Grieving Father is Begging Apple to Unlock His Dead Son's iPhone (mirror.co.uk) 388
"A grieving father is begging Apple to allow him access to the photos stored on his dead son's iPhone," reports Time. In September Leonardo Fabbretti's adopted son died of bone cancer at age 13, and the father believes that two months of photographs are still stored on his son's iPhone. Last fall Apple staff attempted to retrieve the photos from their cloud-storage service, but the iPhone hadn't been synced before the 13-year-old's death. "Don't deny me the memories of my son," the father writes in a letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook.
The father's letter tells Apple that "Although I share your philosophy in general, I think Apple should offer solutions for exceptional cases like mine," according to a British newspaper, while 88% of respondents in their online poll believed that Apple should unlock the phone.
Sorry, no exceptions to mathematics. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Boo hoo, my emotions are more important than the whole world's privacy."
Sorry, there is literally no way for Apple to build into a phone or an OS a way to unlock it for situations like this that won't also be vulnerable to governments and hackers.
If you never see your son's photos, that will be sad for you.
If Apple actually makes the changes required to make it possible for people like you to get in to phones like these regularly, that will be devastating for all iPhone users everywhere.
Dan Aris
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This, even with this whopper of a fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
First, my condolences to the father. My kid is in college now, but I would have taken his phone away if he locked me out of it. Why? Trust is always a two way street. Sadly many people neglect that fact, which results in issues like TFA is appealing and a massive amount of social problems. Your kid giving you the password does not indicate that you have to use it, and in a healthy relationship the parent would not even have to ask. The parent not using the password to snoop is the opposite direction on that two way street. Parents need to learn that lesson, or continue down the same old path of "I can't access my kids phone after something happened to them.", and "I never knew my kid was on drugs.", and "I never knew they were seeing an older person which led to something bad.", etc.. etc.. you get the point.
The reason I called this a whopper of a fallacy is that it's an appeal to emotion on a massive scale (child, death, personal loss, disease). No matter how many appeals to emotion you stack up, it's still an appeal to emotion and fallacious argument.
The fact that this massive appeal comes from an adult reeks of propaganda. Adults are often foolish enough to attempt to use an appeal, but media is usually better about not using them when they are so obvious. If it's a legit person and request, I can hope that they learn to rationalize their thoughts and then teach others to do the same.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you will be called names (like I was, in my similar post).
those who try to get their way (gov shills, mostly, trying to erode the actual discussion, here, with noise and distraction) will keep at it and pick at OUR emotions.
don't weaken, brothers! we have to stay strong and not allow those who would destroy what little privacy we still have left, for their personal power-grab needs.
it does not matter WHAT emotional-tug reasons they give. we have to stay strong and ignore any insults they throw at us.
when
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That trust and behavior thing *might* be slightly modified if you know they're going to live their whole life in a shorter span than normal. I don't really know - I've never been in that situation. But, I might (I really don't know) be more compelled to not worry about things like trust and a phone if my child is going to die in the near-term.
Re: (Score:2)
Adults are often foolish enough to attempt to use an appeal, but media is usually better about not using them when they are so obvious.
I think you have that backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Hypocrite.
Re: (Score:2)
Upon the presentation of a death certificate and showing proof of relation (such as a spouse or parent) most businesses are required to provide access to the assets, information or belongings, of the deceased.
Why should Apple be any different?
Because Apple does not possess either the photos OR the password. The only way they could comply is to break their own product with new software that does not exist now... at least not at Apple. Creating this new software would destroy the value of their products. It's like telling a vault manufacturer they must break into a bank because they best know how to pull it off. Now, it would seem that another company can do the required work, which means THEY have tools to break into some iPhones ( the FBI case w
Re:Trust, but verify (Score:5, Insightful)
The boy was thirteen. That's not very old, and in my opinion not old enough to own a device with bullet-proof industrial-grade security that admits the parents literally no possibility of access. Children deserve privacy, and thirteen is still very much a child, but they still live in the house, and their parents are still legally responsible for many of their actions.
I have all my kids passwords, and unlock codes, and security questions, and iCloud keychain passcodes, and so on, securely stored elsewhere. This is mostly because children can't be relied upon to remember passwords, but also because they are my responsibility, and so their data is my responsibility too.
