.
So by your account, "she used to work for Apple" is the same as "she worked for a large law firm that had Apple as a client" are the same thing?
Cool. I used to work for Caterpillar then. And Coke. And The UK government. This will really pad out my CV! Thanks!
Has it really come to this? NASA doesn't have cool technology and science to show us? It's down to fashion?
Could we just focus on the core mission of putting humans in space without needing to rent capacity from the Russians?
Or have we sunk so low that the only way to engage people in space flight is by letting the masses choose the outfits?
Because the team that works on the non-flight-capable prototype suit cover design is the same one that works on the rockets, right?
The main reason we're not putting humans in space is that funding for that is so slim. The US military's annual air conditioning costs in Afghanistan exceed NASA's entire budget. Without large public support for space exploration it simply won't be funded. This sort of outreach is part of the way of doing that. Get the public interested and the funding may follow at some point in the future.
All of the cool "technology and science" is under the cover design - this is the second version of the new EVA suit. Of course, showing this to Joe Normal isn't going to engage him as much as allowing him to vote on three different "cool space" designs for the outside of the suit. All the "technology and science" is there as it was before, with various ways to access them.
Just because they are also engaging in public outreach like this doesn't mean they're not also working on the "hard" stuff.
Possibly, but if the content is going to start coming from my ISPs own network, it better not be counted in my monthly usage either. This would be a nice way for it to turn out, but I'm pessimistic that it will actually work out that way.
That depends on your ISP.
My ISP doesn't count traffic from Steam against the peak-hour monitoring (customers are uncapped, but may be throttled if they exceed 10-20GB of traffic at peak hours of the evening) because they have a CDN set up that serves bulk game downloads from within their own network which is nice. They don't explicitly say they do this, but I know the traffic policy is in effect and I am never throttled regardless of the time of day or regardless of how much I pull from steam or youtube, and I know for a fact I've blown through their stated throttle points - the policy is mainly aimed at file sharing traffic.
The fact that they do seem to consider in-network traffic differently is promising, at least.
Normally they just tell service providers they should be privileged to have Apple products on their network and must provide a minimum level of service to them, like the did with the iPhone. Maybe it's due to Jobs not being around any more, maybe Comcast learned from the mobile carrier's mistakes.
Ahaha. Man, the selective rewriting of history on slashdot is hilarious to read.
Apple was a nothing player in the mobile space before the iPhone (they had the disastrous ROKR collaboration with Motorola) and the carriers all flatly rejected them (most notably Verizon) and the terms Apple was after. Apple had to concede pretty hefty terms to AT&T (the very long exclusivity deal) to get what they were after because no one expected the iPhone to actually be a success.
The way you tell it, it sounds like you think Apple was in its current position when it tried to launch the iPhone. They obviously had some weight as a large company with a history of resurgence, but remember, this was 2006 and they were part way through a switch to intel on the desktop, and their only real breakout success at the time on the scale that allowed them to dictate terms to incumbent players was the iPod.
You only have to look at the predictions of doom for the iPhone from numerous sources to understand that Apple were not the 800 pound gorilla dictating what would be allowed from cellphone carriers if they were to be "graced" with the iPhone.
Sometimes reading slashdot is the laugh-out-loud-funniest part of my day.
As the article notes, SparkFun isn't about to try to resell these guys, so SparkFun is still out their entire shipment. What would have been a lot more meaningful of Fluke to do would be to cancel the trademark. That being said, I love Fluke multimeters. Five years of physics labs really made me believe their unofficial motto, "If it works, it's a Fluke."
Why should they cancel their trademark? In what world is that even remotely the right thing to do here?
"Authenticated" copies of legal documents (and a will and death certificate are legal documents) are considered to have the same... how we say in english? Legal Power?... whatever... as the originals.
Send them by snail mail (together with any legal document copy that states you have right over the matter), with proof of delivery (so you can prove they received it).and they *SHOULD* grant you the access you requested - otherwise, they're stalling you and are subject to legal penalties.
Of course, this is applicable to "normal", "real life" things. By some reason, people things that anything "virtual" is beyond the present legislation - even when present legislation money and contracts are involved. Go figure it out.
