If Apple can't plan for a common contingency like this in their security model, then they shouldn't choose to be in control of other people's property.
They HAVE planned for it (duh!)
Their plan was to require a court order, ie. a judge looks at their paperwork and signs off on it as "genuine".
What's makes that difference from 17 years, 364 days of age to 18 years of age so magical that it changes the rules completely 180 degrees?
Nothing (duh!)
That's why I said "a bit arbitrary" above.
In some cultures a boy has to do something worthy for his people to consider him a man. Others have special rites of passage that a boy has to complete (hunt/kill a wildebeest). Street gangs have their initiation ceremonies (kill a member of another gang). etc.
In our society we chose "number of days since they popped out of their mother". Not the best way? I agree. Don't like it? Go and join one of those others.
I'll bet Apples entire fortune that if it goes to court, the judge will order Apple to unlock the device.
Are you clinically stupid or does it just take practice?
All Apple has done is ask for a legal proof of ownership. At no point have they said they're not going to hand anything over, all they said is "follow the procedure".
And no, a pretty letter on gold-embossed paper doesn't count as "legal proof" of anything. The legal system would collapse if it did.
If the vendor then chose to deny me access and insist I get a court order, I'd be unhappy, angry and deeply disappointed. And I very certainly would never use that vendor again, and I'd warn everybody I could to stay away from that vendor.
Would you feel "unhappy, angry and deeply disappointed" if Apple handed your account over to the first hacker who sent them a letter on embossed paper?
Apple has a procedure in place for this situation, all you have to do is follow it. You may not like the procedure but it exists for a reason.
This is the reason that education is *mandatory* in civilized countries - to take some part of the decision-making process away from uninformed parents.
Jokes aside here, Apple is just being a dick, which is really what we can expect from Apple. The inheritor is legally entitled to the data on that device (as they would to any other intellectual properties like writings, patents and works of art created by the deceased) and Apple have the capacity to unlock the device (which is scary enough on its own) but refuse to do so because, because, shut up, thats why.
So...Apple should unlock devices for anybody who calls them and says "grandma died!"?
Slashdot Mirror
What if the children are homosexuals and their parents believe that all homosexuals should be stoned to death?
Who should we think of, the children or the parents? Who is the future?
Is it acceptable for a third party to tell the kids that homosexuality is part of being human and that their parents are religious bigots?
>
If Apple can't plan for a common contingency like this in their security model, then they shouldn't choose to be in control of other people's property.
They HAVE planned for it (duh!)
Their plan was to require a court order, ie. a judge looks at their paperwork and signs off on it as "genuine".
No, you're the only one who thinks those numbers are based on some form of objective criteria rather than made up by men wearing silly hats
I object. Some of those hats are quite nice.
What's makes that difference from 17 years, 364 days of age to 18 years of age so magical that it changes the rules completely 180 degrees?
Nothing (duh!)
That's why I said "a bit arbitrary" above.
In some cultures a boy has to do something worthy for his people to consider him a man. Others have special rites of passage that a boy has to complete (hunt/kill a wildebeest). Street gangs have their initiation ceremonies (kill a member of another gang). etc.
In our society we chose "number of days since they popped out of their mother". Not the best way? I agree. Don't like it? Go and join one of those others.
These days, science and religion are mutually exclusive.
I'm not sure I'd go that far... but science and The Bible certainly are.
Don't get your panties in a knot. Newton was a Creationist and wrote more books about Jesus than he did physics. He turned out fine.
Only because evolution hadn't been invented. You can bet he wouldn't have done any of that if it had.
PS: He was highly neurotic and died a virgin. Is that "fine"?
Yep. Granny might have left the iPad but withheld the password for a reason.
It would be sooooo funny if they went through the whole court procedure and found a load of granny-porn on there (and not much else!)
A safe is usually inside a building so ownership of the safe is clear.
An Apple account in the cloud? Not so much.
I'll bet Apples entire fortune that if it goes to court, the judge will order Apple to unlock the device.
Are you clinically stupid or does it just take practice?
All Apple has done is ask for a legal proof of ownership. At no point have they said they're not going to hand anything over, all they said is "follow the procedure".
And no, a pretty letter on gold-embossed paper doesn't count as "legal proof" of anything. The legal system would collapse if it did.
If the vendor then chose to deny me access and insist I get a court order, I'd be unhappy, angry and deeply disappointed. And I very certainly would never use that vendor again, and I'd warn everybody I could to stay away from that vendor.
Would you feel "unhappy, angry and deeply disappointed" if Apple handed your account over to the first hacker who sent them a letter on embossed paper?
Apple has a procedure in place for this situation, all you have to do is follow it. You may not like the procedure but it exists for a reason.
Are you stupid or just willfully ignorant? Have you heard about the part about furnishing legal documents to prove they were the rightful heirs
Anybody can send letters on offical-looking paper
(along with a photocopy of photoshopped death certificate if you think it helps).
So... all it takes to hack an Apple account is to send them a letter on official-looking paper?
I'll stick with "court order", thanks.
the orthodox jewish community are already suffering the consequences of breeding within a small community. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Didn't know that. +1 Informative.
Nah, it's a classic strawman question used by creationists.
This one is a variant of "irreducible complexity": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
People can (and do!) protest the anti-evolution movements in schools. Often successfully.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You think a six-year-old has the same decision making ability as an 20-year-old?
Is it a coincidence that most street gangs indoctrinate new members around the age of 13?
The "age of consent" thing is a bit arbitrary but it doeshave a basis in reality. Young children are far easier to indoctrinate/persuade than adults.
Do you have more comedy acts?
You are gifted my friend.. LOL...
Me? That's Microsoft's actual list of reasons...I couldn't possibly make it up!
Check it out: https://blogs.technet.com/b/fi...
(Remove all liquids from the vicinity before clicking...)
Don't they know wikipedia exists?
Do you know that conservapedia exists?
http://www.conservapedia.com/
Which one is correct? Teach the controversy!
This is the reason that education is *mandatory* in civilized countries - to take some part of the decision-making process away from uninformed parents.
Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Because DNA is a digital storage medium and genes change in steps.
There's no in-between states when you start modifying DNA just as there's nothing in between 1 and 0 in binary numbers.
Maybe they should also teach them that 2+2=7 and that The Earth is flat. And feed them on nothing but kitkats.
Would you say that was OK, too?
Last time I checked we have child protection to take children away from clueless parents.
Apple have said they'll do it when they receive a court order. How is that "indefensible behavior"?
Idiot.
Jokes aside here, Apple is just being a dick, which is really what we can expect from Apple. The inheritor is legally entitled to the data on that device (as they would to any other intellectual properties like writings, patents and works of art created by the deceased) and Apple have the capacity to unlock the device (which is scary enough on its own) but refuse to do so because, because, shut up, thats why.
So...Apple should unlock devices for anybody who calls them and says "grandma died!"?
One way or the other, there will be problematic edge cases - and this sort of thing is one of them.
Yep.
This is a case of "silly grandma" for not writing down the password. Not Apple's problem.