Apple have stolen my ipad. Yes, this story now has an ending

[Frank Slootweg]

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
[...]

But go ahead, try to get Apple to unlock your iOS device without
providing proof of ownership.

Yes, we *know* Apple's 'support' process was (is?) completely fscked
up!

You don't have to repeat it so many times, we got it the first time,
probably because we're severely hindered by a somewhat functioning
brain.

 

[Frank Slootweg]

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

On 2016-04-27, F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article <dobv2sF17n3U1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

3. You can't be asked to provide proof of ownership, unless the entity
which is asking can and does provide information which justifies
their suspicion that the item might be stolen.

apple's suspicion was fully justified.

it is unlocked not withstanding all your crap, QED

It was unlocked only *after* proof of ownership was provided.

Yes, that was indeed the brain-dead part of Apple's 'support' process.
Thanks for the acknowledgement.

 

[nospam]

In article <slrnni5veb.1aha.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

It is unlocked because the owner was able to provide a valid receipt
with a serial number, and for no other reason.

He would not have needed the serial no

He *DID* need a valid receipt with a serial number. His original receipt
was rejected and he was told he had to provide another one. Despite all
your blustering, it was not until after this second receipt was
submitted that Apple did anything, and even then they did not unlock the
previous iCloud account, they simply removed the activation lock on the
iPad so he could set it up with a new account.

yep.

 

[nospam]

In article <doh3jvF357gU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
[...]
But go ahead, try to get Apple to unlock your iOS device without
providing proof of ownership.

Yes, we *know* Apple's 'support' process was (is?) completely fscked
up!

there's nothing fucked up about it.

requiring proof of ownership is a must. otherwise any rando could call
apple and have it reset and get a free ipad.

 

[nospam]

In article <5723505f$0$8251$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com>, F
Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:

He does NOT need a receipt with a serial number on it, he WOULD need to
produce the serial number however.

that's a contradiction.

 

[Frank Slootweg]

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
[...]
> He *DID* need a valid receipt with a serial number.

No, he did not *need* that. That was what the clueless Apple 'support'
person *asked*/'demanded', because (s)he was too incompetent the verify
the available information which was staring hir in the face [1].

With 'friends' like you lot, Apple doesn't need any enemies.

[1] Not that one would *ever* need (as in: it's mandatory) to have a
receipt (let alone one with a serial number) in cases like the case in
question.

 

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

In article <5723505f$0$8251$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com>, F
Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:

He does NOT need a receipt with a serial number on it, he WOULD need to
produce the serial number however.

that's a contradiction.

<nospam_mode>

No it's not.

</nospam_mode>

<real world>

The serial number is on the iPad and the serial number is tied to the
Apple ID which needs unlocking. Not *really* rocket science.

</real world>

 

[nospam]

In article <dohivoF6armU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

He *DID* need a valid receipt with a serial number.

No, he did not *need* that.

yes he did need that or some other evidence that it was legitimately
his.

That was what the clueless Apple 'support'
person *asked*/'demanded',

nothing clueless about requiring proof that it's his.

because (s)he was too incompetent the verify
the available information which was staring hir in the face [1].

wrong, because the information available was for an account to which he
had no access and therefore couldn't be verified, exactly the same as
what would happen if the ipad was stolen.

 

[nospam]

In article <dohivpF6armU2@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

The serial number is on the iPad and the serial number is tied to the
Apple ID which needs unlocking. Not *really* rocket science.

any thief can pretend that the apple id associated with the ipad is his.

fortunately, apple takes this far more seriously than you and your
criminal cohorts.

 

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

In article <doh3jvF357gU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
[...]
But go ahead, try to get Apple to unlock your iOS device without
providing proof of ownership.

Yes, we *know* Apple's 'support' process was (is?) completely fscked
up!

there's nothing fucked up about it.

requiring proof of ownership is a must. otherwise any rando could call
apple and have it reset and get a free ipad.

Red herring, The case in question, there's no 'rando' calling. Bummer
heh, these pesky facts ruining your carefully crafted rants?

Anyway, you clowns apparently think that Apple's 'rules'/
'requirements'/ <whatever> [1] somehow magically override local law
or/and common sense. Earth to clowns: They don't.

[1] (As usual,) Not implying that Apple's *real* rules/<whatever> are as
unlawful/stupid as you clowns keep insisting on.

 

[nospam]

In article <dohjlfF6evcU1@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.

the person who called did *not* know his password or security
questions.

the info they have for that ipad could not be verified because the
person *did not know his password*.

why would apple think that was the legitimate owner??

until the person calling provides proper proof, they ain't gonna budge,
and that's exactly how it should be.

the only people that will piss off are the thugs who steal stuff.

 

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

In article <dohivpF6armU2@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

The serial number is on the iPad and the serial number is tied to the
Apple ID which needs unlocking. Not *really* rocket science.

any thief can pretend that the apple id associated with the ipad is his.