Right, and at the moment the will isn't authenticated (that's the 'expensive' step involving the court that the family is complaining about). It's not always strictly necessary to do it, but in certain cases like this (or a locked safe, or a family that is challenging the will etc) it is required. That is all Apple is asking for here along with certification that the iPad involved did belong to the dead person.
Now assume that I inherit my father's estate and I add a stolen safe into the
possessions, also made by SafeCo. What happens if they unlock that for me
without a court order?
If it's a stolen safe, it's not yours. (I assume it's not your late father's since if you inherit it it would be yours). So it's registered with someone other than you or your late father's. So SafeCo don't need a court order to know not to unlock it.
Now assume that you inherit your father's estate and one of those possessions is an ipad, made by Apple. Now it's up to Apple to unlock your ipad, since they have your father's details on file, so you have a right to it.
No need for a court order either way, just common sense.
This is exactly what Apple are asking for is this case - proof of ownership, and the standard legal verification of the will. Like I said in other threads, this is a pretty standard part of UK law involving wills and the transfer of property. It's just making waves because it's Apple and the first "edge case" to make news since they made their Apple ID reset procedure much more secure.
1. I don;t know anything about the case you speak of 2. Providing a death certificate and a will is more than proof needed in this case. There was no one to be protected.
2) No it isn't. A court needs to validate the will, which is what is being asked for here. A will can be acted on with a simple executor in most cases, but in areas where third parties get involved (unlocking safes, transferring assets between banks, etc) the will is required to be officially ruled on by the court to ensure that a) it is the only will that will be legally in effect (in case the woman wrote more than one), and that b) she is the actual owner of the iPad and it's not a stolen one that they're trying to pass off as hers.
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.
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.
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.
You're justifying leaving them because they're following the law?
That's a new one on me, but whatever floats your boat I suppose.
So let me get this straight, that's a stolen iPad? Is that what you are saying? Because you can't be saying anything else. The whole reason you want this family to jump through hoops is that you believe the iPad is stolen. I suspect it would be a simple matter for Apple to determine the owner of the iPad. They then can compare that against the death certificate to indeed confirm the owner is dead. They can also review the will that indeed the person was bequeathed the iPad. So basically Apple and you, are being a bunch of douche bags.
A will is not enforceable in the UK until a court says so. Usually it's not necessary (and cheaper), but until it's done (the hassle that the family are complaining about) it's just a piece of paper.
Apple is following the law and has seriously tightened up their security after the last debacle involving social engineering and a reporter who had his Macbook remote wiped by a third party. They got slammed for that, so they fixed it. Now they're getting slammed for being on the side of security instead of convenience.
With that court order (which will be trivially granted) Apple will reset the Apple ID. Until then they only have the word of the children and a fancy solicitor's letter that the iPad belonged to the mother - I mean, they don't know the login details - and they want to be sure. It's almost certainly not stolen, and almost certainly has been included in the will - there can be different wills that say different things, until one is determined to be the actual one, as defined by (guess what) a court of law).
Hate Apple all you want, but what they're doing is pretty standard and is adhering strictly to their updated security policies - policies that were put in place after they took major flak for a pretty serious security breach in the past. But you know, hate them if they are too lax, hate them if they are too secure - it's all gravy for an Apple hater.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
It fascinates me how many people want to stifle those they disagree with; are willing to put up with the chilling effects.
In what way?
No one is denying him the right to say or believe anything he likes, just that saying or believing those things also has consequences like jeopardising your employment as the CEO of a company that relies on 90% of its funding from a company with a CEO who believes the opposite thing to you.
Mozilla as a company is looking out for its image. There's no attempt to "stifle" his beliefs, just noting that they are incompatible with the job position he held. Having that job is not a right. Holding those beliefs is a right he has. Only one of those things has been put in jeopardy.
i'm sorry but i genuinely fail to see the importance of any of this "personal view" stuff. a technically-competent person who has been with it almost since the beginning: they were the CEO of Mozilla for about a week. someone as technically competent as brendan should have absolutely no difficulty firewalling personal from professional: why do we have to have idiots believe otherwise? could someone therefore please explain to me in simple language what's really going on?
