[Silhouette]

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.

[bananas]

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.

[Silhouette]

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.

[bananas]

> 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).

[Silhouette]

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.

[trackerbri]

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.

[manicdee]

> 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.

[nb1981]

do you work for the NSA? (Silhouette)

[Silhouette]

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.