But in the case in question, there is no "thief", is there? And that
*fact* is staring Apple('s 'support' person) right in the face. Bummer
heh?

 

[nospam]

In article <dohk08F6hipU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

The serial number is on the iPad and the serial number is tied to the
Apple ID which needs unlocking. Not *really* rocket science.

any thief can pretend that the apple id associated with the ipad is his.

But in the case in question, there is no "thief", is there?

apple doesn't know that.

all apple knows is that someone forgot their password *and* forgot
their security questions *and* can't access the apple id email account
to verify it.

if the ipad was stolen, the thief would not know the apple id password,
would not know the security questions and would not have access to the
apple id email account.

notice a similarity there?

And that
*fact* is staring Apple('s 'support' person) right in the face. Bummer
heh?

what's staring apple in the face is that the ipad could very well be
stolen.

that's why apple asked for additional proof, and when it was provided,
the ipad was unlinked from the now defunct apple id.

 

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

In article <dohjlfF6evcU1@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.

the person who called did *not* know his password or security
questions.

Maybe that's *why* he called!?

the info they have for that ipad could not be verified because the
person *did not know his password*.

False

> why would apple think that was the legitimate owner??

Because the information was staring them in the face.

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*.

> 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.

 

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

In article <dohivoF6armU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

He *DID* need a valid receipt with a serial number.

No, he did not *need* that.

yes he did need that or some other evidence that it was legitimately
his.

Which he'd already given (before the very first receipt).

That was what the clueless Apple 'support'
person *asked*/'demanded',

nothing clueless about requiring proof that it's his.

Asking for something you already have is rather clueless.

because (s)he was too incompetent the verify
the available information which was staring hir in the face [1].

wrong, because the information available was for an account to which he
had no access and therefore couldn't be verified, exactly the same as
what would happen if the ipad was stolen.

As I've explained umpteen times, it was/is trivial to verify the
account. That you're too clueless to get that or/and too stubborn to
admit it, does not change the *fact* that the required information was
available to Apple('s 'support' person).

As someone said, *STOP DIGGING*, they don't want you there!

 

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

In article <dohk08F6hipU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
[...]
And that
*fact* is staring Apple('s 'support' person) right in the face. Bummer
heh?

what's staring apple in the face is that the ipad could very well be
stolen.

Yes, they apparently were as clueless/stubborn as you. Never mind
obvious *facts* when you can ass-ume the utterly unlikely.

And wasn't Don some *really* stupid 'thief'!? He kept calling them,
apparently desperate to get caught! Some 'thief's stop at nothing!

Luckily we have the likes of nospam to save the world! Thank gawd!

 

[nospam]

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.

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.

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

why would apple think that was the legitimate owner??

Because the information was staring them in the face.

no it wasn't.

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

any verification emails sent would go unanswered.

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

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.

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.

 

[nospam]

In article <dohkt2F6nqdU2@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

He *DID* need a valid receipt with a serial number.

No, he did not *need* that.

yes he did need that or some other evidence that it was legitimately
his.

Which he'd already given (before the very first receipt).

nope. all he gave apple was 'i dunno my password and the system locked
me out for wrong guesses'.

that's the exact same thing a thief would say.

apple must now verify that he is actually the legitimate owner and not
someone pretending to be.

That was what the clueless Apple 'support'
person *asked*/'demanded',

nothing clueless about requiring proof that it's his.

Asking for something you already have is rather clueless.

they didn't have it. that's why they asked.

because (s)he was too incompetent the verify
the available information which was staring hir in the face [1].

wrong, because the information available was for an account to which he
had no access and therefore couldn't be verified, exactly the same as
what would happen if the ipad was stolen.

As I've explained umpteen times, it was/is trivial to verify the
account. That you're too clueless to get that or/and too stubborn to
admit it, does not change the *fact* that the required information was
available to Apple('s 'support' person).

as i've explained umpteen times, what you claim is wrong.

 

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

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.

*Read* this *again* and this time try to *comprehend* it:

Which was staring them in the face as soon as they knew which Apple ID
was involved.

Clue-by-four: It starts with "which" and ends with "Apple ID".

[Usual <whoosh> episodes deleted.]

Bottom line: You're apparently incapable of reading for comprehension
or/and too stubborn to accept arguments and facts which debunk your
rants.

I'm done with you.

 

[nospam]

In article <dohmd1F71i2U1@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.

*Read* this *again* and this time try to *comprehend* it:

Which was staring them in the face as soon as they knew which Apple ID
was involved.

Clue-by-four: It starts with "which" and ends with "Apple ID".

read *this* again:
his apple id was a me.com email address which he did not know the
password, therefore any verification emails sent went unanswered.

as far as apple is concerned, it ain't his ipad.

Bottom line: You're apparently incapable of reading for comprehension
or/and too stubborn to accept arguments and facts which debunk your
rants.

that describes you perfectly.

> I'm done with you.

good.