Re: (Score:3)
My oldest son is 12 (turning 13 soon) and I recently gave him an e-mail address to use for class. I informed him that I have the password to his account so I can check it to make sure he's being safe online. I also told him if he tries changing the password without first informing me (whether because he wants to keep me out or whether he fears someone else knows his password), I've taken steps to allow me to reset the password and re-gain entry.
I'm sure that he'll eventually earn enough trust to have an e
Re:Sorry, no exceptions to mathematics. (Score:4, Interesting)
I would create multiple usernames/passwords that are allowed to unlock the system. E.g. Multi login. They keystore that secures the encryption on the device would then have to be doubly encrypted with two seperate encryption keys on the device using a public key of the 2nd user available on iCloud. The second encrypted store could be uploaded to iCloud and only decoded by that 3rd party who would then have access to decrypt the duplicated information.
You could do PK key exchange via bluetooth or something more personal to prevent against MITM attacks.
The device would then need a time delay to prevent that designated user from logging onto your phone through casual day to day usage. The device should only be accessable 30 days after not being used and would require the user to access iCloud to fetch and decrypt the store. The device would still be protected by encryption but may be decrypted by a designated person(s) so long as the designated person is nominated upfront.
Re:Sorry, no exceptions to mathematics. (Score:5, Interesting)
You could also give your Dad the code to your iPhone, specially when you're fighting cancer and could die literally any minute.
If he didn't do it, it *might* be because he wouldn't have wanted his dad anywhere near his phone. But we'll never know now, will we ?
Already supports multiple passwords ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the actual story, it is revealed that in fact, they did precisely this. Unfortunately, Apple's half-assed fingerprint reader configuration refuses to let you unlock it with a fingerprint after 48 hours. When someone dies, chances are, you're dealing with funeral arrangements for way l
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I would create multiple usernames/passwords that are allowed to unlock the system. E.g. Multi login. They keystore that secures the encryption on the device would then have to be doubly encrypted with two seperate encryption keys on the device using a public key of the 2nd user available on iCloud. The second encrypted store could be uploaded to iCloud and only decoded by that 3rd party who would then have access to decrypt the duplicated information.
You could do PK key exchange via bluetooth or something more personal to prevent against MITM attacks.
The device would then need a time delay to prevent that designated user from logging onto your phone through casual day to day usage. The device should only be accessable 30 days after not being used and would require the user to access iCloud to fetch and decrypt the store. The device would still be protected by encryption but may be decrypted by a designated person(s) so long as the designated person is nominated upfront.
I feel that there are a lot of holes in this plan...
Re: (Score:2)
I want to know why phones aren't configured as multiuser systems with the ability to encrypt on top of that *and* the ability to have multiple profiles. I don't even believe the Ubuntu phone is configured to do that - well. I believe it is configured so that you can. The same thing with tablets.
Why can't I have a full guest system available and an administrator account?
Then, if they'd not explicitly encrypted the files - root would be able to access them. Or, well, any account with admin rights would be abl
Re:Sorry, no exceptions to mathematics. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure there's a way. The owner of the phone could voluntarily use an Apple-provided key escrow service. If you buy an iPhone for your son, register a recovery key with Apple. If you buy iPhones for your employees, keep a recovery key for your company. If you buy an iPhone for yourself, and don't want a recovery key, don't register one; but don't cry to Apple if you lose your passcode.
If the police have a warrant, they can demand the escrowed password, if one exists, because it's no longer 'personal' once it's shared. That's part of the conditions of using an escrow service.
Does that make the escrow service a giant target for hackers and the NSA? Sure. Want to avoid that risk? Don't escrow your password. Your choice.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, there are probably dozens of possible ways. The first several that come to mind are:
Teach phone child and parent fingerprints (Score:2)
Re:Sorry, no exceptions to mathematics. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm curious why it didn't occur to him to have the phone unlocked before the sons death. It sounds like the child was terminally ill for all of that time.
I can feel for him, but why should the rest of the iPhone users suffer because the teen didn't have the files backed up to the cloud and left the phone locked. AFAIK, the iPhone just defaults to encryption, it doesn't require it and it certainly doesn't prevent you from writing the password down.
Part of estate planning in the 21st century is making sure that things like that are available to those that need them.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently they did.
They had it set so either his handprint or the kid's could open up the phone.
