Apple literally cannot win in the media and the current security narrative. If they could/would remotely unlock or reset passwords people would freak out about lax security you could get around by purely faking a written and signed letter.
This sucks but is all this heartbreak and fighting with a company worth a 500 dollar toy? This whole thing is ridiculous.
This sucks but is all this heartbreak and fighting with a company worth a 500 dollar toy?
You do understand that some people have to work full time for several months to save enough to buy that kind of "toy", right? Maybe you're lucky enough to be more wealthy than that, but many aren't. Not that the amount of money involved is even slightly the point here anyway.
In the US, a judge would likely have ordered Apple to unlock the device and then made them pay the estate's legal fees, since most states actually have laws requiring service providers (such as banks) to give the estate access to a decedent's property upon confirmed proof of death (i.e., a certified copy of the death certificate).
These US laws are generally based on UK estate laws, so it is highly unlikely that a court order would be required in the UK.
Really, for a multi-billion dollar with billions of dollars in profit each quarter, Apple's inability or unwillingness to perform an hour or two of basic legal research is shocking, especiallly considering that they are effectively demanding that the estate pay 500 pounds for access to a toy that likely cost 500 pounds.
When my friend who is only 29 now developed a blood clot two years ago (thankfully surgery went fine but the chances weren't good according to the doctor going in); I set up a password protected encrypted disc image with all my login details (1Password), monitary asset information (iBank), contact details (Address book + txt file), instructions for dealing with employer, insurance stuff (life, home, accident), etc that's on a USB stick in my flat and synced to my parents computer via SFTP every month or so.
That way they can get any information they need easily if something were to happen to me by unlocking the disk image with the password they have.
Obviously out of the scope for most people (including article's subject) to set up but a good idea for those of us who are technologically inclined IMO (others may disagree, if so I'd love to hear why).
It sounds reasonable to me. They have provided evidence that the woman has died, and that she left an iPad. Apple is asking for a legal declaration that it is this iPad and this iTunes account.
"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.
The survivors are balking at the £200/hr for the solicitor to make that happen.
So it appears there is a path for an executor to gain control of an iTunes account and iOS devices, but it requires a legal verification from the courts. Anything less would be open to abuse.
Note to self: make a mechanism for my survivors to unlock my keychain, because that is really going to suck for them in my case.
It's hard for me to want to blame Apple for this. The fact of the matter is, they should not have lost those security tokens.
I'm getting pretty sick of the externalities of people's unwillingness to manage their information. You lose your password, you lose your device, unless you know how to hack it or can pay someone to do it. If it costs you more to recover your device than it's worth, tough shit. That password is designed to keep people who don't know it out. Don't lose track of it.
You lose your password, you lose your device, unless you know how to hack it or can pay someone to do it. If it costs you more to recover your device than it's worth, tough shit.
That's fair enough, as long as you also prominently advertise the fact that ever forgetting that password will render your device worthless, so that everyone is fully aware of the limitation before they choose whether or not to make a purchase.
With these things, there is someone you can talk to that controls the service. If you lose access to your online bank account, then you can call up your bank and have them manually reset it. Since they have alternate trust channels for alternate ways of doing things, (you can check your balance and make transfers by phone in most cases) you can just reuse them to regain access. (God help you if you lose your Gmail account, though)
Apple's devices are fully in your control after you buy them. If you lose access to a perfectly working device then it's your own damn fault. It's your own damn fault in the other cases too, it's just that the nature of the services provided mean you can go also go through a person.
But if you buy a safe, lock it, and subsequently lose all normal access to it, don't bitch to me when you have to ruin it to get back in. It's just doing its job, and you failed to do yours. Suck it up, buy a new safe, and be more careful next time.
You obviously didn't read the article. This isn't an issue of someone losing their password and subsequently being locked out of their account --- something that Apple would help with. It was mom's iPad. She died. They don't have the pass code and/or iCloud password and Apple won't help them open that up. Sounds fair or unfair depending on your personal beliefs.
