Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #76596 > unrolled thread

Good or bad idea

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Good or bad idea Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-14 11:00 -0400
    Re: Good or bad idea JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-06-14 11:45 -0400
      Re: Good or bad idea Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-06-14 12:48 -0400
        Re: Good or bad idea JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-06-14 21:13 -0400
          Re: Good or bad idea Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-06-14 21:41 -0400
      Re: Good or bad idea Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-06-14 17:21 -0400
        Re: Good or bad idea Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-06-15 13:13 +1200
          Re: Good or bad idea Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-06-15 08:19 -0400
        Re: Good or bad idea JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-06-14 22:20 -0400
          Re: Good or bad idea Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-06-15 08:21 -0400
    Re: Good or bad idea Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-06-14 11:47 -0400
      Re: Good or bad idea Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-14 12:09 -0400
        Re: Good or bad idea billy@MIX.COM - 2015-06-14 18:19 +0000
          Re: Good or bad idea Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-14 17:06 -0400
            Re: Good or bad idea Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-06-14 21:32 +0000
              Re: Good or bad idea John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-06-15 15:21 +0100
                Re: Good or bad idea Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-06-15 15:32 +0000
                  Re: Good or bad idea John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-06-16 02:18 +0100
                    Re: Good or bad idea Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-06-16 15:26 +0000
                Re: Good or bad idea Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-06-15 21:41 -0400
                  Re: Good or bad idea John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-06-16 03:48 +0100
                    Re: Good or bad idea Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-06-16 15:28 +0000
            Re: Good or bad idea Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-06-15 13:11 +1200
              Re: Good or bad idea nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-14 23:05 -0400
              Re: Good or bad idea John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-06-15 15:23 +0100
          Re: Good or bad idea Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-06-14 15:19 -0700
            Re: Good or bad idea Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-06-15 13:19 +1200
        Re: Good or bad idea Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-06-14 17:26 -0400
          Re: Good or bad idea Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-15 09:12 -0400
        Re: Good or bad idea gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-06-14 19:06 -0700
          Re: Good or bad idea Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-15 09:16 -0400
            Re: Good or bad idea Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-06-16 09:15 +1200
              Re: Good or bad idea Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-15 19:44 -0400
                Re: Good or bad idea John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-06-16 03:01 +0100
                  Re: Good or bad idea Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-06-15 20:06 -0700
                    Re: Good or bad idea John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-06-16 05:19 +0100
                    Re: Good or bad idea Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-06-16 11:00 -0400
                      Re: Good or bad idea Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-06-16 12:51 -0400
                    Re: Good or bad idea Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-06-16 20:50 -0400
    Re: Good or bad idea Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-14 08:47 -0700
      Re: Good or bad idea Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-06-15 09:10 +1200
    Re: Good or bad idea Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-06-14 12:06 -0400
      Re: Good or bad idea Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-14 12:12 -0400
        Re: Good or bad idea Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-06-14 21:50 -0400
        Re: Good or bad idea John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-06-15 15:37 +0100
        Re: Good or bad idea John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-06-15 15:47 +0100
    Re: Good or bad idea "W" <persistentone@spamarrest.com> - 2015-06-14 12:00 -0700
      Re: Good or bad idea Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-14 17:21 -0400
        Re: Good or bad idea John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-06-15 16:10 +0100
          Re: Good or bad idea Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-06-15 15:14 +0000
            Re: Good or bad idea Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-06-15 18:57 +0100
              Re: Good or bad idea John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-06-16 02:54 +0100
                Re: Good or bad idea JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-06-15 23:56 -0400
                  Re: Good or bad idea John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-06-16 06:02 +0100
                    Re: Good or bad idea JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-06-16 21:10 -0400
                      Re: Good or bad idea Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-06-16 18:18 -0700
                        Re: Good or bad idea Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-06-17 13:38 +1200
                          Re: Good or bad idea John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-06-18 04:12 +0100
                            Re: Good or bad idea Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-06-18 11:56 +0000
                        Re: Good or bad idea Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 06:52 -0400
                      Re: Good or bad idea Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-06-17 12:12 +0000
                      Re: Good or bad idea John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-06-18 04:03 +0100
                        Re: Good or bad idea Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-06-18 11:56 +0000
                        Re: Good or bad idea Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 08:20 -0400
                Re: Good or bad idea Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-06-16 10:20 +0100
                  Re: Good or bad idea Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-06-16 21:06 +0000
                    Re: Good or bad idea Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-06-17 13:12 +1200
                  Re: Good or bad idea John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-06-16 23:17 +0100
            Re: Good or bad idea John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-06-16 02:25 +0100
      Re: Good or bad idea John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-06-15 15:58 +0100
    Re: Good or bad idea Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-06-15 09:15 +1200
    Re: Good or bad idea Aldo Raine <apache@scalpem.net> - 2015-06-15 08:54 -0400