Simple. You are free to believe what you like, but that does not mean that what you believe or do that is a matter of public record (like donating to a homophobic campaign) means that you are free from consequence.
You are free to tell your boss he is a cock, but that doesn't mean you are immune from the consequences of that action.
He is free to be a homophobe, but as the public face of a company, he may face scrutiny for that.
can we stop speaking of marriage as a right in the same vein as life liberty and speech? No where in the constitution is marriage a "right" and homosexuals are already a protected class these days. If the issue were reversed for example and he was a gay CEO and he donated to gay causes, would you support the majority having him get fired (sorry resign) I wouldnt
It's only a "right" insofar as the government has a set of circumstances that apply to some married couples but not others. For example, tax purposes.
Either all married couples get the same entitlements, or none of them do.
"So I don't want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years we've been going," he told the Guardian. "I don't believe they're relevant."
If only everyone lived by this creed the world would be a better place. He was correct, his donation in private has NOTHING to do with the job he has been doing at mozilla for 15 years. Why only now do they make a big deal about it?
No, it has nothing to do with his job performance, but he is now the public face and representative of a corporation. His right to do what he likes and think what he likes are not at issue here - he is free to do them, and to donate to any political cause he likes (which is a matter of public record), but that does not mean that the decision is free from consequences.
The right to say and believe what you want is not carte blanche to avoid the repercussions of said beliefs; it might jeopardise your position as the head of an organisation that draws a lot of its funding from a company whose management believe differently than you do.
Marriage existed before the bible and before the christian god was invented.
Next question.
Since nothing is stopping gay couples from having ceremonies and living as if married, as far as I can tell, gay marriage is all about forcing acceptance and government benefits. It's just more of today's entitlement society where someone wants something from the government. Of they want the government to force companies to give them benefits. It has absolutely nothing to do with love.
Here is where your argument falls down. It's not about "wanting something from the government" or "an example of entitlement society", it's about *being treated the same*.
Married couples get those benefits. Gay married couples do not (and are actively prevented from it by homophobic laws in some states).
The argument is about levelling the playing field.
Either everyone gets those benefits or no one does. The objection is that married couples are treated differently if the couple happens to have the same gender.
The muddy water false equivalence argument that homophobes have brought up (what's to stop two roommates getting married for the benefits, or two sisters etc) is no different to the current situation as it applies to heterosexual couples - what's to stop two heterosexual people marrying to claim the benefits by "gaming the system"? Namely that *they are then married* and that has certain legal and societal implications.
Yes, that's normally how it works. You can work either directly, or indirectly for someone. Your CV normally states who you directly worked for though - your direct employer, but there's nothing to list your indirect clients under those employment entries on your CV in the blurb, that's what most normal people do.
Perhaps your amazement over this revelation is because you're confusing "working for" for "employee of". The latter is something quite different, and not something I said. The latter is what you list on your CV under "Employment", the former is what you enter in the description for those clients you indirectly worked for under those entries if you wish to name them because you think they sound good.
The direct quote from you is "She used to work as a lawyer for Apple", which would fit your definition for "employment" which is what you're clearly trying to infer here without directly lying, when the truth of her actual employment is much closer to "working for a company that had a client".
What proof can you offer that her role during that time included work on Apple cases, other than the fact that she was employed at a law firm that Apple used? Evidence enough that you can assert that she "worked as a lawyer for Apple for crying out loud"?
Face it, you've been called on weasel words in an attempt to draw a direct connection between a sitting judge and Apple based on circumstantial evidence.
I wonder who is paying her?
Well, clearly not Apple or she'd "get them off" in the other trial currently against them at this time - the employment collusion/anti-poaching case that she is involved in.
Unless you think Apple are telling her to let that one go to avoid suspicion.
Sheesh.
Private Practice, Palo Alto, California, 2000-2008
From 2002 - 2008 that private practice was McDermott Will & Emery, for whom Apple was one of their clients who she worked for.