Having said that the article is a non-sensible emotional plea for sympathy at the expense of painting Apple as a cold-hearted villain. If they just want to be able to make use of the iPad it's simple to restore it using iTunes.
This isn't a case of people losing the password to the iPad--they never had it to begin with. They inherited an iPad, which was locked, and Apple refused to unlock it despite proof of death.
This would be disgraceful at the best of times, and it's just adding insult to injury in this case.
It seems not only software but even perfectly usable hardware can now be crippled by some high and might organisation's "security" measures. Roll on changes in the law to compel unlocking mechanisms.
Actually this is exactly what I want to happen to any devices that I own. Depending on the executor of the will of course, there is a lot to gain from possession of a device/account.
People need to make separate arrangements like password handover etc and sort their affairs out properly. This should be promoted here, not the fact that Apple haven't handed the details over yet.
If I were Apple, I'd deny the request to be honest.
If I were the people in question, Id shrug the iPad off and get on with rebuilding my life.
And before I get accused of sounding insensitive, exactly this happened to me with my father a couple of years back. I had a 1Tb encrypted NAS and no passwords. Had to write the data off.
Edit: that NAS array contained 38,000 photographs for reference that I'll never see.
People need to make separate arrangements like password handover etc and sort their affairs out properly.
And how will that help if someone dies suddenly?
I'm guessing you've never dealt with, or watched a friend or family member deal with, probate in that situation. It typically means months of stressful and often heart-wrenching work that has to be done on top of everything else in your life. There are rules and procedures for dealing with all kinds of unknowns, many of which no-one saw coming and that's why they're unknown. One of the few things you can usually rely on is that if there are explicit wishes properly documented in a will, the law will tend to side with whatever that says. How come Apple can't rely on the same thing?
This should be promoted here, not the fact that Apple haven't handed the details over yet.
So everyone now has to maintain a legally registered compendium of every password change they ever make, in case a bus hits them tomorrow? Or someone who knows they have only a little time left, for whom every moment is precious, should waste that time filing formal notifications of their electronic accounts with companies who apparently have too much control over modern devices?
Apple have been shown copies of the death certificate, will, and solicitor's letter. That is sufficient to transfer millions of pounds in estate assets in the eyes of the law. How come it's not sufficient for the mighty Apple to show a bit common sense?
Apple deserve every bit of horrible PR that's coming to them over this.
> And how will that help if someone dies suddenly?
I've sorted my affairs out. I have a keypassX database and master passwords listed my will.
I take it you read the rest of my last post -- I have dealt with this.
Most people amble through life and never ask the question "what if?". If they do ask it, they light another cigarette rather than put mitigation in place. That is naivety and people need to snap out of it, pretty damn quick. The world is a big and complicated place and if you don't want to leave a pile of pain and suffering for people if you do decide to walk in front of a train or something then you need to sort it out.
No excuses.
Sorry.
As for Apple, they have no obligation to do anything. The device is an asset (tangible) and the will probably states about transferring them and the contract and terms are with the person who signed it. In this circumstance, they will cause themselves problems if they act and say yes here you go or no chance. I'm sure the Apple Account which is the issue wasn't even mentioned in the will or signatory's asset declaration.
Doomed either way.
Apple chose the right answer: mu (i.e. no answer).
As for Apple, they have no obligation to do anything.
I don't know whether that's true legally here, but if it is, I don't think it should be.
If they provided devices with a factory reset that let someone unlock them, even if it meant locking out any older data, then maybe.
If they sold them with prominent warnings about how they could be rendered permanently useless in this sort of situation, maybe.
But they don't do those things. They deliberately lock the device to an authentication mechanism over which they have exclusive control under these conditions. If you're going to do that, and you're not going to warn people about it so they can make an informed decision about whether they want to buy a product with that limitation in the first place, then I think you do bear some responsibility for ensuring that the recovery mechanism operates reasonably.
Yep, I've made similar arrangements. After helping friends after the death of family members it became obvious that I needed to put something in place.
> And how will that help if someone dies suddenly?