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#76614

In article
<chine.bleu-0AA80A.08475014062015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>, Siri Cruz
<chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <coCdncR674qRCuDInZ2dnUU7-XudnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > I was reading at article last week outlining all of the problems a widow 
> > had when her husband died getting into his various accounts because of 
> > not knowing the usernames, passwords,and security questions. I am 
> > thinking about putting this information (for both of us) on encrypted 
> > thumb drives and putting them in the safety deposit boxes with the 
> > wills. I would like to d/l the usernames/passwords from Keychain access. 
> > I can then fill in the blanks of the few accounts that aren't on 
> > Keychain and work out the security questions. 
> >  So, is this a good idea or dumb idea? Needed or unneeded? If good idea 
> > what file or plist or whatever do I need to d/l?
> 
> What you write down on a piece of paper cannot be hacked even when taped to
> side of the computer.

PostIt notes stuck around the display are the best.  ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76600

Kurt Ullman:

> I was reading at article last week outlining all of the problems a widow 
> had when her husband died getting into his various accounts because of 
> not knowing the usernames, passwords,and security questions...

<http://www.excesapp.com/>. AES encryption, put it on every Mac,
different password for each. It acts like an encrypted folder. Store
all of your log-in data there and open the folder only when needed. Be
sure your S.O. knows the password(s) for Exces. Has worked for us for
some years.

I don't have accounts that I want to keep secret from my wife, but if
you do, you can keep them in a separate vault and let them die with
you.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76603

In article <140620151206574049%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> Kurt Ullman:
> 
> > I was reading at article last week outlining all of the problems a widow 
> > had when her husband died getting into his various accounts because of 
> > not knowing the usernames, passwords,and security questions...
> 
> <http://www.excesapp.com/>. AES encryption, put it on every Mac,
> different password for each. It acts like an encrypted folder. Store
> all of your log-in data there and open the folder only when needed. Be
> sure your S.O. knows the password(s) for Exces. Has worked for us for
> some years.
> 

Is this just the computer or also the individual websites, etc? If the 
latter not really too sure why it is a good idea. But would like to 
know. 


> I don't have accounts that I want to keep secret from my wife, but if
> you do, you can keep them in a separate vault and let them die with
> you.

Nah. I never had a porn collection and that is about the only thing I 
might want to keep from her. (grin).
-- 
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
     but what they conceal is vital.²
                       ‹ Aaron Levenstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76633

Davoud: 
> > <http://www.excesapp.com/>. AES encryption, put it on every Mac,
> > different password for each. It acts like an encrypted folder. Store
> > all of your log-in data there and open the folder only when needed. Be
> > sure your S.O. knows the password(s) for Exces. Has worked for us for
> > some years.

Kurt Ullman:
> Is this just the computer or also the individual websites, etc? If the 
> latter not really too sure why it is a good idea. But would like to 
> know.

It's very simple. Each entity requiring a log-in has its own TextEdit
file containing necessary data. All of the TextEdit docs are in a
folder named "Login" within the Exces encrypted image. Sync between
computers is manual via the network. Works for us, but of course I
can't say if it would work for you.

We also use 1Password, which syncs automatically between all Macs and
iOS devices via Dropbox, but it contains only a subset of the log-in
data--the most often used.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76661

On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 12:12:09 -0400, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <140620151206574049%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
>wrote:
>
>> Kurt Ullman:
>> 
>> > I was reading at article last week outlining all of the problems a widow 
>> > had when her husband died getting into his various accounts because of 
>> > not knowing the usernames, passwords,and security questions...
>> 
>> <http://www.excesapp.com/>. AES encryption, put it on every Mac,
>> different password for each. It acts like an encrypted folder. Store
>> all of your log-in data there and open the folder only when needed. Be
>> sure your S.O. knows the password(s) for Exces. Has worked for us for
>> some years.
>> 
>
>Is this just the computer or also the individual websites, etc? If the 
>latter not really too sure why it is a good idea. But would like to 
>know. 
>
>
>> I don't have accounts that I want to keep secret from my wife, but if
>> you do, you can keep them in a separate vault and let them die with
>> you.
>
>Nah. I never had a porn collection and that is about the only thing I 
>might want to keep from her. (grin).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76662

