Apple Refuses To Unlock Bequeathed iPad 465
mrspoonsi writes "A man whose mother bequeathed her iPad to her family in her will says Apple's security rules are too restrictive. Since her death, they have been unable to unlock the device, despite providing Apple with copies of her will, death certificate and solicitor's letter. After her death, they discovered they did not know her Apple ID and password, but were asked to provide written consent for the device to be unlocked. Mr Grant said: 'We obviously couldn't get written permission because mum had died. So my brother has been back and forth with Apple, they're asking for some kind of proof that he can have the iPad. We've provided the death certificate, will and solicitor's letter but it wasn't enough. They've now asked for a court order to prove that mum was the owner of the iPad and the iTunes account.'"
Just hack it but what are the laws like UK over th (Score:2)
Just hack it but what are the laws like UK over that??
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's lethal injection or the chair if you hack an iPad.
Those Apple lobbyists do a great job!
Re: (Score:2)
Just hack it but what are the laws like UK over that??
The idea is that you can't.
Re: (Score:2)
They're stalling (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple will do whatever it will takes to demove the family from getting the account access for the following reaons:
1) They want *new* account to inflate the user base.
2) By stalling the request increases the chance that the family decides it's not worth the pain.
3) They don't want to deal with similar cases in the future - there's no money on it. So it's important to them to avoid precedences.
Welcome to this brave new world, where companies decides what you own and the rights you have on it.
Re:They're stalling (Score:5, Funny)
Actually they should ask the sons to get written permission from Steve Jobs before unlocking. All Apple products belong to Jobs and Jobs alone.
Re:They're stalling (Score:5, Informative)
Does it take effort to be that stupid?
They're asking for a standard court order based on English law that the documents presented are genuine and that the iPad actually belonged to that dead person.
This is really, really, really standard stuff. The only reason it's turned into a big deal is because it's Apple. After the big kefuffle last year or so when that reporter lost his data because someone social engineered their way into his Apple ID and Apple took (deserved) serious heat for it, they seriously tightened up their security procedures.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple has not received the legal papers, ergo they can't do anything about this.
From the TFA: "Since her death, they have been unable to unlock the device, despite providing Apple with copies of her will, death certificate and solicitor's letter."
Legal papers was sent. Apple then requested for a court order.
Re:They're stalling (Score:5, Insightful)
The papers show who are the rightful inheritors of the estate, including the iPad hardware. That much is certain.
The question of where that leaves information that is held on iCloud and/or encrypted on a device with a password is unclear. It appears she left neither the password nor specific instructions. She might have wanted the family to have access to this data after her death, but then again she might not.
After all, if you wanted your secrets to die with you, you'd probably keep them on a device in an encrypted/password protected form.
Seems like Apple wants a court to make that decision. Which doesn't seem like a bad thing.
Re:They're stalling (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems like they are showing the utmost respect for the owner. It contains private data. If she had wanted to be sure the family got the device and the data she'd have included the password. Most likely she "bequeathed" it because the relatives got everything she owned, not that the device was mentioned specifically.
Re: (Score:3)
The only locksmithing company that can open the lock, won't do it without a court order to do so, so that the mothers' belongings end up going to the actual heirs instead of a klepto who managed to arrive at the locksmith first by virtue of not having to stop at the local magistrate on the way..
This is not who things works in real life.
Do you homework. Ask a lawyer friend of yours how to you would gain access to your parent's bank account when the last of them became to pass away.
Of course you must *prove* you have the right to do so, but it's not feasible to have a court order for each property/right/whatever they leave to you by will (or by default).
Disguisting! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Disguisting! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I do expect them to honor the provisions of my will.
Re:Disguisting! (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately it's an open question as to whether information held in accounts under password are part of an estate or not.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/... [wsj.com]
If she didn't explicitly mention it in her will, and the Apple's security terms of service don't otherwise allow it, it seems quite reasonable for Apple to defer the decision to a court of law.
The possibility that she held the information under a password because she wanted it to go to the grave with her needs exploring.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't have an iPad (or a tablet of any kind) so maybe I'm not understanding this.. does Apple really not know who the device and/or user account belongs to?
Apple knows whose Apple ID the device is locked to. The children do not have the Apple ID or password.
Surely Apple products have some kind of user system, and when you create your user account you reveal your name and probably address, and if the person ever bought anything there's a credit card linked to it as well... no?