You maintain the will while you are not dying. You send the new password for your Keypass/1Password/whatever to your lawyer in a sealed envelope with instructions that it only be opened when your will is being executed.
Then when you are dying, you can forget about it all because you're busy fighting cancer or whatever and don't have time to do silly things like change passwords.
Then when you are dead, your executor has access to the password store and can start the process of archiving and shutting down any accounts you have.
As for the device: a death certificate is not sufficient to transfer millions of pounds of assets: you also have to have some kind of documentation that the assets belonged to the deceased in the first place. Typically this would be a bank account number, a title deed, or even a receipt for the registration of a vehicle.
Apple is simply trying to protect the actual owner of the devices from people trying to steal them.
No. I work for companies that have lost silly amounts of time because big businesses screwed up management of DRM'd systems and locked us out of things we had paid a lot of money to purchase when they shouldn't have. And since I also happen to own those companies, that behaviour directly cost me a lot of my own money. I understand why they do these things, but given their staggering resources, paid for by those high prices, I have absolutely no sympathy if they screw things up and the people who were harmed as a result call them out for it.
Apple's "Activation lock" keeps devices bound to a specific Apple ID even in the case of a device firmware reset.
This little bit of extra information I've given shows the senselessness of the article.
The device can be reset with the mother's Apple ID. Her Apple ID can be reset through her email address. Her email address controls tons of important accounts that must be dealt with by her successors.
If her children did not get access to her email address, that is poor end-of-life planning, and the iPad problem stems from it.
Maybe she left something on there that the family would like to know about - like unsync'ed photo's, surprise notes that she left thinking the kids would read them later, and so on ..
Not really madness... Theft prevention has been a mandate. I would love to see your foolproof proposal for preventing unauthorized users access while allowing authorized people access.
There's absolutely nothing stopping them from using the iPad with a fresh OS installation, so I don't think useless is actually an accurate description. (Indeed, the BBC title is less linkbaity than this one and acknowledges the subjectivity of that description.)
Without a provision in the will to permit Apple to unlock the device, I can see why it would be hesitant to do so. Certainly, if I bequeathed my phone, computer, or tablet to relatives I would most assuredly not want them to also have access to the content on it.
This is less about the device and more about the content. Yes, they could wipe the device and start over without issue, but they would lose access to the mother's purchased content in iTunes. Some people have the income to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on content for their Apple device. In that case it would be a substantial loss to lose access.
So the true issue is less to do with the restrictions on the account and more on the absolutely absurd DRM placed on the content. I can leave my collection of CDs to whomever I would like (along with the digital library I keep on my hard drive). Apple has done a huge disservice in convincing people that vendor specific draconian DRM was an acceptable thing.
The issue is the new iOS 7 Activation Lock, not any content on the account. Unless "Find my <iPhone/iPad>" is turned off before wiping, the device's serial number is tied to the Apple ID that was previously signed into the device. Even after a complete wipe and reinstall of the OS image, you still cannot use the device without that account's password. The setup process will ask you for that login info and will go no further unless you have it.
The intent with this is that if you lost your device or had it stolen from you, even if you remotely wiped it, it would be worthless to anyone who may have found it.
You know, I remember perusing Richard Stallman's "The Right to Read" in the early 2000s and thinking "this is all extremely unlikely and way too pessimistic, this stuff will never happen like this" — http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html — and here we are, one step at a time, inching towards trapping our knowledge on devices that only one person can ever use.
OMG just do a DFU Restore and be done with it.
How is it crippled if you can just restore it? I think the only thing crippled is their heads...
You can have whatever "activation lock" you want active if you do a DFU restore it does not matter. The device will be restored and you'll have full access to it.
WTF why the drama?
Maybe too snarky, but they could have simply called Apple support and gotten them to reset the password. If a hacker can impersonate a person, hopefully this guy would know enough about his mom to do so too.
I'm hoping they already tried the security question route and were unsuccessful.
This sucks but is all this heartbreak and fighting with a company worth a 500 dollar toy? This whole thing is ridiculous.