Apple (in England) copper-bottoms laws, and require too much documentation.
When a person dies their estate goes through probabte. You get official documents as a result. That documentarion is effectively a court order - they are good enough to get banks to release funds from the dead person's account to the executor of the will.
Apple sometimes do not recognise those documents and refuse to unlock devices that used to belong to dead people, even if the device is mentioned in the dead person's will.
Here they're not asking for access to the information - they just want the device to be unlocked. Apple recognised, after publication, that they'd made an error in this case, but they maintain that a court order is required for access to iCloud accounts. But they don't recognise grants of probate as valid court orders.
Apple's policies around deceased users' hardware and accounts has recently (early 2015) changed, so it's possible this particular problem wouldn't happen again. Dead users do appear to happen infrequently enough that not every CSR seems to know what to do when you call in about one, though.
However, without court orders of some sort, you're probably completely out of luck. A death certificate used to be enough, but no longer.
I found myself in that particular edge case (along with two Canadian families) earlier this year, as a relative had passed away in a state that did not mandate probate, and the family had elected to not go through the courts, and so had no legal documentation establishing an executor or estate.
Apple ultimately said that they needed a court order to close the account or transfer the purchases to another one, otherwise the account and login would remain active forever, period.
> I would imagine not everyone would want their devices unlocked by family members if they die say in an accident.
That's just a normal part of living and dying. If you want a specific thing to happen or not happen after you die, digital or not, you either put it in your will, or you let the state's default occur. Notwithstanding the further policies of any organization like Apple.
I think he means to remove the find my iPhone protection. With find my iPhone, you cannot restore the phone, you're always asked for the Apple ID before you can use it again. You can either remove it in settings of the iPhone, on iCloud.com or apple can remove it remotely.
If the opinion of the dead didn't matter, Wills would be pointless. In this scenario, if you don't want the living to access your phone, then just state that.
> It should only matter to you if you think you or someone you care about will die some day.
Why? When I'm dead, anything that anybody does will no affect me. (assuming I had an iPhone) Apple shouldn't not-unlock it because I might not want that. I want nothing, since I'm dead.
First I heard of that phrase, but I think he's using it correctly. Many privacy laws and information laws only apply to the living. Apple "copper-bottoms" these laws and acts as if they apply in perpetuity.
I've solved this the easy way. The only "online service" I use is an IMAP box and run that using inbox zero. Everything important is archived on disk in eml files. We share all our passwords in a single keepaas database and everything we have data-wise is in a shared folder on a shared computer. Backups are all in known locations. We regularly empty our phones an cameras and transcode everything into neutral formats.
The digital life is 22Gb of photos and videos spanning 13 years so far.
So there isn't a digital life as such, just a pool of electronic memories and information which we share. I couldn't use anything deeper after watching a friend go through the painful process of losing everything tied to an ecosystem of a software vendor.
Oh and I'll only use a system that respects my control for my data. Currently this is windows 8.1 but with the introduction of 10, it appears I'm not going to have to dump that due to the incoming app ecosystem and hit Linux.
If this all looks like a lot of effort, you're only doing the work up front. Retrospectively if you don't do this, you're deferring a world of pain.
Indeed, I think that having a shared keychain is very important. I have heard of people planned to do such a thing, but never did before it was too late. Sorting out the digital life off- and online will be a mess without it. Do it today.
We have also been moving stuff out of data silos and are moving back to plain old files where possible. E.g. administrative stuff we share using Bittorrent Sync (because it is peer to peer and encrypted) and we store photos in Dropbox (because they are easier to share with family that way). We considered doing everything with BTSync, but on iOS the interface is too difficult for non tech-savvy family.
I tried to sync for several years and it never worked. I tried everything. Eventually we just moved to using one computer and sharing it. Its not healthy to spend all the time on it anyway. Having a pooled machine has a number of social benefits as well.
So we have a single laptop, three smartphones (my oldest daughter has one as well) and they're all handed in weekly to me for data extraction and archival.
The laptop is a Lenovo X201 so it can go anywhere and we have a docking station and full desktop setup if you need anything a little more healthy to use.
Yes. I had one. It died suddenly and left me with a £400 bill for a new one. Fortunately I backed up the NAS to an external disk but from this and other experiences, I've come to a general rule:
the reliability of a backup system is inversely proportional to the number of moving parts
Hence why I use beyond compare to manually sync files to two physical mediums from the master copy on my laptop. One encrypted USB stick I carry on me at all times and one hard disk that lives in a fire safe.
wow, only 22gb in 13 years? Do you lower your media's resolutions before archiving them? I thought about doing that with most of mine... but I would still need to go through the collection one by one to avoid doing it on my favorite ones even if I used exif metadata to rate most of them.
All photos are ~1.2Mb jpegs straight from a Nikon d3100 these days. I don't archive raws or process them other than perhaps rotation. Videos are h264 with a reasonable profile although this will change one day.
The key to keeping it contained is to not keep everything. I'm not afraid to throw away stuff.