Only if someone provides such information to Apple. An AppleID does not require an address or credit card. Only an email address. As for purchasing, remember that iPads are given as gifts. Even if Apple could track down who sold the device and to whom it was sold, they still can't sure who the owner is.
Maybe mum bequeathed the device... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Maybe mum bequeathed the device... (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't true at all.
From TFA: "In her will she indicated that her estate was to be split between her five boys". This was probably by way of an ordinary residuary gift clause such as 'I give, devise and bequeth the rest and residue of my estate wheresoever situate equally as tenants in common to those of my five children named A, B, C, D, and Timmy who survive me.'
By such a clause, the whole of the estate not specifically given to someone else earlier in the will goes to the five children; this would include the pr0n on the device. As to the distribution between the sons (from TFA there is agreement that only the one son will get the whole of the ipad), this is not improper and not uncommon when distributing items of property because, in essence, you can't really split an ipad or a chair or a bible or a painting of jesus riding a dinosaur five ways. (at the very least, you can't physically split them five ways and expect them to keep their - sentimental or monetary - value).
Further, I don't really understand the issue here. From the time of death, the executor of a deceased estate (as a general rule) has all the functions and powers necessary to deal with the assets forming the estate in effect as though they were the deceased. This includes, for example, carrying on (with some exceptions) court proceedings or carrying on the deceased's business.
I can't see any reason why Apple should not accept a letter from the executor (or an executor if there is more than one) authorising them to deal with the account as though that letter had been sent by the deceased herself. It seems to me that it would be open to the executors to commence proceedings seeking declarations from a Court with jurisdiction to that effect and, if Apple were my clients, I would be advising them to be very carefully consider their basis for defending those proceedings.
-AC Lawyer.
P.S. I'd spell and grammar check this but I'm AC ;)
Re:Maybe mum bequeathed the device... (Score:5, Informative)
AC lawyer--you should know better.
I RTFA. The kids don't have proof of executorship.
A will doesn't cut it.
Certified Death Certificate=proof of death.
Solicitor's letter=a letter from an attorney that uses fancypants words like herewith and forthwith
Copy of will=copy of an unexecuted will, of which there may be several copies drafted and amended over the years to perhaps bequeath the rights or property to someone else. This is why people come out of the woodwork with multiple wills or the courts settle the matter when there is a dispute. Waiting periods often apply. Sometimes the equivalent of a cocktail napkin is sufficient evidence to decide these matters, but the matter about always necessitates a document bearing the raised seal of a probate court or affidavit drafted by a lawyer or a Suze Orman CDROM which includes the statutory language.
What the children don't have is a document proving that the will was entered into probate, or statutory substitute thereof.--often a property-specific court order. It works the same in the U.K. as it does the states (it gets weird with Louisiana, though).
The children either want to avoid full probate because of the expense or need to get a new attorney familiar with whatever the affidavit of small estate alternative process is for their jurisdiction. They can tell the 'false economy' story to folks who don't understand civil law and get the media and the blogosphere to believe them.
Lawyers (Score:3)
The children either want to avoid full probate because of the expense or need to get a new attorney familiar with whatever the affidavit of small estate alternative process is for their jurisdiction.
Sometimes, I just don't understand the Lawyer outlook of the world. If everything is working smoothly between family members, there ought to be no reason whatsoever to involve lawyers, courts, and extra expenses. Yes, there will always be some people who need a legal mediator... but there will always be people who don't need the extra expense and headache.
The idea that the world runs because lawyers exist, and that we must therefore thank them for making life difficult, is perverse and detrimental to soci
Re:Lawyers (Score:4, Funny)
FTFY.
Didn't you watch a single episode of The Dukes of Hazard growing up? The legitimate party is always the last to know, and by the time the penny drops they're one hell of a car ride away from interceding in the nick of time, bursting into the court room at the very moment the justice picks up the pen and says out loud to Boss Hogg and his henchmen in particular "these papers all seem to be in good order".
Re: (Score:3)
People are also fickle and are prone to changing their minds about such things also as evidenced by Boss Hogg in every single episode of The Dukes of Hazard.
Your analogy is a WIN.
