Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

Court rules man must be given access to husband's iCloud photos

Apple must provide a man access to the iCloud account of his late husband so he can retrieve family photos shot with an iPhone and a dedicated camera, a New York judge has ruled.

Nicholas Scandalios has so far been locked out of the Apple ID belonging to his husband, Ric Swezey, who was killed in an accident two years ago, according to MarketWatch. Apple hasn't been outright fighting the request, but did insist that Scandalios obtain a court order.

"Apple shall afford the opportunity to reset the password to [Swezey's] Apple ID," Surrogate Judge Rita Mella wrote in her ruling.

Complicating the situation is that Swezey's will didn't contain language authorizing access. Mella's opinion stated that the photos weren't a form of "electronic communication" requiring proof of consent or even a court order, which could help build precedent against Apple's position.

Most U.S. states — New York included — now have laws giving an estate's executor default access to all material stored locally on a device, but requiring a will or court order for anything kept in cloud storage. Among the only exceptions are Oklahoma, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Kentucky, as well as Delaware, which transfers access to all digital content.

Watch the Latest from AppleInsider TV

How to handle the online accounts of the dead is still a developing field, since many services are a decade old or less. iCloud for example was launched in 2011, and iCloud Photo Library is even younger, dating back to October 2014.

Apple is typically compliant with legal orders to access cloud data, including those from police and spy agencies. It does sometimes put up resistance, most famously in the case of San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook, when the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice sought a backdoor into Farook's iPhone. The company refused, both on constitutional grounds and claiming that it would fundamentally compromise iOS security. The DOJ backed down when it managed to crack the iPhone with third-party assistance.

31 Comments

rob53 14 Years · 3350 comments

We’re talking about family so why wouldn’t each of them have written down essential account information and stored them in a safe? If they had the surviving spouse would have been able to access the deceased Apple ID.

it’s not Apple’s responsibility to do this. Forcing Apple to do it sets a bad precedent for other types of access by police and others. 

10 Likes · 0 Dislikes
georgie01 9 Years · 437 comments

rob53 said:
We’re talking about family so why wouldn’t each of them have written down essential account information and stored them in a safe? If they had the surviving spouse would have been able to access the deceased Apple ID.

it’s not Apple’s responsibility to do this. Forcing Apple to do it sets a bad precedent for other types of access by police and others. 

On one hand that’s true, but on the other hand it used to be normal for details about one’s spouse to be readily given to the other. Less than 20 years ago one could call up businesses and get details about nearly everything and make decisions on behalf of their spouse, and that was expected and normal (and on an unrelated side note, it was equally if not more normal for women to do the same for their husbands despite the false narrative modern feminism presents). As people have stopped valuing marriage, commitment, and unity and have instead shifted in favour of autonomy and self protection (because of the few who abuse those privileges), those privileges have changed.

In any case, I also wonder why this is news.

5 Likes · 0 Dislikes
entropys 14 Years · 4424 comments

Getting a court order is the correct process in this case. It wasn’t in the Will.

9 Likes · 0 Dislikes
MplsP 9 Years · 4093 comments

entropys said:
Getting a court order is the correct process in this case. It wasn’t in the Will.

Completely agree. This case was fairly straight forward, but there are others that aren’t. Apple’s policy is reasonable, and they followed it.

rob53 said:
We’re talking about family so why wouldn’t each of them have written down essential account information and stored them in a safe? If they had the surviving spouse would have been able to access the deceased Apple ID.

it’s not Apple’s responsibility to do this. Forcing Apple to do it sets a bad precedent for other types of access by police and others. 

I can think of many reasons why one parter didn’t know the password. Maybe he had just changed it and hadn’t written down the new one. Who knows. 

From the court order, “Apple shall afford the opportunity...” In other words, yes, it is Apple’s responsibility. Beyond that, it’s their legal obligation. I’m curious to know why this sets a bad precedent? Due process was followed and the court issued a legal order. Are you suggesting that no company should ever give anyone other than the owner access to anything?

2 Likes · 0 Dislikes
clexman 16 Years · 224 comments

rob53 said:
We’re talking about family so why wouldn’t each of them have written down essential account information and stored them in a safe? If they had the surviving spouse would have been able to access the deceased Apple ID.

it’s not Apple’s responsibility to do this. Forcing Apple to do it sets a bad precedent for other types of access by police and others. 

Considering that writing passwords down is not recommended, it doesn't seem that not having them written down is surprising. My wife forgets her passwords all the time and has to reset them. I don't remember all of them.

2 Likes · 0 Dislikes