But the battery died, so it actually turned off, and to get through the booting-after-turning-on process they apparently need a passcode.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, there is literally no way for Apple to build into a phone or an OS a way to unlock it for situations like this that won't also be vulnerable to governments and hackers.
Nope. Apple already has a way to unlock the phone. That is why the father is asking. And, the government already has a way to unlock phones.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect Apple technically currently has no way to unlock the phone. They almost certainly could build the tool that would allow them to unlock the phone fairly quickly/cheaply, but you don't fight the FBI quote that hard over a terrorist's phone if your chief engineer could just fire up the ol' hacking program and do the deed.
The US Government clearly has a tool that will work on the iPhone 5c, but a) this guys is Italian not American, and b) there doesn't seem to be any info on what precise model his kid
Re:Sorry, no exceptions to mathematics. (Score:4, Insightful)
The FBI hacked the San Bernardino phone already. That means the FBI/NSA/etc. have the ability to hack pretty much any 5c, themselves, with a rubber-stamp warrant (if they plan on using the evidence in Court), or no oversight whatsoever (if they're only planning on droning their poor victim) on any 5c (and from Apple's court filings, a hack that worked on the 5c was uncomfortably likely to work on more recent models as well).
What are the odds the guy who sold the hack to the FBI isn't in negotiations with the Chinese, the Russians, the Angolans, the Emiratis, etc.?
Apple won the battle they actually chose to fight (they weren't forced to hack their own tech), but they lost the battle for iPhone 5c privacy completely. By saying no to this guy they protect nothing because there is nothing left to protect.
Apple has built a solution for this situation (Score:3)
Sorry, there is literally no way for Apple to build into a phone or an OS a way to unlock it for situations like this that won't also be vulnerable to governments and hackers.
Apple already has a solution for this situation on iPhones and iPads with fingerprint recognition. Teach it the fingerprints of both the child and a parent.
Re: (Score:2)
They did that. But the phone ran out of battery and had to be restarted, and when restarted it needs the passcode.
Re: Sorry, no exceptions to mathematics. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much my sentiments exactly. I sympathize but no... Well, Apple can if they want but "no" with regards to his position.
The father's letter tells Apple that "Although I share your philosophy in general, I think Apple should offer solutions for exceptional cases like mine,"
I have said this many times and this is a fine time to repeat it. If you're unwilling to accept the consequences of your beliefs, they're no beliefs so much as they're conveniences.
Yes, consequences includes persecution, prosecution, death, torture, and getting a free cake on Sunday.
This isn't mathematics. (Score:2)
"No exceptions to mathematics."
This is not mathematics, this is a policy decision, an engineering decision by Apple, and change is never more distant than the next firmware upgrade of the phone.
Rules without exceptions tend to fracture under stress. It happens all the time --- and the geek should know better than to bet that the dam will hold no matter what.
Re:Sorry, no exceptions to mathematics. (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, you don't understand what's going on here, but would rather post bullshit than educate yourself.
You can't crack one phone and restrict the crack to that phone. Any technique or tool that works on one phone will work on all phones running the same hardware/software environment.
Secondly, we have nothing against that. We do have something against backdoors and weaknesses being introduced or perpetuated to facilitate such cracking activities.
Lastly, you're an idiot, a 3rd party company doesn't control the security of the platform. There's a huge conflict of interest involved when you're both responsible for securing the device and responsible for cracking it on demand. Having 3rd party do the cracking is the best possible compromise as it doesn't impair the patches and security updates and represents no conflict of interest.
Like I said, educate yourself, because you're making yourself look like a fucking dumb ass.
Then why doesn't he hire the same private company? (Score:2)
There's no such thing as absolute security, the best we can do is raise the cost of cracking. The FBI was willing to pay that cost ($15K+), which no doubt required expensive equipment, physical access to the phone, and specialized knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
I've done that for people.
Yes, I'll delete your porn stash - unless I have to weed through it and unless it's obviously porn involving you/your intimate other(s). No, I'm not going to go through all of your emails. I'm going to export them and make them *all* accessible. I will be preserving your documents - you might have financial information in there. If it's not obviously something that might make you look less flattering then it gets kept and preserved. Chances are really good that I'm not going to pre
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that is that, as security researchers will tell you, as soon as the additional security becomes optional, the majority of people will not use it, and the majority of people who do will be those with something to hide. So at that point, it becomes trivial to determine who has something to hide. Security isn't just about preventing bad people from accessing sensitive information. It is also about preventing bad people from knowing that the sensitive information exists in the first place.