Re:Maybe mum bequeathed the device... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do they need to unlock it? (Score:5, Informative)
Did she bequeath the iPad or the apps/data on the iPad and the iTunes account to go with it? I'm pretty sure that even if the device is locked, that you can still do a factory reset on it and then have access to the iPad. Granted you would lose all the apps and data on the device, but you would still have the device to use as you wish.
If she bequeathed the iTunes account, then the account email and password should have been in the will or related documents, if not, then it's reasonable to assume she just left the hardware which you can reset and then have full use of.
Re:Why do they need to unlock it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Analogy fail: Your mother didn't own any safety deposit box. She owned the contents and rented the box from the bank it is stored in.
It's not too hard to imagine someone leaving, say, a piece of antique furniture but not the diaries stored inside.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why do they need to unlock it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless she gave it away elsewhere, her family owns all of her former property. It doesn't matter if she explicitly gave it to them or not, so long as she didn't explicitly give it elsewhere.
Re:Why do they need to unlock it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why do they need to unlock it? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it was just the iPad.
The problem is that since iOS7, Apple implemented a kill switch called "Activation Lock" in an attempt to slow down the theft of the devices - with it, the owner can remotely wipe the device, and more importantly, that device cannot be used by anyone else, thus ensuring that any stolen iPads, iPhones, etc. are rendered worthless.
What likely happened is just that - the iPad got locked and is right now, effectively worthless.
Of course, Apple has to be careful too - they can't really offer a way to unlock those devices because it's really a backdoor to Activation Lock and a way for criminals to well, steal your device and then cry to Apple to unlock it saying it belonged to their parents so they could resell it as more than just scrap.
It's really one of those catch-22 situations - Apple can't contact the original owner to verify if that iPad really belongs to them and they're not just some criminal looking to change their $0 iPad into a $400 iPad on the stolen goods market. And they can't just take those documents because well, the family could come back again next week with another stolen iPad and do the same thing.
And no, Activation Lock is practically impossible to defeat - if you reset it, it'll ask for the Apple ID credentials before you can proceed. If you get an unlocked one and try to restore it (with Find my iThing on), iTunes refuses to do it until you turn it off (which requires the password). If you force DFU and reload, it won't work until you re=login again, etc.
It's one of those things - what can Apple do? Remember the goal is to make the illegally acquired resale value zero because a user buying it can't do anything with it. And any way for Apple to help this family can be exploited (hell, do you KNOW that the iPad they got bequeathed wasn't stolen?). Apple requiring a court order basically means the courts will have to ascertain the identity of everyone and be enough of a pain that even a thief probably won't go through that effort. Certainly not one who wants to be identified should the iThing really be stolen.
They may have a chain of evidence though - the store receipt where the iPad was purchased on a credit card, a credit card bill with the charge on it and the billing name and address which can be compared against their Apple ID account, a death certificate with the same name and address on it, a will with the same name and address, and the iPad, whose serial number will match that on the receipt. Woe be to those who bought it at a store who doesn't record serial numbers, though!
Re:Why do they need to unlock it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that assume that Apple is bound to unlock any device at all? I don't know if that's the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
For a comparison, is a car manufacturer required to install new locks when a car changes ownership and the previous owner forgot to pass on the keys?
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty simple. And yes, I know that it seemed like a good idea at the time to the idiot engineer who came up with this "solution". Lots of ideas seem good until the flaws are discovered.
It's still not the family's problem. I hope they sue.
Re:Why do they need to unlock it? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, locking someone's device without their consent is a bug. It shouldn't happen, and Apple is in the wrong for engineering a system which locks the device automatically without the owners's consent.
It's pretty simple. And yes, I know that it seemed like a good idea at the time to the idiot engineer who came up with this "solution". Lots of ideas seem good until the flaws are discovered.
What is all this garbage? It was locked with the owner's consent. The owner unfortunately did not think to leave the keys with her bequest.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything you say is actually true EXCEPT, this isn't that families problem, it is apples. When you die your worldly possessions go to your family or anyone else you deem fit to bequeath them too. It is legal and quite proper, Their is no catch 22, Apple have no legal standing here as a properly written will IS a legal document with the authority to transfer ownership, it is not up to the family to provide further proof, if apple is concerned it is on them to provide proof that this particular item was stolen. I hope Apple get their arses sued off.