On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 12:12:09 -0400, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <140620151206574049%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
>wrote:
>
>> Kurt Ullman:
>> 
>> > I was reading at article last week outlining all of the problems a widow 
>> > had when her husband died getting into his various accounts because of 
>> > not knowing the usernames, passwords,and security questions...
>> 
>> <http://www.excesapp.com/>. AES encryption, put it on every Mac,
>> different password for each. It acts like an encrypted folder. Store

  Doesn't work on Mavericks and later. Not for sale any more though
they do offer a free licence for earlier OSXes. 

>> all of your log-in data there and open the folder only when needed. Be
>> sure your S.O. knows the password(s) for Exces. Has worked for us for
>> some years.

 Just store online logins inside Firefox. It's about as secure as
anything else. 
 Then you can go to the Tools menus and "show passwords" for things.
Any double-step authentications can be stored in the comments of the
bookmarks. 
 And Grab can produce printable copies even if FF doesn't. 

>> 
>
>Is this just the computer or also the individual websites, etc? If the 
>latter not really too sure why it is a good idea. But would like to 
>know. 
>
>
>> I don't have accounts that I want to keep secret from my wife, but if
>> you do, you can keep them in a separate vault and let them die with
>> you.
>
>Nah. I never had a porn collection and that is about the only thing I 
>might want to keep from her. (grin).

 Why wouldn't she like your porn? Mine thought it was interesting but
often none too realistic. 
 Not that I ever had much. I mainly downloaded text stories for her to
read. Images and movies didn't attract her attention. 
 And I had a real lady so *I* didn't need porn. :)
 
 It shouldn't be too difficult to write a few scripts and DOSsy batch
files to delete your porn collections. You could have them in desktop
icons labeled "My Passwords" to annoy the snoopy relatives.
 Similarly with any emails you keep.
                                   J.  
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76610

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:coCdncR674qRCuDInZ2dnUU7-XudnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> I was reading at article last week outlining all of the problems a widow
> had when her husband died getting into his various accounts because of
> not knowing the usernames, passwords,and security questions. I am
> thinking about putting this information (for both of us) on encrypted
> thumb drives and putting them in the safety deposit boxes with the
> wills. I would like to d/l the usernames/passwords from Keychain access.
> I can then fill in the blanks of the few accounts that aren't on
> Keychain and work out the security questions.
>  So, is this a good idea or dumb idea? Needed or unneeded? If good idea
> what file or plist or whatever do I need to d/l?

I don't know how it works in Canada, but in the US at the time of death all
existing power of attorneys become null and void, and technically all
accounts of the person will get frozen and locked out from anyone doing any
transaction until the estate settles.    So it won't matter that the person
has your account userids and passwords.   You might get away with
transactions performed on the exact date of death, but any transaction dated
after the date of death might be illegal and subject to reversal by a court.

If you want to avoid those problems for a spouse, you make the account joint
tenancy.   As long as one of the persons named on the account title survives
the death of the other person, that surviving person will still have access
to the account while the estate settles.

For passwords, what about printing out all of the paperwork and just putting
that in a safe at home?   Are you worried about the person losing the key?
You can go through a lot of effort with encryption, and then the person
forgets the password or doesn't understand the encryption technology.   Low
tech might make more sense.   Encryption makes sense when the data is stored
on a computer or on a public network.

