Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.ipad,aus.computers,aus.electronics
Subject: Re: Apple have stolen my ipad. Yes, this story now has an ending.
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 09:14:47 +1000
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <dongvbFcpanU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <do8hbuF8150U1@mid.individual.net> <doabk8Fmr25U1@mid.individual.net> <57200db8$0$4557$c3e8da3$b280bf18@news.astraweb.com> <slrnni0dai.ktn.g.kreme@amelia.local> <doasl3FqgdgU1@mid.individual.net> <slrnni2fjp.ktn.g.kreme@amelia.local> <docutaF7tl1U1@mid.individual.net> <slrnni5bkg.1262.g.kreme@amelia.local> <doh3jvF357gU1@mid.individual.net> <290420161055065866%nospam@nospam.invalid> <dohjlfF6evcU1@mid.individual.net> <290420161327596244%nospam@nospam.invalid> <dohkt1F6nqdU1@mid.individual.net> <290420161400413961%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net QODX4nCPRNiFjpzTHZRdNQ4ukEoadYVxA/fjTzOoHrtHiT8+Y=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5c8jCcULKbMbxVjc7oqW4bYOqOE=
In-Reply-To: <290420161400413961%nospam@nospam.invalid>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416
Xref: csiph.com comp.mobile.ipad:55952 aus.computers:52447 aus.electronics:31533



"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:290420161400413961%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <dohkt1F6nqdU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > >   Red herring, The case in question, there's no 'rando' calling.
>> >
>> > apple doesn't know that until they can verify proper ownership.
>>
>>   Which was staring them in the face as soon as they knew which Apple ID
>> was involved.
>
> and when apple sent a verification email, it went unverified because he
> couldn't access it.

Doesn't need to be verified, it had Don's company name in it.

>> > the person who called did *not* know his password or security
>> > questions.
>>
>>   Maybe that's *why* he called!?
>
> the same as would a thief.
>
>> > the info they have for that ipad could not be verified because the
>> > person *did not know his password*.
>>
>>   False
>
> nope.

Yep.

> he did not know the password to the email account either (which was
> likely the same password for both).

It wasn't. He'd been using it fine until the iOS upgrade stupidly demanded
the Apple ID that has originally been used to setup the ipad.

>> > why would apple think that was the legitimate owner??
>>
>>   Because the information was staring them in the face.
>
> no it wasn't.

Corse it was. The Apple ID contained Don's company name.

If Don had stolen that ipad years after it had been setup,
there is no way that Don could have got his company name
in the Apple ID that the owner had used to setup the ipad.

> all that's staring them in the face is the apple id email, which
> don could not access because he forgot the password.

That's a lie with the company name in it.

> any verification emails sent would go unanswered.

Doesn't need to be verified, ALL that's needed is to see
that Don's company name is used in the Apple ID.

> that's exactly the same as what would happen with a thief.

But no thief could ever get the thief's company name in the
Apple ID that was originally used by the owner of the ipad
to setup the ipad,

>> > until the person calling provides proper proof, they ain't gonna budge,
>> > and that's exactly how it should be.
>>
>>   And that's what he did, but they were too clueless/stubborn/<whatever>
>> to *check*.
>
> they did check and don failed all of their verification steps. he
> didn't know the password, security questions or reply to the
> verification email.

Apple didn't need any of that to know that it was Don's ipad.

>> > the only people that will piss off are the thugs who steal stuff.
>>
>>   Earth to nospam: You are supposed to say things which actually
>> *support* your argument, not debunk it.
>
> that's exactly what i did, as have several others.
>
> again, the only people that apple's policies will piss off are those
> who steal stuff, and i'll add, somehow benefit if only indirectly.
>
> providing a receipt is not a big deal for a legitimate owner.

Wrong, as always. Plenty lose the receipt and very few of those
who have a receipt for an idevice that is bought used ever have
a receipt with a serial number on it. And legally that isnt required.