It's not Apple's problem at all. The item in question is an iPad that is locked requiring the AppleId + Password to unlock. That is what the mother owned. The other thing that she had was her AppleId + Password. She passed the iPad to her children, and unfortunately didn't pass the AppleId + Password as well. The kids got what she had, an iPad without any value.
Re:Why do they need to unlock it? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not Apple's problem. The worldly possessions (the iPad) is still there, and the family has possession of it. What's been lost is information - the Apple ID and password. That's really not Apple's responsibility.
What's happened here is like if you bought a really big, really tough safe. You use it to store some valuables, and only you know the combination. Then you die. Your will bequeaths the safe to your family. They're in physical possession of the safe, but without the combination they have no way to access what's inside or (if there's nothing valuable inside) use it to store other stuff. It's essentially useless without the combination.
Unless there's some way for the safe manufacturer to open the safe without the combination (which would be a huge security hole), crying to them to fix the situation isn't going to help. When this sort of security is properly designed, even the manufacturer can't help. Same thing happened with the business-class Thinkpads with hard drives and BIOSes which could be password protected. If you set the BIOS boot password and forgot it, IBM's fix was to swap out the motherboard and charge you for a new motherboard (equivalent to salvaging this iPad for parts and charging the family a discounted price for a refurb iPad). If you put a password on the HDD and forgot it, that's it. Nobody could recover your data, not even IBM.
The iTunes account and any songs/movies/ebooks/software bought on it are a different matter. Regardless of any passwords on it, Apple knows what's in the account. And being virtual goods they can be restored for just a trivial administrative cost to Apple. The real question is whether you can inherit these types of accounts. There was a hoax some years back saying Bruce Willis wanted his kids to inherit his account, but AFAIK there hasn't been any real legal precedent on whether you can actually do that. I would like to think you can inherit the songs/movies/ebooks/software just like you can inherit CDs, DVDs, books, and boxed software. But I suspect the copyright industry is going to fight tooth and nail to try to make any such licenses terminate upon death.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Go into the store and remote unlock it while in the possession of the company. Problem solved.
You don't get the point. Apple can technically unlock the device. They cannot be certain that the iPad that the children have is actually their mother's. Anyone can lie. They are not going to find out as this is a legal question. When the court gives them a court order, they'll do it.
You're telling me that with all their telemetry (gps data, user account information) they can't figure out which device is attached to which (for example) Wifi MAC address or serial number?
Again you don't get the point. A MAC address or serial number tells nothing about who owns any particular iPad especially when the children don't know the AppleID (user account information) of their mother. AppleID account
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They would like to use the device? Since iOS7, there is an anti-theft security measure that prevents a "misplaced" iOS device from being activated with a new AppleID unless the device was specifically "unregistered" from the AppleID of the previous owner. Wiping the device won't help, as the activation of the wiped device will ask for AppleID credentials of the previous owner.
They should approach the NSA instead... (Score:5, Funny)
Does Apple have the ability to unlock the device? (Score:2)
Because if not, it's not like any proof of the authenticity of their claim will make any difference at all.
If you ask me, I think that the necessary information about her itunes account and password, given that the device itself was bequeathed in her will anyways, should have been stored in a sealed envelope which accompanied the physical copy of the will.
Re:Does Apple have the ability to unlock the devic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has a feature called activation lock. Basically the phone checks with Apple's servers to see which Apple ID the hardware was registered to, and will refuse to work unless the previous user first logs into the web interface and removes the lock.
Re: (Score:2)
The iPad is synced to an iTunes account and since it's locked and no one can open it we know it's the account of the owner of the device. The iTunes account is tied to a credit or debit card is it not? Otherwise the owner would not have been able to get any apps for the iPad. Even free apps require some way to legally verify the "purchaser" is in the location they say they are for licensing reasons.
The bank account/line of credit is legally tied to the deceased. Seems to me Apple is sitting on the very proo
Re: (Score:2)
In the old minicomputer days, there was a practice to create a new root level account, take it's name and password and put them in a drawer in a sealed envelope. If say some admin changed the root password and went on vacation, you took the envelope out, logged in, changed the root password, deleted the account and created a new alternate account with a new envelope.
Of course she would have to change her will ( the envelope ) each time she changed her password. Plus people generally don't think of such th
Good. (Score:2)
It should be hard. The will may have said they could have the ipad. I didn't see anything about the data on it. Soon enough, it will be basic will-writing protocol to include any necessary keys to data as it is with access physical objects.