-- 
W

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76617

In article <teydndcb37zbUuDInZ2dnUU7-VmdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 "W" <persistentone@spamarrest.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> If you want to avoid those problems for a spouse, you make the account joint
> tenancy.   As long as one of the persons named on the account title survives
> the death of the other person, that surviving person will still have access
> to the account while the estate settles.
> 
   All are JT, but she will need to get into the accounts. Some of them 
aren't in local banks and will have to be done over the phone or  
online. Two of the problems I hadn't thought about were getting into the 
husband's email account to get the names amd addresses of some of the 
advisors. One of the biggest hassles for the lady who was writing about 
her troubles was trying to get his FB account killed off or 
memorialized, or whatever when things calmed down. And then there are 
some we both use where the passwords need to occassionaly get re-entered 
(she'd be REALLY upset if she couldn't get to Pandora), and the Apple 
account is in my name as is Sprint. It isn't just the financial things, 
passwords are needed for all sorts of weird shit in our lives any more. 

> forgets the password or doesn't understand the encryption technology.   Low
> tech might make more sense.   Encryption makes sense when the data is stored
> on a computer or on a public network.

I am looking at low tech, I guess we sometimes so enamored of the tech 
that we don't even look for the simple answers.
-- 
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
     but what they conceal is vital.²
                       ‹ Aaron Levenstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76665

On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 17:21:26 -0400, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
wrote:

 <<snipped>>

>advisors. One of the biggest hassles for the lady who was writing about 
>her troubles was trying to get his FB account killed off or 
>memorialized, or whatever when things calmed down. And then there are 
>some we both use where the passwords need to occassionaly get re-entered 
>(she'd be REALLY upset if she couldn't get to Pandora), and the Apple 
>account is in my name as is Sprint. It isn't just the financial things, 
>passwords are needed for all sorts of weird shit in our lives any more. 

 Store details in your browser. 
 If you can't kill an online account, why bother? Just leave the thing
running. It won't *cost* you anything. 
 If the company makes death difficult, fuck them. They'll learn, once
the dead accounts outnumber the living.
 If the survivor needs or likes an account, let them just *use* it. I
use my wife's email account after three years. I don't send anything
from it I just keep it because it's a nice name and I think it would
be creepy to let anyone else have it. 
 With the money accounts in banks, you should enable the surviving
spouse to be able to access those online to drain them into her
accounts. If she can do that, and stop or move any direct debits and
standing orders then it doesn't *matter* whether the account is closed
or not. 
 I have an open account that was the wife's. The bloody bank won't
*let* me close it because I don't have a passport or driving licence.
So I drained it and I leave it open. Why not? It's doing *me* no harm.
I even managed to change her statements to electronic copies so I
don't get mail from them. 
 
 You can continue using the account of a dead guy, just like you can
use the account of a guy who never existed, a guy who is really you
using a fake name, so long as you don't do fraud and don't *tell*
them.
 Why complicate life? 
                           J. 
 
 
<<snipped>>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76667

On 2015-06-15, John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

[17 lines snipped]

>  If the survivor needs or likes an account, let them just *use* it. I
> use my wife's email account after three years. I don't send anything
> from it I just keep it because it's a nice name and I think it would
> be creepy to let anyone else have it. 

My mother still uses my 10-years-dead father's AOL account, for the
same reasons as you.

>  With the money accounts in banks, you should enable the surviving
> spouse to be able to access those online to drain them into her
> accounts. If she can do that, and stop or move any direct debits and
> standing orders then it doesn't *matter* whether the account is closed
> or not. 

There's a process for this already; it's called "probate".

-- 
Today is Sweetmorn, the 20th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3181
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76669

In article <cu88fiFh0g5U2@mid.individual.net>, Huge
<Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

>On 2015-06-15, John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
>
>[17 lines snipped]
>
>>  If the survivor needs or likes an account, let them just *use* it. I
>> use my wife's email account after three years. I don't send anything
>> from it I just keep it because it's a nice name and I think it would
>> be creepy to let anyone else have it. 
>
>My mother still uses my 10-years-dead father's AOL account, for the
>same reasons as you.
>
>>  With the money accounts in banks, you should enable the surviving
>> spouse to be able to access those online to drain them into her
>> accounts. If she can do that, and stop or move any direct debits and
>> standing orders then it doesn't *matter* whether the account is closed
>> or not. 
>
>There's a process for this already; it's called "probate".

Exactly. Once you have a grant of probate from the High Court, along
with the properly certified copies of the death cert, and you are the
executor, the banks etc have to do as they're told.

