Apple security rules leave inherited iPad useless
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
This sucks but is all this heartbreak and fighting with a company worth a 500 dollar toy? This whole thing is ridiculous.
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.
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.
A 500 dollar toy that could well contain photographs and other media from a recently departed that are not available elsewhere.
Yes, it probably is well worth the heartbreak and fighting.
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).
"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.
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.
Let's apply it to email, online banking and forum accounts while we're at it, shall we?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Cases like this shows why tablets, like any other computers, should be formatable and reinstallable.
Android at least has a factory reset option in the recovery menus for cases like this.
This would be the same as google not providing the users google credentials.
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.
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht5818
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.
I'm hoping they already tried the security question route and were unsuccessful.
Problem solved.
I know all of my wife's passwords, and if my folks were alive, I'm sure I'd know all of them, as well.