Wills aside, I'm glad to see one more hurdle in the social engineering chain.
Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good. (Score:4, Interesting)
Hell, make it simpler, if someone leaves me their computer, does the drive need to be wiped and all the programs and OS repurchased, even if they came with the computer?
Re: (Score:2)
So if my father leaves me his safety deposit box, I get the box, but not the contents? I think you are wrong, an old woman wouldn't have thought anyone would separate them. That you understand the difference doesn't make it as obvious as you declare.
If he rents a bank safety deposit box, and there was an agreement that only a person with your father's fingerprints can open the box...
executor's request plus will should be enough (Score:2)
Legally, the Executor of the will (or the appointed Administrator if there was no will), should be able to write that letter of consent, if Apple cretinously insists on having one - the Executor is acting on behalf of the Estate, and has similar powers and reponsibilities as a person with power of attorney.
Re:executor's request plus will should be enough (Score:5, Interesting)
They didn't get an appointment, probably because there's no substantial assets (real estate, automobile) subject to probate or they got around probate with those other assets using joint ownership.
The will shows who the deceased at one point in time said should have the rights to the property.
The problem the children have is the will is not in force unless a court says it is .
There could be multiple wills. They all start "Last will and testament". People step forward on frequent occasion with an updated will or contestation of a singular will. A court sorts this out. That is why the uniform commercial code says that proof of executorship/administration, even when issued by the court, be accepted if dated within 60 days. In this way, the person or entity accepting the authority of the court from that document be held without blame according to safe harbor provisions.
Privacy... not (Score:2)
Yet when governments demand that data be provided, all the fuss goes away and gives it easily.
Re: (Score:2)
Try the naive way (Score:2)
- Hello I don't remember my password, and, no, never synced the device since I've no computer
- Well we can reset it but you will lose all your data
Enjoy anew iPad
Re: (Score:2)
no, not with the new os. now when you reset it the thing asks you for your pwd before starting up again. otherwise it's bricked.
Fiduciary can get it done (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fiduciary can get it done (Score:5, Insightful)
And guess what? Apple is demanding that in this case!. You went to the Probate Court, the judge sent a letter to Apple (presumably confirming that the deceased owned that specific iPad and all that and to release details on the account).
And Apple complied.
In this case, the family is complaining they have to go to court to get a court order to get Apple to unlock it. No surprise, you ran into the same problem, which is why you went to the Court to see the judge.
In other words, Apple is following the same procedure with this family as what you did - the Court issued an order demanding release of the account information. Apple complied. This family didn't, and Apple requested that they get the Court to do so.
And yes, Apple is absolved or all liability should it turn out said iPad was stolen - it meant someone lied to the Court under oath and committed perjury, which generally is far worse than the few hundred bucks you get for the iPad.
Re: (Score:3)
No where does it say that the original password of the deceased was requested and/or provided. Apple could just as easily reset the password to something that was known, and then provided the reset password. Or provided some other reset mechanism to allow the requester to set a new password.
If she wanted them to have the data (Score:5, Insightful)
Fundamentally, I see this as a security issue. If the deceased wanted someone to have the data on the iPad, she should have provided the means to have access to that data. You can't just bequeath it in a will and then expect everyone else to sort it out after you're gone. That's inconsiderate.
It's also hypocritical to hold a company up to high standards for maintaining security and user privacy, and then at the same time blame them for not just rolling over and handing over the means to decrypt that information. It's not Apple's responsibility to give the family that ability, but the owner of that content. If I have years of personal photos that I've encrypted and bequeathed to someone, I'm sure as hell not going to just say, "here, you get this hard drive full of encrypted memories, but good luck decrypting it--I'm taking the decryption keys to my grave." That's stupid.
Even if Apple can unlock that data and eventually does so, think about how that might look to some people, who would NOT want their heirs/family/descendants to have the means to rummage through their personal data. You see this happen all the time--families of the deceased try to weasel their way into secrets and intimate histories of those who died. If all it might take is some lawyers and potentially dubious documentation to get around a dead person's privacy, then I would think twice about leaving any personal data behind.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Even if Apple can unlock that data and eventually does so, think about how that might look to some people, who would NOT want their heirs/family/descendants to have the means to rummage through their personal data. You see this happen all the time--families of the deceased try to weasel their way into secrets and intimate histories of those who died. If all it might take is some lawyers and potentially dubious documentation to get around a dead person's privacy, then I would think twice about leaving any personal data behind.