If you're going to scream shill you may want to check you're not wrong first. Unfortunately you are, so it's not surprising you opted to post anonymously to avoid such embarrassment that stems from failing to check facts.
So by your account, "she used to work for Apple" is the same as "she worked for a large law firm that had Apple as a client" are the same thing?
Cool. I used to work for Caterpillar then. And Coke. And The UK government. This will really pad out my CV! Thanks!
Has it really come to this? NASA doesn't have cool technology and science to show us? It's down to fashion?
Could we just focus on the core mission of putting humans in space without needing to rent capacity from the Russians?
Or have we sunk so low that the only way to engage people in space flight is by letting the masses choose the outfits?
Because the team that works on the non-flight-capable prototype suit cover design is the same one that works on the rockets, right?
The main reason we're not putting humans in space is that funding for that is so slim. The US military's annual air conditioning costs in Afghanistan exceed NASA's entire budget. Without large public support for space exploration it simply won't be funded. This sort of outreach is part of the way of doing that. Get the public interested and the funding may follow at some point in the future.
All of the cool "technology and science" is under the cover design - this is the second version of the new EVA suit. Of course, showing this to Joe Normal isn't going to engage him as much as allowing him to vote on three different "cool space" designs for the outside of the suit. All the "technology and science" is there as it was before, with various ways to access them.
Just because they are also engaging in public outreach like this doesn't mean they're not also working on the "hard" stuff.
I see you didn't read the FAQ in the linked article.
Oh, and you forgot to log in, kid.
Classic slashdot; proclaim your superior 'common sense' knowledge over a professional science and engineering team while posting anonymously.
I'm sure they'll pay serious, and I do mean *serious*, attention to your expert comments.
Possibly, but if the content is going to start coming from my ISPs own network, it better not be counted in my monthly usage either. This would be a nice way for it to turn out, but I'm pessimistic that it will actually work out that way.
That depends on your ISP.
My ISP doesn't count traffic from Steam against the peak-hour monitoring (customers are uncapped, but may be throttled if they exceed 10-20GB of traffic at peak hours of the evening) because they have a CDN set up that serves bulk game downloads from within their own network which is nice. They don't explicitly say they do this, but I know the traffic policy is in effect and I am never throttled regardless of the time of day or regardless of how much I pull from steam or youtube, and I know for a fact I've blown through their stated throttle points - the policy is mainly aimed at file sharing traffic.
The fact that they do seem to consider in-network traffic differently is promising, at least.
Normally they just tell service providers they should be privileged to have Apple products on their network and must provide a minimum level of service to them, like the did with the iPhone. Maybe it's due to Jobs not being around any more, maybe Comcast learned from the mobile carrier's mistakes.
Ahaha. Man, the selective rewriting of history on slashdot is hilarious to read.
Apple was a nothing player in the mobile space before the iPhone (they had the disastrous ROKR collaboration with Motorola) and the carriers all flatly rejected them (most notably Verizon) and the terms Apple was after. Apple had to concede pretty hefty terms to AT&T (the very long exclusivity deal) to get what they were after because no one expected the iPhone to actually be a success.
The way you tell it, it sounds like you think Apple was in its current position when it tried to launch the iPhone. They obviously had some weight as a large company with a history of resurgence, but remember, this was 2006 and they were part way through a switch to intel on the desktop, and their only real breakout success at the time on the scale that allowed them to dictate terms to incumbent players was the iPod.
You only have to look at the predictions of doom for the iPhone from numerous sources to understand that Apple were not the 800 pound gorilla dictating what would be allowed from cellphone carriers if they were to be "graced" with the iPhone.
Sometimes reading slashdot is the laugh-out-loud-funniest part of my day.
The Ars Technica article notes that the shipment of meters from Fluke exceeds the value of the original dodgy multimeters.
As the article notes, SparkFun isn't about to try to resell these guys, so SparkFun is still out their entire shipment. What would have been a lot more meaningful of Fluke to do would be to cancel the trademark. That being said, I love Fluke multimeters. Five years of physics labs really made me believe their unofficial motto, "If it works, it's a Fluke."