No (Score:5, Insightful)
The right to privacy doesn't end at death.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
While I certainly disagree with even your premise, it definitely does not hold for a child keeping secrets from their parents.
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree with your premise that children do not have any rights to privacy, but even if you think that, it's not like this was a secret phone that the parents didn't know about.
They didn't snoop his phone when he was alive. That sets an expectation that they won't after death either.
If you wouldn't do it while they're in the room, you shouldn't do it when they're not.
Re: (Score:2)
I might not snoop on my kids, but I reserve the right to if they seem like they start doing something suspicious. Or, you know, if they die and can't care anymore. There is absolutely no harm that can be done to a person after their death. They are dead.
Re: No (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, but even in your country this kid would not meet that criteria.
Re: (Score:2)
While I certainly disagree with even your premise, it definitely does not hold for a child keeping secrets from their parents.
Sure it does. On a social basis the thought that you own your children's privacy is no different to the government owning yours. Privacy is a fundamental human right recognised by the UN. Human rights don't begin at age 18.
Re: (Score:2)
They have - at the parent's discretion - a increasing amount of privacy from zero at birth to as much as they will ever have when they leave home. It's a continuum. At 13, and again it depends on the child and the rules of the house, a locked phone is perfectly within the bounds of a parent to forbid.
Re: (Score:2)
The law disagrees with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you like to expand on that a little bit? In particular, explain to me how forbidding my kid to lock their phone is illegal. And I say "their phone" only out of convenience, as a typical 13 year old has little or no income of their own.
Re: (Score:2)
This "right to privacy in death" thing makes no sense. How would it be practically enforced? If I violate your privacy, you have no recourse unless you've set up a trust to finance a court case on your behalf. All of your rights die with you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
in some situations, privacy rights of the deceased are gone... HOWEVER... OUR right to privacy doesn't end with someone ELSE'S death.
apple has policy in place for these circumstances. if they couldn't provide the desired data because said data didn't exist in 'the cloud' then it's NOT apple's fault, nor the fault of the device protections. perhaps the should have communicated with his dying son -- he had cancer, they both KNEW his health was in danger -- and made sure parents could access all of the son's o
Re:No (Score:4, Interesting)
The right to privacy doesn't end at death.
By law, it does. Once dead, you are no longer a person.
So, leave a will or similar. Cache all of your passwords in a two-factor form (two people who don't know who the other is, nor what the other's instructions are RE password determination). Your will can disclose this little dance they have to do. IANAL, but believe that a will is A/C privileged and/or private, so reduced risk there.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... at death, nothing really needs to be private... I've seen plenty of dead folks, and not one of 'em was embarrassed...
On top of that, a 13 year old can't sign a contract, etc. So in theory, the father (or kid's mom) is the "owner" of the phone...
Re: (Score:2)
If someone living knows that their private data could become public after their death, it may affect what they store while they are alive. Thus, providing some level of privacy protection to dead people may be beneficial to living people.
Re: (Score:2)
The right to privacy doesn't end at death.
Then why does Apple grant you access to a deceased relative's iCloud account when shown the death certificate?
Have you all lost your minds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Where is Spock when you need him?
This elevation of blubbering hysteria to a right that defeats all laws and principles is pathetic. The same thing happened with Google's Mic Drop Send feature, screamy proles demanding apologies.
Do people not play board games any more? You're supposed to look one or two moves ahead, even if it's just checkers.
Finally, "exceptional cases like mine," except that it isn't an exceptional case. It's an emotional case. It's a _less_ exceptional case than the last one where they refused.
minor? (Score:2, Interesting)
As a minor, they are unable to enter into contract. Therefor the phone belongs to the father in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then he should have known the password and made sure it was synced properly.
It also doesn't matter who legally owns the phone, since Apple is UNABLE to unlock it.
I used to work for a carrier, we'd have to tell people to wipe their phone all the time when they didn't know the password.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Next, if Apple is unable to unlock it, there is an israeli firm the FBI made claims but submitted zero proof of their ability to unlock it."