-- 
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76684

On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 18:57:07 +0100, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

>In article <cu88fiFh0g5U2@mid.individual.net>, Huge
><Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 2015-06-15, John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
>>
>>[17 lines snipped]
>>
>>>  If the survivor needs or likes an account, let them just *use* it. I
>>> use my wife's email account after three years. I don't send anything
>>> from it I just keep it because it's a nice name and I think it would
>>> be creepy to let anyone else have it. 
>>
>>My mother still uses my 10-years-dead father's AOL account, for the
>>same reasons as you.
>>
>>>  With the money accounts in banks, you should enable the surviving
>>> spouse to be able to access those online to drain them into her
>>> accounts. If she can do that, and stop or move any direct debits and
>>> standing orders then it doesn't *matter* whether the account is closed
>>> or not. 
>>
>>There's a process for this already; it's called "probate".
>
>Exactly. Once you have a grant of probate from the High Court, along
>with the properly certified copies of the death cert, and you are the
>executor, the banks etc have to do as they're told.

 Oh, really? Do the *banks* know about this? 
 The nameless bank I'm talking about (Halifax Bank in the UK, but I
won't name it) is run by arrogant little twats who think they, the
nameless bank (Halifax, but I didn't mention that) are the owners of
our money and we are only allowed to look at it from a distance with
their kind and generous permission. Other banks she had (mostly empty)
accounts with were only too happy to help but this unnamed bank (which
was the Halifax, but I didn't tell you that) was just crammed to the
gunnels with graceless, obstructionist, jobsworthy, faceless, whiney
poltroons who thought they were somehow *important* just because I
permitted them to handle *my* money.
 I wouldn't be at all surprised were the petulant, childish grunts
stupid, ill-mannered and just plain mean enough to argue with grants
of probate and to go so far as to take that argument to Court. 
 Worse, they could even win, though why they would want to and exactly
*what* they would be "winning" is debatable.
 If you are getting the faint aroma of a whiff of an implied
impression that I do not exactly love and adore this anonymous
institution (the Halifax Bank, but let us not say anything that could
be construed as pointing to any *particular* bank, like the Halifax
for example) then you would be inferring correctly. 
 
 Would anyone sane *really* go through a probate court just to close
an *empty* bank account? One that the sane person had already drained
of all funds? I know *I* wouldn't but I've never made any great claim
to my sanity. :) 
 Everything else of hers, I either stole and kept without telling
anyone or closed quietly, efficiently and with sympathy and some
compassion -faked or not - on the part of the service provider. Even
Littlewoods, the mail order guys, were nice to me. They not only
closed her account, they zeroed her balance then sent me a cheque for
a direct debit I was too slow to be able to cancel. I had been very
willing to *pay* the outstanding balance but they wouldn't let me.
That was incredibly nice of them. Everyone, even the Registrar had
been kind to me. 
 But not that one bank. (Yes, I've played that "joke" to death,
haven't I?)
 Probate was never an issue. Maybe it should have been but when the 
dead guy doesn't really own much it seems like an awful lot of effort
for little reward. 
 And I wasn't, at the time, exactly in a very good mood. Mucking
around with bureaucrats would have been a tad more than I could have
handled for months. 
 Indeed, I have been so far out of touch with bureaucracies for the
past three years that I doubt I will *ever* cope well with their
little idiosyncrasies. 
 Fortunately, I'll never need to.
 And that peculiar little financial company can go suck a pustulant
baboon's rectum. 
 Twice. 
                                         J.  
  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76688

On 15-06-15 21:54, John wrote:

>  Would anyone sane *really* go through a probate court just to close
> an *empty* bank account? One that the sane person had already drained
> of all funds? I know *I* wouldn't but I've never made any great claim
> to my sanity. :) 

Normally, at time of death, as soon as the executor gains its powers
(certified will and death certficate), he/she is expected to draw a list
of assets. This means going to the banks and getting a statement issued
on date of death. (any interest after that date is charged to the
estate, not to the dead person).

So like it or not, you do have to go to that bank, show your credentials
as executor and get that statement that says the dead person had $0 at
which point you have the powers to ask bank to close account.

