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 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#76725

On 2015-06-17, 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's not how it works in the UK, although close enough.


-- 
Today is Pungenday, the 22nd 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]

#76749

On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 21:10:51 -0400, 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.

 Like buggery it does.
 *I* did. 
 It was me.
 
>
>>  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.
 
 For someone with no assets and no income, who wasn't working and who
owned absolutely nothing, not even her shoes? 
 

>
>You can't just go to a bank and tell the manager that such and such
>died. You need an official death certificate.

 Okay. That much is correct, but that was *ALL* I needed, that and her
cashcard. I only needed the card so they knew *which* accounts to
close. And some places took my word for it even without a copy of the
certificate. 
 Quite a few online services I just cancelled with no reason given.
They probably *still* don't know of her current status, as why should
they? It's not their concern. 
 
 

> And once you get that,
>they will want to see official will

 Bollocks. Also untrue. Also fucking impossible as she didn't *have*
one. 
 What need when she really didn't *own* anything? 

> to ensure that you are the executor
>and have rights to manage that account.

 Bollocks. Also untrue. Only one bank cared and they only cared
because I didn't have photo-ID confirming who I was. Or, more
accurately, photo-ID that *agreed* with my statement about who I was.
They didn't really give a toss whether I was me or not only that I had
ID saying so. 
 No-one else *cared* who *I* was, only who *she* used to be. 
 I wouldn't even have bothered going into the banks had I not thought
it was a nice, polite thing to do for *them*. *I* didn't care whether
the accounts were closed or not and it's a dead certainty [pun
intended] that *she* doesn't. 
 There is, most of the time, no *need* for all the bureaucratic
faffing about. 
 But as you are absolutely certain that you are right and that I did
not in fact do what I am saying I did then either I must be completely
deluded or a liar. Either way, I'm done.
 'Bye.
                        J. 

>

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

#76766

On 2015-06-18, John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 21:10:51 -0400, 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.
>
>  Like buggery it does.

I started off feeling sorry for you, but I now realise you're an idiot.

> I'm done.

Good. Saves me the trouble of killfiling you.

-- 
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]

#76768

In article <8cc4oa1u8bsukk4uohailo6e49ag14q81k@4ax.com>,
 John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

>  But as you are absolutely certain that you are right and that I did
> not in fact do what I am saying I did then either I must be completely
> deluded or a liar. Either way, I'm done.
>  'Bye.

Mezei lives in an obscure Albanian enclave where the govt. has 
historically striven to control every possible minuscule facet of the 
lives of the citizens there. He's signed on to his servitude with a 
willing heart. Etc.

Also, Quebec operates under a "napoleonic code" for it's civil laws, 
which is different in some aspects from the British common law that most 
of us are used to.

Speaking of which, 200 years ago today we beat the shit of that French 
bastard over there at Hougoumont in Belgium. Shove it up your cul, 
Legros ...
-- 
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]

#76693

In article <hpuuna1g11khgtvrginmr9rm23vtctrt68@4ax.com>, John
<Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

>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?

They appeared to when SWMBO was executor for her mother's estate last
year. A variety of financial institutions followed the same process.
You send them the legal copy of the death certificate ASAP, at which
point they freeze the asset at its value at time of death, and return
the DS. Once you have grant of probate the financial institution will
then do what the executor tells them WRT the asset (sell it, transfer
it to another party, etc).

One sent a cheque without waiting for probate which surprised us
somewhat.

It's a tedious business but appeared to work OK.

> And that peculiar little financial company can go suck a pustulant
>baboon's rectum. 

And which one was that, again? Sorry, I must have missed where you told
us.

-- 
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without 
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens

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

#76705

On 2015-06-16, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <hpuuna1g11khgtvrginmr9rm23vtctrt68@4ax.com>, John
><Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
>
>>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?
>
> They appeared to when SWMBO was executor for her mother's estate last
> year.

I am presently co-executor of my MIL's estate. Other than the fact that
each financial institution has different forms, procedures and ID
requirements, they're all doing as they're told. Even the aforementioned
pustulent baboon's rectums.

-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 21st 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]

#76711

In article <cubherFdvlcU3@mid.individual.net>, Huge
<Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2015-06-16, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> > In article <hpuuna1g11khgtvrginmr9rm23vtctrt68@4ax.com>, John
> ><Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
> >>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.

Legally a provider shouldn't be able to re-use someone's email address
(or phone number for that matter). It has privacy issues - for example
if your doctor sends through some medical information after you've
closed your account, but haven't given them the new one yet, then that
information could potentially be received by a new person re-using the
old account's email address.