FTFY. The FBI made a claim with zero proof they did what they claimed. and the FBI is as trustworthy as the CIA,NSA, and Congress.
apple decode (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It also doesn't matter who legally owns the phone, since Apple is UNABLE to unlock it.
Well, no. Since the kid probably didn't use a 20-digit PIN, Apple could write special software to brute force it.
I don't believe it for a second (Score:5, Insightful)
This is obviously the government trying to sway public support, the entire story being a red herring.
Re:I don't believe it for a second (Score:5, Insightful)
they will try ANY and EVERYTHING to pull at our heart-strings.
"PLEASE!!! we have a REAL reason this time! oh, pretty please with sugar on top??"
my god, this is pathetic. while its understandable that the 'issue' here is upsetting, it may not be real - and even if its real, its still a privacy attach by you-know-who against the rest of us.
the governments are showing their true colors right now. some level of evil that we have not even seen on villian/superhero style movies.
they will keep at it, trying to emotion-us into giving them total panopticon powers. we have to stay vigilent and refuse every attempt to destoy privacy via 'emotional cases' like this.
Re:I don't believe it for a second (Score:4, Insightful)
While I feel for the guy, and understand the reason behind his request, my next logical reaction was "why didn't you get the password from your son before he passed away?". If it was a sudden, unexpected death, like a car accident or something then I understand not having plans for that, but this was cancer... he had time (maybe little, maybe a lot (while for the family, not enough time in general), but there WAS time to get that info from him while he was alive. Or to have the son take his password off the phone so it was unlocked and not protected at all.
I understand when a family is going through something like this, they don't want to think of all the things that need to be done on a rational level, but this proves that you still have to think of and deal with issues while you can if you are going to consider them important after the fact.
this isn't a problem for Apple (Score:4, Informative)
They unlocked my late mum's iPhone last October after they were shown the death certificate. No problem.
They tried that (Score:5, Informative)
Last fall Apple staff attempted to retrieve the photos from their cloud-storage service, but the iPhone hadn't been synced before the 13-year-old's death.
They can give you access to the cloud storage account, and all synced data. They can't decrypt the phone.
No, they don't. (Score:2)
nt
Re: (Score:3)
no they don't because if it's a phone with a Secure Enclave, THEY CAN'T.
Re: (Score:2)
hers was a 5C. I think. She got rid of her 3GS years ago, she never liked that one.
What have we become (Score:4, Insightful)
"Don't deny me the memories of my son,"
What the actual fuck?
Re: (Score:3)
"We" haven't become anything. The world has always had its share of stupid idiots.
Next up (Score:3)
We have this pedophile who could strike in YOUR neighborhood next! We need to decrypt his phone before he gets to your children.
He has an option... (Score:2)
He can spend $290,000 to that company in israel to get the photos for him.... If the photos are that important than money is absolutely no object.
It's sad, but should have thought ahead (Score:2)
This is all so heart rending, I hate to throw in the bad parenting card but it needs to be played. It is fine for a 13 year old to have a lock code on their phone. It is n
Re: It's sad, but should have thought ahead (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ask the FBI? (Score:2)
What did the FBI say when he asked them for help?
What Happens When you Forget Your Password? (Score:2)
There is no way that any apple owner would be OK with the idea that if they ever forget their password, their phone is bricked. So what do they do when the owner contacts them asking for a password reset?
Re: (Score:2)
There is no way that any apple owner would be OK with the idea that if they ever forget their password, their phone is bricked. So what do they do when the owner contacts them asking for a password reset?
If they forget their password, all the data on it is (theoretically securely) erased and the phone is factory reset.
But what if the phone was the only source of that information?
Then what if the phone got sat on wrong and broken? Much worse than losing the password, but the same loss of data.
And to the original observation...
There is no way that any apple owner would be OK with the idea that their phone would not be usable if they forgot to charge it for a whole week.
There is no way that any apple owne
Re: (Score:2)
That is a pretty big presumption, I for one would not use any OS that was irrecoverable from a forgotten password.
Re: (Score:2)
His Son Wanted Privacy (Score:2)
More sleds for the top of the slippery slope.
clueless adults (Score:2)
I'm sorry but if something happened to my son or my daughter I would just do a password reset on the device. Why can't he? Did he not know the iTunes account it was linked to. Did he never do that. I know he is grieving but its still his responsibility not apples to properly set up a child's device.