In many cases, the executor will consolidate all funds into a single
bank to easy management and distribution.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76690

On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 23:56:13 -0400, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>On 15-06-15 21:54, John wrote:
>
>>  Would anyone sane *really* go through a probate court just to close
>> an *empty* bank account? One that the sane person had already drained
>> of all funds? I know *I* wouldn't but I've never made any great claim
>> to my sanity. :) 
>
>Normally, at time of death, as soon as the executor gains its powers
>(certified will and death certficate),

 No will. No executor. No reason for either. 
 Nor, so far as I remember, did we bother with that bumph at the time
of our parents' demises. Again, no significant assets.
 Not everyone owns companies, islands, yachts, stock portfolios and
banks. Some of us don't really own *anything*. 

> he/she is expected to draw a list

 *"HE"*. 
 In English the general masculine includes the feminine or the
possibility of the feminine.  
 

>of assets. This means going to the banks and getting a statement issued
>on date of death. (any interest after that date is charged to the
>estate, not to the dead person).

 Too much like bureaucratic bullshittery. Best thing is to find out
who set up the deceased's online access and encourage him to drain all
the accounts *before* telling the banks anything. 
 *Then* politely ask for them to be closed.
 No need for probate or executorships or deeds of power of attorney or
anything. Just the DC and a sad smile.
 

>
>So like it or not, you do have to go to that bank, show your credentials
>as executor and get that statement that says the dead person had $0 at
>which point you have the powers to ask bank to close account.
 
 Not true. I know this is false because I closed a couple of her
accounts with a DC and the ATM card. I closed other things with a
click of the mouse and yet others by phone. 
 You are unnecessarily complicating what should be and often is a dead
simple task. Poor pun intended. 
 Most banks are only too happy to help. I only encountered one
exception and that was caused by *me* not having photo-ID. That one
account is still open. Up until last week, when I found I could shut
them down web-magically, she even had an attached ISA and savings
account connected to the current account. Those I have managed to
annihilate. 
 I won't name the bank (Halifax) who were the one exception as I
wouldn't wish to unduly prejudice potential customers against them
over what could simply be a matter of policy at that unnamed (Halifax)
bank. 
  

>
>In many cases, the executor will consolidate all funds into a single
>bank to easy management and distribution.
 
 Yeah, that much is true. I consolidated all her funds into *my*
online account. It meant creating "electronic funds transfer" orders
from hers to mine but I could manage that, too, as I knew all of her
codes, security questions and responses. I had to, I was the little
bugger who implemented them. 
 *She* probably never knew them. If she wanted online access she would
often ask me to log her in. 
 
 Okay, so what I did wasn't completely by the book, kosher, legit and
nice and orderly and any accountant, banker or bureaucrat would have
pooped a porcupine breech-position had I mentioned it but it was easy,
quick, painless and *IT* *WORKED*.
 Faffing about with executorships, probates, lawyers, courts and other
crud would have been a great huge waste of everyone's time.
 And would have taken far longer to achieve essentially the same
effects.
 So why bother doing all that work when I could just steal everything
she "owned"? 
 It's all over-thinking the issue.
                                    J. 
   

>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76710

On 15-06-16 01:02, John wrote:

>  No will. No executor. No reason for either. 

Then the government decides who will be executor and who inrerits.

>  Not everyone owns companies, islands, yachts, stock portfolios and
> banks. Some of us don't really own *anything*. 

Someone still has to do the final taxes, collect insurance, retirement
funds (and pay taxes as the funds widthdrawn from retirement plans) etc.

You can't just go to a bank and tell the manager that such and such
died. You need an official death certificate. And once you get that,
they will want to see official will to ensure that you are the executor
and have rights to manage that account.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76712

In article <5580c91c$0$44102$b1db1813$46decd27@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 15-06-16 01:02, John wrote:
> 
> >  No will. No executor. No reason for either. 
> 
> Then the government decides who will be executor and who inrerits.
> 
> >  Not everyone owns companies, islands, yachts, stock portfolios and
> > banks. Some of us don't really own *anything*. 
> 
> Someone still has to do the final taxes, collect insurance, retirement
> funds (and pay taxes as the funds widthdrawn from retirement plans) etc.
> 
> You can't just go to a bank and tell the manager that such and such
> died. You need an official death certificate. And once you get that,
> they will want to see official will to ensure that you are the executor
> and have rights to manage that account.

That which you seem to be so strenuously insisting on may well be true - 
In YOUR little village. But "the way it is" in your collection of mud 
huts isn't how things are everywhere in the world.

