Apple grants widow access to husband's Apple ID after demanding court order
Apple's strict data protection policies sparked debate over so-called "digital legacy" issues this week, as the company refused to supply a recently widowed Canadian woman with her late husband's Apple ID password.
According to a report from CBC News, Apple refused to furnish 72-year-old Peggy Bush with her husband David's Apple ID password after he died in August, saying that to do so would require a court order.
Bush, who was unaware of Apple's stringent security policies, knew the hardware passcode for David's iPad, but not his Apple ID. She first encountered a problem when attempting to reload an unnamed card game from the App Store.
Bush's daughter, Donna, reportedly spoke to an Apple representative who said it would be possible to retrieve the lost password with her father's will, death certificate and verbal confirmation from her mother. Donna called back after acquiring the requested documents, but the customer service representative denied knowledge of the matter.
Following two months of back-and-forth correspondence, Apple told the Bush family that recovering David's password would not be possible without a court order.
"I finally got someone who said, 'You need a court order,'" she said. "I was just completely flummoxed. What do you mean a court order? I said that was ridiculous, because we've been able to transfer the title of the house, we've been able to transfer the car, all these things, just using a notarized death certificate and the will."
Because a user's Apple ID and password are tied to payment information and other sensitive data, Apple implements strong safeguards to protect the data from falling into the wrong hands, going so far as to offer optional two-factor authentication via SMS or push notification. Apple IDs are also used to protect against hardware theft via activation lock, though it appears the feature was not activated on Bush's iPad.
"I then wrote a letter to Tim Cook, the head of Apple, saying this is ridiculous. All I want to do is download a card game for my mother on the iPad," Donna said. "I don't want to have to go to court to do that, and I finally got a call from customer relations who confirmed, yes, that is their policy."
After being contacted by CBC News, Apple apologized for what it characterized as a "misunderstanding" and reached out to the Bush family to fix the issue. The company did not comment on current or future contingencies for transferring ownership of digital property after death.
According to a report from CBC News, Apple refused to furnish 72-year-old Peggy Bush with her husband David's Apple ID password after he died in August, saying that to do so would require a court order.
Bush, who was unaware of Apple's stringent security policies, knew the hardware passcode for David's iPad, but not his Apple ID. She first encountered a problem when attempting to reload an unnamed card game from the App Store.
Bush's daughter, Donna, reportedly spoke to an Apple representative who said it would be possible to retrieve the lost password with her father's will, death certificate and verbal confirmation from her mother. Donna called back after acquiring the requested documents, but the customer service representative denied knowledge of the matter.
Following two months of back-and-forth correspondence, Apple told the Bush family that recovering David's password would not be possible without a court order.
"I finally got someone who said, 'You need a court order,'" she said. "I was just completely flummoxed. What do you mean a court order? I said that was ridiculous, because we've been able to transfer the title of the house, we've been able to transfer the car, all these things, just using a notarized death certificate and the will."
Because a user's Apple ID and password are tied to payment information and other sensitive data, Apple implements strong safeguards to protect the data from falling into the wrong hands, going so far as to offer optional two-factor authentication via SMS or push notification. Apple IDs are also used to protect against hardware theft via activation lock, though it appears the feature was not activated on Bush's iPad.
"I then wrote a letter to Tim Cook, the head of Apple, saying this is ridiculous. All I want to do is download a card game for my mother on the iPad," Donna said. "I don't want to have to go to court to do that, and I finally got a call from customer relations who confirmed, yes, that is their policy."
After being contacted by CBC News, Apple apologized for what it characterized as a "misunderstanding" and reached out to the Bush family to fix the issue. The company did not comment on current or future contingencies for transferring ownership of digital property after death.
Comments
If my will explicitly transfers ownership of any digital content I own to someone (wife), and I provide that person with my User ID and password to any such content providers (e.g., iTunes), will the courts and publishers honor that -- acknowledging that actual ownership of the content has transfered to the new person?
With that said Google I am told will provide a family member a complete archive all your online records they have via your gmail log in account. You just need to provide them the necessary documents showing you have right to the information. Like having the POA for the dead person. So be careful, if you think when you die your emails forever locked behind your user name and password. Your family can dig into what you been doing when they were not looking.
In this case if the husband want the wife to have access to the ID he would have give her the password. You think Apple was wrong to assume the wife was not suppose to have access. It like have safety deposit box, if you do not have the key the bank will not open it for you without a court order. Apple taking this stance protect us all, The government can not come in and say you gave someone the information when they asked. It builds the foundation to keep the government from snoring around. You can not make any exception otherwise the courts will find again them.
Compare this to a house and a car, both those items were probably titled with both peoples name on the account, so it was joint ownership with right of survivorship. However, without that it is not a easy mater and requires all kind of legal documents to happen.
that's what i'm thinkin'. i have a room mate who i've known for only 10 years and she has my info. maybe it's an issue of trust.
To the best of my knowledge the content of wills become public information once they are read. It might not be wise to leave a userid and password in your will unless you are certain that someone will have the presence of mind to change your password immediately - lest your account be hijacked by a criminal - especially if there still might be a valid (shared) credit card attached to the account!
I hope the "reaching out" was to assist/hold the lady's hand to get the court order, rather than circumvent privacy policy. Privacy is a key selling point differentiation for Appe. Don't erode it.
Problem is the wife didn't purchase the content so it's not hers. If you could transfer licenses after death it would create a never ending chain of inhereted music/movies/games passed on to children/grandchildren forever for free.
And not ONCE did the thought occur to him to give her his password, or write it down for her, since she depends on it? Sorry, if he did not share it with her in life, then I don't see why Apple should share it with her after death. It has nothing to do with "compassion" as another poster stupidly posted. I wouldn't want Apple to give my family my Apple ID if they lobbied for it either. If I wanted them to have it, I would have given it to them.
We used to buy our media and we could leave our collection to someone when we passed on.
One night when we were sleeping, the entire industry changed the model without telling us and now we only license it. The license expires when we pass and if our heirs want to enjoy it - they have to purchase their own licenses.
That same policy would also direct you not to share passwords either so I guess we're between a rock and a hard place.
Two months of back and forth???
Oh oh sure that's plausible.
Not
It seems like their is a lot to formalize with regards to the disposition of digital property after death.
For email and social media, I think there should be a way for us to set the instructions for what should happen to our content when we pass on. One option would be to delete everything. Another (for sites like FaceBook/Google+) might be to turn the page into a digital memorial for all time. And yet another might be to turn over the account in its entirety to a named individual or to the estate. If the sites allow the users to decide what will happen to their property upon death - while they're still alive - users can be sure that their sensitive emails will never fall into the hands of a spouse, parent or child and cause posthumous embarrassment - or even conflicts amongst the living when an ongoing affair is discovered. It's not just the privacy of the deceased that is being violated, the privacy of the people they corresponded with may also be violated if email accounts are allowed to be claimed by a spouse. Yet - in other cases, a deceased user may have hundreds of family photos stored in their Dropbox account that they absolutely do want to transfer to their heirs.
Each site should be required to collect from users, the users instructions for what to do with the account when they die. Automatic deletion or automatic transfer to a spouse are not good global options. People want different things and it's not that difficult to honor the different wishes - so long as those wishes are known.
(They also need a better way to obtain proof of death - otherwise, I hate to imagine how many accounts will get hijacked by people presenting forged death certificates.... Perhaps they could require a valid death certificate AND at least a 120-day period since the last legitimate sign-on from the registered user so that an account couldn't be hijacked with a fake death certificate as long as it was still being actively used...)