Perhaps stating in your will that the content of your devices is private and they are to be [emptied / erased / reset] would be appropriate then. (Compliance rate would probably be rather high if there was an exception, such as a external hd with family photos to be copied to interested family members.)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple asked for proof of ownership. Fair enough. They provided *three* forms of it.
Where are you getting that? They provided three documents, but since when was a death certificate "proof of ownership"?
A will is proof that a thing transferred ownership, although I would guess that the iPad wasn't called out specifically. The Solicitor's letter is the only thing that could possibly be a form of proof of ownership, but that's for the lawyers to talk about.
All that bibble about "what if" is bollocks.
No, it isn't. You need to have a system that keeps the bad guys out while accounting for situations like this. Accepting a death cert
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps Grandma was too busy dying to be concerned about what bullshit some company was going to pull with her possession. As was the family. Apple asked for proof of ownership. Fair enough. They provided *three* forms of it. That should be the end of it.
All that bibble about "what if" is bollocks. It was her iPad, she died, it now belongs to the family who have proven that they are the family. Unlock the fucking thing.
No, they provided a death certificate, that proves a woman died. They provided a will that said all her possessions go to the kids, and a fancy letter from a lawyer that says the same thing.
None of those things prove that the iPad they want unlocked belonged to the dead person, hence the court order.
This is all pretty standard stuff. It's just big news because someone wants ad impressions via click bait and slashdot just loves to hate Apple. Someone is making a mortgage payment off this story.
Pretexting (Score:4, Interesting)
Make note of the security question options such as:
In what city did your parents meet?
What is the first name of your best friend in High School?
What is the last name of your favorite elementary school teacher?
What is your dream job?
What is your favorite children's book?
What was the first album that you purchased?
What was the first film you saw in the theatre?
What was the first name of your first boss?
What was the first thing you learned to cook?
What was the model of your first car?
What was the name of the first beach you visited?
What was the name of your first pet?
What was your childhood nickname?
Where did you go the first time you flew in a plane?
Where were you on January 1, 2000?
Who was your favorite film star or character in school?
Who was your favorite singer or band in high school?
Who was your favorite teacher?
Wnat is the name of your favorite sports team?
Way to be obtuse, Apple. (Score:2)
They've now asked for a court order to prove that mum was the owner of the iPad and the iTunes account.
The fact the iPad is synced to the iTunes account is evidence they are owned by one and the same person.
The iTunes account has the full name, address, and credit card information of the owner on it (unless she never bought apps). That credit card account is legally tied to the deceased. Apple already holds the evidence in their own fucking billing system.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it most likely has her full name. Many people though only use prepaid iTunes cards to fund their accounts, and thus wouldn't have any CC info on their accounts (or, for that matter, address information, since it's entered for the purposes of the CC billing address most of the time).
You can buy apps without adding a CC - just buy a free app first and when prompted, add credit from an iTunes card. Then subsequent purchases will come out of that balance without needing to enter a CC. It only bugs you on
Power of Attorney? (Score:2)
Cost of Court case vs buying a new one... (Score:3)
Granted Apple would like that, another sale to boost the bottom line. But why would anyone waste spending $1500 or more in basic legal and court fees for an older/used $300~$400 device.
How is Apple Acting in Bad Faith? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have read most of the comments up until now. Frankly, most seem as if they were written by a bunch of Apple haters.
The article clearly states that while Apple acknowledges the woman is dead and the person to be the executor of her account, they require a court order and/or proof she is the rightful owner of the device. Why?
We have no reason to doubt the the executor or the heirs that the device belonged to her. But, being unable to provide the unlock code to her iPad nor her Apple Id and associated password (which, could instantly demonstrate it was her device via their FindMyIPhone service), Apple is unwilling to unlock it. They demand further proof of ownership (or, prior ownership).
Why?
First, there are DRM considerations. When a person uses an Apple device and "purchases" certain products through iTunes, they have a non-transferable license to use that material. Unlocking the device, without court order, could subject Apple to litigation by the owners of the DRM software.