In many cases you can still access you old ISP-based email address even
years after the account has been closed and you're using a different
ISP.




> >>>>>  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?
> >
> > They appeared to when SWMBO was executor for her mother's estate last
> > year.
> 
> I am presently co-executor of my MIL's estate. Other than the fact that
> each financial institution has different forms, procedures and ID
> requirements, they're all doing as they're told. Even the aforementioned
> pustulent baboon's rectums.

I don't see Microsoft "aforementioned" anywhere here.   ;-)

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

#76706

On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:20:21 +0100, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

>In article <hpuuna1g11khgtvrginmr9rm23vtctrt68@4ax.com>, John
><Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>They appeared to when SWMBO was executor for her mother's estate last
>year. A variety of financial institutions followed the same process.
>You send them the legal copy of the death certificate ASAP, at which
>point they freeze the asset at its value at time of death, and return
>the DS. Once you have grant of probate the financial institution will
>then do what the executor tells them WRT the asset (sell it, transfer
>it to another party, etc).

 Okay. Thanks. 

>
>One sent a cheque without waiting for probate which surprised us
>somewhat.

 Lots of places do this. It used to be called "goodwill". 

>
>It's a tedious business but appeared to work OK.

 I'm glad it worked for you but my sympathies for the loss of SWMBO's
mum. 

>
>> And that peculiar little financial company can go suck a pustulant
>>baboon's rectum. 
>
>And which one was that, again? Sorry, I must have missed where you told
>us.

 I can't name it (Halifax) as it would be unfair to single out a
single financial institutution such as the Halifax just because *I*
had one bad experience with them. 
 Had they (the Halifax) been *continuously* evil, nasty, inept and
more useless than an ashtray on a motorbike, I might have named the
Halifax but as it is that would be rude.
                                         J.   

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

#76681

On 15 Jun 2015 15:14:58 GMT, 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.

 Yeah, I've got one of those, too, for the sake of legacy and not
letting anyone else pinch it. That one I *do* use. I liked AOL back in
the dinosaurean past when they were the good guys. 
 They made those legacy email accounts free many years ago so I see no
reason to drop 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. 
>
>There's a process for this already; it's called "probate".

 Yeah, I know. I really, really dislike that process. 
 But why wake up the official dragons if you never need to? It's the
survivors' money, let *them* deal with it if at all possible.
 In my case, it was not only possible, it was *easy*. Being Tech
Support for the family can be useful, assuming you're the last man
standing. When the LMS is my sister I think things are going to get
all soggy and difficult to light. :)
                                   J. 
   

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

#76663

On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 12:00:21 -0700, "W" <persistentone@spamarrest.com>
wrote:

>"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.

 You assume *telling* the account provider before closing the account.
Why bother? 
 Just download all you wish to keep, settle any outstanding charges
and close everything. Who's to know or care *who* closes stuff or why?

>
>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.

 Rarely. 
 Unless you live with cops and NSA spies, a simple login password is
adequate for almost every function. 
 You are over-thinking this. 
 Whether you are alive or not, if your wife knows how to log on to
your box and which file the plain text passwords are kept in that is
all you need. A simple shortcut on the desktop, Dock or QuickLaunch
bar. 
 As a backup in case of loss of both spouses, it might be useful to
printoff everything and to keep it in a desk drawer but that only
makes sense if you like some relatives.:)
 
 Hundreds of millions of us are never burgled. Hundreds of millions of
us don't have anything worth much on our computers and milliards of us
get by every day without hat NSA-level High-Finance security of bank
vaults and SDB's. 
 
 Life should be made *easier* by computers, they shouldn't become an
extra burden.
                         J. 

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

#76615

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?

Getting into a pointless Facebook account is the least of your problems.

The biggest problem is that when someone dies the privacy, etc. laws
idiotically all suddenly no longer apply, which means any selfish
asshole can then start posting anything they like about the dead person
all over the Internet and there's absolutely nothing the family can do
about it (unless it's a complete load of bollocks). As we found out
when my dad died and some loony bunny-boiler started unwantedly digging
into and posting his entire family history. The wacko even posted
images with samples of his handwriting, signature, etc. that can easily
be used by some other scumbag for devious purposes including getting at
joint bank accounts, and yet Google don't give a crap because he's
dead. :-(

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

#76652

On 6/14/15 11:00 AM, Kurt Ullman 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?
>

Good idea though you need to remember to update it regularly as you 
change passwords and add/delete accounts-- and that gets old in a hurry...

-- 
"My name is Lieutenant Aldo Raine and I'm putting together a special 
team, and I need me eight soldiers..."

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

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

csiph-web