"Facebook tends to “memorialise” their account – freeze them so they can be viewed, but providing no access to past messages. [...] Facebook also offended a fair number of bereaved people with its Year in Review clips [...] The problem was that for some, these were pictures of dead loved ones."
Here is something I really don't understand. For some reason it's apparently preferred, both by Facebook as well as people overall, to rub out a deceased person's digital existence - as opposed to preserving a bit of their life and writing for posterity.
To me, the "memorialization" of FB accounts looks like an almost cynical choice of words considering what it actually entails. Do we really prefer to pretend dead people never existed in the first place?
> preserving a bit of their life and writing for posterity
This is exactly what * memorialization* does, as I understand it. The account is preserved as "Remembering XYZ" but does not apprar in public lists. Existing content will still be available, but it can no longer be used to post new messages or photographs. Family and friends can still post comments and pass on condolences. It seems appropriate, and a sensible and respectful choice on their part. Of course, there are always going to be people who want the accounts to be deleted, and Facebook should accomodate these wishes. But memorialisation seems like the right option for most people. See here for the actual policy:
> Facebook also offended a fair number of bereaved people with its Year in Review clips [...] The problem was that for some, these were pictures of dead loved ones."
There was a recent ad on FB from a maker of teapods that said something like "share a cup of tea with your dad". Unfortunately, that ad was shown to people whose fathers were dead or abusive. My dad died before FB so I've never had any account in my friends list that an algorithm could consider to be my father. I'd link to it but I genuinely have no idea how to link to a Facebook post. :-/
https://www.facebook.com/TassimoUK?pnref=story and the "Share a cuppa with your dad and show him how much you care this Father’s Day #ChooseNotToChoose" which has about 500 comments of mostly people saying their father is dead.
> There was a recent ad on FB from a maker of teapods that said something like "share a cup of tea with your dad". Unfortunately, that ad was shown to people whose fathers were dead or abusive. My dad died before FB so I've never had any account in my friends list that an algorithm could consider to be my father. I'd link to it but I genuinely have no idea how to link to a Facebook post. :-/
Is that really fair? How is that different from an ad on TV saying the same thing?
I'm guessing Tassimo's ad agency isn't UK based - a cuppa always means tea¹ but Tassimo is a coffee-pod company aren't they, and their ad [thanks to PavlovsCat for the link] shows only coffee drinks that I noticed.
Funny how this sort of nuance really turns one off a company; I guess because it highlights the fact they're merely trying to manipulate your emotions when they don't take care with elements of national identity that directly relate to their area of commerce.
It's like if McDo advertised they do "real American style fries" in France.
>Do we really prefer to pretend dead people never existed in the first place?
I think that we consider facebook, a commercial entity based on data-mining every scrap of information it holds, an inappropriate place to memorialise our loved ones.
That's a separate question though. Fact of the matter is people do tend to put an enormous part of their lives on social media platforms. So it's on there right now, which is too late to consider if it was a good idea to trust an unreliable medium to steward your data to begin with.
What I'm concerned about is that when a friend or family member dies, you have to cope with the loss of the person, but on top of that Facebook forcibly arranges for you the loss of all corresponding data as well. They're effectively saying "Well, this guy's dead now, so we're taking away the documentation of all shared memories with that person. We're honoring the deceased by erasing their digital existence as best as we can."
> we're taking away the documentation of all shared memories with that person
They aren't taking anything away.
See my earlier comment about what memorialization actually entails. Nothing is erased, the content is preserved for family and friends. Of course the account status is changed, it would be inappropriate for a dead person's account to show up in lists of contacts to invite to events, and so on.
And a reason for that is the utter absurdity in regards to account deletion. You have to do fairly standard things like identify email, password and some contacts.... but you also have to know the EXACT month and year of which you signed up. And unless you got lucky and didn't delete your sign up email up there is no possible way to find out. When I first signed up, I had a ridiculous name like everyone else did back in the day, and I wanted to just move on. Not very serious, I know, but this issue can be for many circumstances.
I really wish that some legislation would be passed for a "Nuke" button standard on all digital platforms that allows you or a designed individual to erase profiles at will.
Why do companies do stupid things like that? Is it a technical issue or do they REALLY care that much about having your name on file even if you want to delete your account?
Maybe there's an argument for Facebook keeping your pictures in case you ever want to come back (even though I still believe they should delete them if you ask them to). But only your name? What possible use could they have for that?
There are probably business reasons for wanting the number of accounts to never go down, but I'll give you a technical reason: the database schema.
Most big companies will have a big database holding user data, with many tables that have cross-reference fields. There is one table with the master-record for each user account, and that record's unique key is cross-referenced in many other tables that hold data related to the account, and many of those cross-reference other user accounts as well.
To delete the master record, the database schema requires deletion of all of the cross-referenced records too. But when those are also referencing other users, you'd have to delete their master records too. You can't do that, so you're not able to delete anything.