Let's assume that the person presenting the iDevice is the legal heir to the device (i.e. it belonged to the deceased and bequeathed to them). Apple is asking for a court order directing them to access the device and remove their legal liability for providing such access to the data on the device and the the violation of privacy. If it were a house or vault, would you not want to make sure that the person you are giving the keys has a legal right to enter the premises?
Next, let's consider the owner has email accounts. The iDevice will, likely, automatically access those email accounts. Services such as FaceBook, Yahoo!, Hotmail, and GMail try to protect the ownership of the private content of those systems - people have a right to an expectation of privacy - even after death. It's in their terms of service. As an heir, you may or may not have a legal right to access those accounts of the deceased individual.
Just last year, I think it was, there was a case where the family of a deceased soldier wanted access to his email. It was denied by the company until a court order was granted.
If Apple unlocks the device and such services are accessed without human interaction (originally, the grandmother had access since she knew the code), you have just violated her privacy (dead or not). Would YOU want to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit where there was information in those private accounts that caused harm to another individual she communicated with via those email accounts? Perhaps, she had a secret life and wanted it kept that way? Maybe she was the mistress of a married man and the disclosure would bring that to light, destroy what was left of his marriage, or open him to a civil litigation? Or, maybe, even a claim against the family of the deceased woman which might go after her assets.
We all kick and scream here about privacy. And, when a company, such as Apple ACTUALLY tries to do the right thing in protecting it, they are scorned and hated. That's why I say it sounds like most of the posts here are from Apple haters.
Let the family produce a court order to have Apple access the device. Apple can look up the serial number (assuming she registered the device) and find the associated Apple ID. And, one would presume they could then unlock the device if in their physical possession (assuming, there isn't some master unlock command they can send). They would, legally, have to wipe the DRM material from the devices or follow other instructions in the court order. And, to keep themselves out of trouble, delete the email accounts and other apps that might automatically log in to a private system BEFORE turning it over to the Executor (unless, the court order grants them legal and civil protection).
Pictures and documents might be stored on cloud services vs on the device itself. In that former case, I hope the family has the passwords to those services so they can access them.
As I get older, I realize that there is a possibility I could die anytime
Re: (Score:3)
No. Never said anything of the sort. I said that for Apple to legally comply, they would require a court order and to make sure that the machine is legally the property of the Estate and that DRM protected items remain as such, and privacy is not violated. When Apple gets the court order, they will comply with that order and within the letter of the law. If they don't, that's another story altogether, isn't it?
It should give you time to pause and reflect to make sure that you have your affairs in order w
Re: (Score:3)
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 conv
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is right, your mother gave you the iPad, not the data on it.
The data does not belong to Apple.
The iPad does not belong to Apple.
Apple should have no skin in this game, they don't own any part of it.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is right, your mother gave you the iPad, not the data on it.
The data does not belong to Apple.
The iPad does not belong to Apple.
Apple should have no skin in this game, they don't own any part of it.
Actually, the box says "Your Apple iPad" inferring that Apple still own it and you're just using it. Besides this, your soul is the minimum price for any apple product. The bequeathed couldn't inherit this agreement as the agreement was for his grandmothers soul, he'll need to bequeath his soul to Apple (signed in blood, in triplicate) before they can do anything.
Jokes aside here, Apple is just being a dick, which is really what we can expect from Apple. The inheritor is legally entitled to the data on that device (as they would to any other intellectual properties like writings, patents and works of art created by the deceased) and Apple have the capacity to unlock the device (which is scary enough on its own) but refuse to do so because, because, shut up, thats why.
Also this is in the UK, consumer protection will not be kind to Apple.
Re: (Score:3)
Probate is a standard part of English Law
Re: (Score:3)
It serves everyone right for blindly walking into this situation. Digital content could be regarded as property but it isn't. I suspect the argument made by content owners is that anyone make a copy of a file whereas it takes too much effort to copy a physical item and the copy is imperfe
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the license says "non transferable" then that's the end of the discussion.
Not in the UK or EU. Digital sales are treated as sales, not licenses. Doesn't matter what the EULA says, if the said "buy this song" or "purchase app" then you have full consumer protection rights and full legal ownership of the copy. You can sell your legally purchased MP3s.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people don't give a second thought about privacy, especially when they don't have anything to hi
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only been a year or so since Mat Honan got all his Amazon, Google, and Apple data wiped because someone was able to trick their way into his accounts. Apple got castigated over that, and implemented a lot of extra security to try to prevent that sort of thing from happening again. Well, guess what? You can't have it both ways. One way or the other, there will be problematic edge cases - and this sort of thing is one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
One way or the other, there will be problematic edge cases - and this sort of thing is one of them.