Obvious FBI ploy is obvious (Score:2)
I don't know why no one has suggested yet that this is obviously the FBI trying another route to get Apple to create a backdoor into iOS for them by playing the emotion card.
Next of kin (Score:2)
Then again IANAL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apple needs to stand up to the FBI... (Score:5, Insightful)
if the kid, knowing he was going to die soon, did not export or 'share' his photos, why do you think the father has as right to them?
this was not a sudden car crash. they knew this was going to happen and the father did not get the son to open his phone for him, to at least send over the things that -should- be shared?
how is this a problem that should be solved by the world; and not a parent-and-son-ONLY problem?
we feel for you. but asking now is, well, a bit of poor planning. and no, the world does not just simply weaken its security because of emotional appeals.
the 'patriot act' was done 100% on emotional apppeal, and look where THAT got us! nothing good came from patriot act. and nothing good EVER comes from laws or policies based on pure emotion.
Re: (Score:2)
this was not a sudden car crash. they knew this was going to happen and the father did not get the son to open his phone for him, to at least send over the things that -should- be shared?
Well, if you'd actually read anything about it, you'd already know the answer. The son set up TouchID on one of his father's fingers; obviously his intent was to share. But they didn't know, or weren't thinking clearly, that the passcode is required after 48 hours without use...
Inheritence (Score:2)
Secured facilities that self destruct have been around for a long time, it is only now that they have become available to everyone.
Re:Apple needs to stand up to the FBI... (Score:4, Interesting)
policy (what this is about; its not/never about a single 'phone') should never be made by those who are under emtional stress. this is what gave us the patriot act.
you want more of that shit? then let grieving this and that make our laws. we'll be 100% reactionary and create 10x as many laws for every 'upset parent' in the world.
someone has to stand up and say 'enough is enough' and those who had a tragedy occur are NOT the ones who should ever get to define new laws or rules that the rest of us have to endure.
this is not about compassion; (nice try gov shill) but its about stopping the ever-encroaching 'appeal to emtion' that is crippling this country. yes, crippling. and it has to stop.
call me a monster. I could give a shit what you think about me. the point is that RATIONAL people don't make laws for shit like this.
lots of bad things happen to people, but that's life. it sucks. life sucks, overall. what do you want; every single emotional appeal to justify new public policy?
again, you're an idiot or a shill. go fuck off. we see thru your shit and are not buying it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
fuck off and die.
those who would weaken security for 'think of the children!' bullshit deserve nothing.
peddle your FUD elsewhere. we're not buying it. we've been thru this too many times to be fooled by this tactic again.
ever see the liberty statue? there's a blindfold there for a reason, mate.
Re: (Score:2)
So being human and allow for others being human is something worthy of this reply? No, you can FOAD or (alternatively) grow up and actually read and understand the point of the poster.
FUD? You clearly don't know what it means.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called, "you give your code to your parents unless you can afford your OWN $500 phone and your own $50 a month cellphone plan and can sign a contract yourself"...
Boo Hoo all you under 18 kiddies.. you don't get privacy until you can pay for it yourself. Life sucks get used to it.
Re: (Score:2)
How this was rated "5 insightful" is beyond me unless nobody actually read the linked article. The Father _did_ have access until the phone turned off.
Re: (Score:2)
Let everyone give up their privacy so you can look at a few pictures on a phone you had plenty of time to ask the password for.
Dude, seriously.
Umm. Trying to imagine that ask. Awk-ward.
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't get this attitude.
The government can hack your iPhone 5c at will. The nightmare scenario, where the NS-fucking-A can crack any passcode on any 5c it gets it's hands on in under half-an-hour, is real life. On an iPhone 5c your privacy is self-delusion. So if the kid had a 5c, then the only thing Apple protects by not hacking the phone is a) their budget (hacking ain't free), and b) your strong emotional need to continue the pretense.
OTOH, there's no indication of the model the kid used. And i
Re: (Score:2)
wrong.
The dead son might well have been the owner of the phone, he may well also be the named account holder - but all he needs for that is parental consent! It's HIS account.
You don't have to be majority aged to OWN ANYTHING. You DO have to be majority aged to be able to sign a commercial contract. Someone CAN sign it on your behalf, but if that's your name on it YOU are responsible for it.
Re: (Score:2)
I just fucking said that, you tool!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)