Stolen Ipad

On what data do you base your assumption that providing tracking assistance to the police would cost Apple "little or nothing"?

What data do you need? When you plug the device into iTunes, the device is recognized. This already happens at no cost. iTunes should be able to show what other account the device has been logged into. Once this is noted, the owner of the device could be sent an email with the address of the persons account the device was logged into. Once the investigation was done, the device could be taken off of the 'stolen' list. When I called Apple, they claimed they would 'flag' the device, if they can 'flag' the device, then why can they not report where the device was logged into. If cost is an issue, I am sure the majority of us would pay a small fee for this service.

yelloyello wrote:

What data do you need? When you plug the device into iTunes, the device is recognized.

The iPad is recognized by the iTunes application, not the iTunes store (ie. Apple).

iTunes does not send info for connected iDevices to Apple. There is no reason to do this.

Once this is noted, the owner of the device could be sent an email with the address of the persons account the device was logged into. Once the investigation was done,

So you want Apple to send out your personal info to anyone before an investigation is complete?

When I called Apple, they claimed they would 'flag' the device, if they can 'flag' the device, then why can they not report where the device was logged into.

They flag it by serial number. When the device serial number is entered into the database (most likely the AppleCare database), whoever looks up that serial number will see what has been written up/done with that device.

It does not track where it was logged into or who used it where on what computer/network.

The iPad (and all iDevices) most certainly are tied to one's iTunes account and the UDID *is* available to Apple. There are many reasons to do this, chief among them verifying that the device is authorized for the content that is on it. Whether or how much information is sent to Apple is a matter of opinion from our standpoint, but the issue is not whether it is or not but whether it could be. In so far as any privacy issues might be cited they are addressed through informed consent.

yelloyello wrote:

What data do you need? When you plug the device into iTunes, the device is recognized. This already happens at no cost. iTunes should be able to show what other account the device has been logged into.

People would be required to administer this service, take phone calls, verify that whoever is requesting the information has a legitimate right to it. I'm sure lawyers would need to be involved. I certainly have no interested in Apple being involved in the business of investigation of stolen property.

Meg St._Clair wrote

People would be required to administer this service, take phone calls, verify that whoever is requesting the information has a legitimate right to it. I'm sure lawyers would need to be involved.

Apple is full of people, they could allocate people to do this task if they were willing. Lawyers do not need to be involved, not in the UK anyway, the local police have divisions who do this sort of thing all the time. My local police have spoken to Apple on my behalf, the constable reports 'they were very cagey - not helpful'

I certainly have no interested in Apple being involved in the business of investigation of stolen property.

Why would you not want a multinational, high profile company to fight crime? I am sure that if it were your property that had been stolen, you would be only too pleased to have a company that thinks as much of itself as Apple does working on your behalf to get these low lifes off the streets and locked in cages where they belong. As I said earlier, crime only proliferates because WE allow it to!

If you have a reasonably modern car it has GPS, would you call Toyota (or whoever) when it got stolen?

Apple are not in Law Enforcement, you may not like that but that is how it is.

You may not be aware of this, but modern GPS systems are exactly how police recover stolen vehicles. They don't necessarily call Toyota since OnStar has the market, but it's certainly not the only passive system available. Apple is not law enforcement, but then no one said they were or should be. It's a fallacy to extend the argument that they retain and provide identifying information to proper law enforcement channels under subpoena...so long as the *owner* agrees.

What exactly is your argument here? That owners should not have the option to provide their private and identifiable information to Apple so in the event a theft occurs they'd have a better chance of recovery?

There's no logical basis for your or Apple's position that the reason they don't do it is for privacy concerns, not for the sake of streamlining their operations, when the owners themselves are requesting the information to be released. I couldn't even personally report and tag my iPad as stolen. It took me several months to have an officer take the time to contact Apple (and eventually subpoena their records) and I'm still not certain my device is flagged in the off chance it finds its way into an Apple store.

My argument is simple, sorry you missed it. Apple are not in Law Enforcement, and that is as it should be, no manufacturer offers a tracing service without a court order, and the court order needs to be requested by Law Enforcement.

Well on that we agree. I'm asking why you think it's unreasonable that Apple retain identifiable information to provide to proper law enforcement channels persuant to a lawfully obtained search warrant. I'm certain I posted that in the comment you resopnded to...yes, I did.

Apple's position is that they don't do this because of privacy concerns. I'm pointing out that their position hard to maintain when the owners themselves are requesting for them to relinquish the information to law enforcement (not to the owners themselvse in case that's the confusion you and I are mis-communicating about).

I don't want Apple to give me the information, I want Apple to give it to the police.

Regardless, Apple does not do what you want.

Send suggestions here (which is far more likely to get something done rather than arguing here).

-> http://www.apple.com/feedback/

braunmf wrote:

Well on that we agree. I'm asking why you think it's unreasonable that Apple retain identifiable information to provide to proper law enforcement channels persuant to a lawfully obtained search warrant. I'm certain I posted that in the comment you resopnded to...yes, I did.

Apple's position is that they don't do this because of privacy concerns. I'm pointing out that their position hard to maintain when the owners themselves are requesting for them to relinquish the information to law enforcement (not to the owners themselvse in case that's the confusion you and I are mis-communicating about).

I don't want Apple to give me the information, I want Apple to give it to the police.

Having seen Sony and others face massive legal issues because of 'Privacy Concerns' I am surprised that you need to ask that question.

I do not doubt that when the police ask for information Apple supply it, again, as it should be.

They don't provide it to law enforcement. I explained that Apple's position is that they can't retain it.

At this point, I think we're at irreconcible viewpoints so I don't see any reason to continue the discussion.

I'm just throwing my opinion in here, if people got all riled up over a rumor that Apple can track location data of iPhones, how do you think the public would react to Apple having even more information? It would cost them money is lawsuits that Apple would win, and would lower their reputation.

Don't be so careless with your iPad. Lots of people want these things; and robbers aren't going to be nice and just skip you to rob somebody else.

This is wrong now and was wrong at the time it was posted. Find my iPhone was always a free service that any user with an Apple ID could use. It's unfortunate that most don't know how to use it.