Put another way, give it a rest already! You're providing an excellent 
demonstration of why qubeheads are such a laughingstock to civilized 
folk.

-- 
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76716

In article <mlqhqr$dnf$1@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net>
wrote:
> In article <5580c91c$0$44102$b1db1813$46decd27@news.astraweb.com>,
>  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > On 15-06-16 01:02, John wrote:
> > > 
> > >  No will. No executor. No reason for either. 
> > 
> > Then the government decides who will be executor and who inrerits.
> > 
> > >  Not everyone owns companies, islands, yachts, stock portfolios and
> > > banks. Some of us don't really own *anything*. 
> > 
> > Someone still has to do the final taxes, collect insurance, retirement
> > funds (and pay taxes as the funds widthdrawn from retirement plans) etc.
> > 
> > You can't just go to a bank and tell the manager that such and such
> > died. You need an official death certificate. And once you get that,
> > they will want to see official will to ensure that you are the executor
> > and have rights to manage that account.
> 
> That which you seem to be so strenuously insisting on may well be true - 
> In YOUR little village. But "the way it is" in your collection of mud 
> huts isn't how things are everywhere in the world.
> 
> Put another way, give it a rest already! You're providing an excellent 
> demonstration of why qubeheads are such a laughingstock to civilized 
> folk.

Everybody should have a will. Even if you don't have any family /
friends to leave money and possessions to, your will can nominate that
it goes to something like the local animal shelter ... otherwise
everything will go to the government's greedy pockets.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76750

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:38:59 +1200, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:

>In article <mlqhqr$dnf$1@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net>
>wrote:
>> In article <5580c91c$0$44102$b1db1813$46decd27@news.astraweb.com>,
>>  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> > On 15-06-16 01:02, John wrote:
>> > > 
>> > >  No will. No executor. No reason for either. 
>> > 
>> > Then the government decides who will be executor and who inrerits.
>> > 
>> > >  Not everyone owns companies, islands, yachts, stock portfolios and
>> > > banks. Some of us don't really own *anything*. 
>> > 
>> > Someone still has to do the final taxes, collect insurance, retirement
>> > funds (and pay taxes as the funds widthdrawn from retirement plans) etc.
>> > 
>> > You can't just go to a bank and tell the manager that such and such
>> > died. You need an official death certificate. And once you get that,
>> > they will want to see official will to ensure that you are the executor
>> > and have rights to manage that account.
>> 
>> That which you seem to be so strenuously insisting on may well be true - 
>> In YOUR little village. But "the way it is" in your collection of mud 
>> huts isn't how things are everywhere in the world.
 
 Inane and gratuitous snobbery noted. 

>> 
>> Put another way, give it a rest already! You're providing an excellent 
>> demonstration of why qubeheads are such a laughingstock to civilized 
>> folk.

 Oh do fuck off.
 No, better, *I* will. 

 I know what I did. I know what they people I dealt with did. If you
are too stupid to accept reality that is not my problem. 
 Fatuous pillock. 

>
>Everybody should have a will.

 Even one who has *NOTHING* to leave? 
 What the hell *for*? 

> Even if you don't have any family /
>friends to leave money and possessions to, your will can nominate that
>it goes to something like the local animal shelter ... otherwise
>everything will go to the government's greedy pockets.

 The government would not *want* her clothes and toiletries. Nor would
they be much interested in her collection of books, many though they
are. 
 You are being idiotic, ludicrous and ...
 And I'm finished.
 
 I wanted an excuse to stop bothering with USENet. It seems I've found
it.
                       J. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76767

On 2015-06-18, John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

>  I wanted an excuse to stop bothering with USENet. It seems I've found
> it.

Don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out.

-- 
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 23rd day of Confusion in the YOLD 3181
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76724

In article <mlqhqr$dnf$1@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> 
wrote:

> That which you seem to be so strenuously insisting on may well be true - 
> In YOUR little village. But "the way it is" in your collection of mud 
> huts isn't how things are everywhere in the world.
> 
> Put another way, give it a rest already! You're providing an excellent 
> demonstration of why qubeheads are such a laughingstock to civilized 
> folk.

Oh oh. He'll call you "racist" any minute now. Quebec is like the North 
Korea of the Americas.
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web