This is a naive implementation, but it's common for databases designed without forethought about record deletion. The typical solution is to add an 'active' flag field, and to do 'soft-deletes' which just sets the flag to false. The record isn't deleted, so there is no problem with references. However, now ALL of your queries need to include 'where active=true' to make sure soft-deleted records don't get displayed. That can be a huge retro-fit if you didn't plan for it from the start, and it requires extra care even if you did. Which is why it's often not done.
Before GMail a typical webmail provider gave you so little space that deleting irrelevant e-mails was standard practice; otherwise your inbox would soon fill up.
Frankly, I had to delete my e-mails on school Linux server AND not so long ago, on company mailbox. Yes, this is ridiculous and yes, it happens.
I use a 503(c) service for email, the only thing is that they rely on dontations, so the more space I use the more it'll cost them. So out of being curteous to them, I delete any unwanted email. One other reason I delete email is because I like having a 'clean' inbox.
But despite all of that, it's really Skype's fault for assuming that a user will keep randomly chosen, arbitrary data like that. Not all of us have photographic memories, so the vast userbase, as a result, will have great difficulty in deleting their account. There's also a very high probability that it's done by Skype deliberately, to stop people deleting their accounts (Because data mining is 'phun'!)
Relatively speaking those parents of mine are to pop their clogs one day (well, Burkenstock sandals, one day being many years hence). I would not be happy about deleting everything on their PC's, I would want stuff kept.
However...
With my own 'digital life' I would prefer people to just fdisk/powerwash my PC-style devices and send the things to the charity shop. There really would be nothing to see on any of my machines, the cloud can just be forgotten, nothing really matters. I don't know if others would see it that way though. My point being that 'what you would do' concerning your oh-so-precious online life is different to what you might think when it comes to someone else's digital life.
The only digital life I'm worried about in the event of my untimely death is the few IRC channels I frequent. Just let those guys know I'm gone, put up a "He's dead, Jim, take what you want." on my GitHub and leave the rest to bit-rot. I don't think the cloud cares that I won't feed it data no more.
Write a dead man's switch script. You just have to remind it you're not dead once a month for example.
However don't do what a colleague of mine did back in the early 00s. after a motorcycle accident he was in hospital for three weeks. This was back in the days before ubiquitous internet access (horrible times!). His dead mans switch went off after two weeks and caused an email to be sent to his boss to call him a vacuous cunt. Obviously that didn't go down well at all.
You also have to be sure the machine you're hosting this on won't be taken down if you really die and aren't around to manage/pay for it anymore. Server in your closet? The plug will be pulled long before 6 months pass after you're gone. Server in a data center? You can't be paying for that monthly, as chances are your credit card will be cancelled and your machine will be shut down for non-payment before your 6 month deadline. Also, hardware failure makes it a possibility that your server will not survive 6 months uptime anyway.
Basically, dead man's switch is not even remotely guaranteed to work.
> Write a dead man's switch script. You just have to remind it you're not dead once a month for example.
I've been meaning to do this for years. Having it trigger when I log onto my desktop/laptop is ideal (with some additional option in case I'm hospitalized, like mobile phone trigger too).
A shared and synced 1password vault between family members is the best option I've seen so far. You can have your vault, a work vault, a family fault, etc which is kept in sync with separate permissions.
Hopefully, our loved ones' digital lives will hang around forever. Storage is getting cheaper and cheaper, after all.
My half brother, who we just found in 2005, started a Facebook account before he died. He added me and never got around to adding anybody else. I can post things on his wall, but no one sees them.
Both my parents have passed away and pass by them in my contacts. I won't deleting them, ever. I did update my Dad's location, though, just so I can always use that for directions to their grave.
I didn't read the article, but I get the drift. I knew a guy was in a very unhappy marriage. He didn't have a large online presence, but his posts and pictures were important to him. You couldn't tell he was in a unhappy marriage--unless you knew him. His wife was not in any of his pictures, nor did he talk about her.
Well he died in his sleep one night. The next day, all his accounts were taken down. I don't know who removed all his accounts, but they were gone. My point is unless you have an agreement, or the surviving spouse is slandered in some way; I think, in most cases, if the surviving spouse should just use the passwords to convey the obituary notice.
(I think I was bothered with just how quick his accounts vanished? All his accounts were on free sites. I didn't see any need to close them all down. Plus, after all the verbal abuse, and drama--his only enjoyment, or escapism was going online?)
When a person dies their estate goes through probabte. You get official documents as a result. That documentarion is effectively a court order - they are good enough to get banks to release funds from the dead person's account to the executor of the will.
Apple sometimes do not recognise those documents and refuse to unlock devices that used to belong to dead people, even if the device is mentioned in the dead person's will.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26448158
Here they're not asking for access to the information - they just want the device to be unlocked. Apple recognised, after publication, that they'd made an error in this case, but they maintain that a court order is required for access to iCloud accounts. But they don't recognise grants of probate as valid court orders.