Why should they cancel their trademark? In what world is that even remotely the right thing to do here?
The slashdot community is hilarious sometimes.
I suggest you look up probate law. Like I said, this is not an uncommon situation, it's simply become a story because it involves an iPad.
"Authenticated" copies of legal documents (and a will and death certificate are legal documents) are considered to have the same... how we say in english? Legal Power? ... whatever... as the originals.
Send them by snail mail (together with any legal document copy that states you have right over the matter), with proof of delivery (so you can prove they received it).and they *SHOULD* grant you the access you requested - otherwise, they're stalling you and are subject to legal penalties.
Of course, this is applicable to "normal", "real life" things. By some reason, people things that anything "virtual" is beyond the present legislation - even when present legislation money and contracts are involved. Go figure it out.
Right, and at the moment the will isn't authenticated (that's the 'expensive' step involving the court that the family is complaining about). It's not always strictly necessary to do it, but in certain cases like this (or a locked safe, or a family that is challenging the will etc) it is required. That is all Apple is asking for here along with certification that the iPad involved did belong to the dead person.
If it's a stolen safe, it's not yours. (I assume it's not your late father's since if you inherit it it would be yours). So it's registered with someone other than you or your late father's. So SafeCo don't need a court order to know not to unlock it.
Now assume that you inherit your father's estate and one of those possessions is an ipad, made by Apple. Now it's up to Apple to unlock your ipad, since they have your father's details on file, so you have a right to it.
No need for a court order either way, just common sense.
This is exactly what Apple are asking for is this case - proof of ownership, and the standard legal verification of the will. Like I said in other threads, this is a pretty standard part of UK law involving wills and the transfer of property. It's just making waves because it's Apple and the first "edge case" to make news since they made their Apple ID reset procedure much more secure.
1. I don;t know anything about the case you speak of
2. Providing a death certificate and a will is more than proof needed in this case. There was no one to be protected.
2) No it isn't. A court needs to validate the will, which is what is being asked for here. A will can be acted on with a simple executor in most cases, but in areas where third parties get involved (unlocking safes, transferring assets between banks, etc) the will is required to be officially ruled on by the court to ensure that a) it is the only will that will be legally in effect (in case the woman wrote more than one), and that b) she is the actual owner of the iPad and it's not a stolen one that they're trying to pass off as hers.
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.
UK Laws doesn't apply to USA companies. Apple Computer is a USA company.
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa. Ahhahahahahahahaha!
Precious!
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.
They don't know the email, or the password.
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.
You're justifying leaving them because they're following the law?
That's a new one on me, but whatever floats your boat I suppose.
So let me get this straight, that's a stolen iPad? Is that what you are saying? Because you can't be saying anything else. The whole reason you want this family to jump through hoops is that you believe the iPad is stolen. I suspect it would be a simple matter for Apple to determine the owner of the iPad. They then can compare that against the death certificate to indeed confirm the owner is dead. They can also review the will that indeed the person was bequeathed the iPad. So basically Apple and you, are being a bunch of douche bags.
A will is not enforceable in the UK until a court says so. Usually it's not necessary (and cheaper), but until it's done (the hassle that the family are complaining about) it's just a piece of paper.
Apple is following the law and has seriously tightened up their security after the last debacle involving social engineering and a reporter who had his Macbook remote wiped by a third party. They got slammed for that, so they fixed it. Now they're getting slammed for being on the side of security instead of convenience.
With that court order (which will be trivially granted) Apple will reset the Apple ID. Until then they only have the word of the children and a fancy solicitor's letter that the iPad belonged to the mother - I mean, they don't know the login details - and they want to be sure. It's almost certainly not stolen, and almost certainly has been included in the will - there can be different wills that say different things, until one is determined to be the actual one, as defined by (guess what) a court of law).
Hate Apple all you want, but what they're doing is pretty standard and is adhering strictly to their updated security policies - policies that were put in place after they took major flak for a pretty serious security breach in the past. But you know, hate them if they are too lax, hate them if they are too secure - it's all gravy for an Apple hater.
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.