It may be problematic for Apple, but it's not the family's responsibility to resolve it.
Apple chose to hold the keys to other people's valuables. They are responsible for making them available when needed.
Re: Why? (Score:2, Informative)
Did you miss the part of the summary where the legal executor sent a letter to Apple confirming her as legally dead?
That is the definition under UK law of proving that somebody has died.
Re: (Score:3)
Now they just need to prove that the person that died is the person that owned the iPad.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Bingo!
I have a red envelope in my safe that has ALL my usernames and passwords for everything I own and every account I have online. and Yes I update it quarterly.
If I am dead, I need to give the executors of my estate full control over everything with the least hassle, and that is in the clear written down on the piece of paper in that red envelope.
Re: (Score:2)
My co-worker gave me his personal tablet to use for work purposes (app testing), with his photos and music still on it.
I can understand if you don't care about the data, but I would still advise you to take a quick look at the pictures and possibly at the browsing history to make sure that you don't need to coat this thing with Purell (or dip it in rubbing alcohol).
Any Geeksquad veteran will tell you that there is a surprisingly large number of people who do ungodly things with their iPads (and I don't mean taking pictures of their tuna salad at Applebees).
You have to be careful with "second hand" devices...
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This is indefensible behavior. Apple are being assholes.
Quite the contrary. The Customer is in the wrong, since she did not stipulate to be buried clutching her iPad but instead to pass it on to other beings.
She can't be of the One True Apple Faith, thus she's a heretic.
As long as it's not the NSA ... (Score:2)
What matters is not photos or something, for Apples, so long as there is no profit to be made, they do not care.
Furthermore, the family only a simple garden variety family of peons, and anything short of the NSA (and/or GCHQ) Apple won't give a rat ass about anything.
It isn't about whether the iPad can be unlocked or not ~ of course Apple can unlock it with ease ( Apple, like any other American companies, must engineer in at least a backdoor in all their products to be utilized by the NSA), it's about the
Of course they can prove it (Score:3)
If the security is so good that they need Apple to unlock it then they can easily prove that it's their mom's device because the active account on the device is her mom.
No idea who modded you "insightful" - no disrespect to you, I make 1000 silly mistakes a day, but looking at other people's texts/comments is always easier than judging your own words so I DO have some doubts about those who moderated this comment up. Unless someone can point out an error in my argument, but I think it's pretty obvious (well
Re:Serial number (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing that the GP has never had to deal with a will or death issue of a family member and the transfer of items from the dead to the living. It's not a pretty process, and in a lot of families it's usually only one or two people who end up dealing with this.
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly, Apple cannot afford to take the risk. Why, if they give in just this one time, they set the stage for this family to become kingpins of crime. All they would need is a steady flow of cadavers, forged legal documents, lawyers, and stolen iPads, any of which these sort of experience criminals could find fenced for a-dime-a-dozen.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]
In most English speaking countries outside the US, the concept of 'lawyer' is split into two types of people: solicitors and barristers (though some individuals may practice law as both). Links above explain the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also illegal to impersonate a solicitor/layer in both the US and UK; if it is a scam it went from petty theft to actual jail time and a $5000 fine.
Having one sign off is comparable to a Notary in the US witness and stamp a document.
Re: (Score:2)
Except by your reasoning the entire drive would need to be wiped before it could be turned over.
Any journals written by the person would also need to be erased somehow, since according to you, they turned over the journal not what was written in it.
Re: (Score:3)
What else is new? Human interest takes a back seat to Apple's interests. I'd suggest they have no respect for the dead, but in this case, they are respecting the will of Jobs by carrying on as he would.
(yeah yeah, troll modding here I come. He was pretty famous for being a major ass.)
So, when they were the subject of severe criticism for having lax security (justified in my opinion) after someone used social engineering to reset a reporter's Apple ID you hated them then, and now that they responded to that criticism and improved their security to be less convenient they're still to be hated?
Got it.
You're a very angry person when it comes to Apple. How much of your time would you say you spend raging on the internet because people buy products from a company you don't like?