
Gmail of an old man with 0 mails blocked - bronzeage
I&#x27;m writing this here because of how frustratingly broken is google&#x27;s and gmail&#x27;s terms and services. My grandfather&#x27;s Apple ID (and therefore iPad) is completely unusable because the apple id is blocked awaiting email validation.<p>Minewhile, the gmail account, which was used only for the Apple ID, and had no other uses whatsoever, is also blocked. Downloading the mail you can clearly see there is no activity in the gmail at all, except Apple ID, and somehow Google found this account as violating its terms and services.<p>Apple&#x27;s and Google&#x27;s security policies have become a Kafkaesque nightmare. They randomly trigger account locking for no reasons, apple&#x27;s strict Apple ID renders your device unusable while gmail can apparently lock you out of &#x27;terms of services violation&#x27; when you literally did nothing. Old people can randomly trigger those lock downs and end up with unusable devices. Why the hell is google allowed to lock you down from even receiving (not even talking about sending) emails when their stupid heuristics triggers a random lockdown?
======
firebones
Had a similar situation with my mother's iPad and Yahoo. YahooMail wouldn't
allow a password change because my mother, having suffered an injury, moved
and gave up her landline phone number, and had no alternative verification
mechanisms set up. The native iPad mail app still connected via a cached
credential, but those credentials can't be backed up. The iPad power failed
sporadically, so she lost contact with people, with no way to transfer
credentials to her new device (on the rare instance the iPad would briefly
start), and no way to reset the YahooMail password. The only solution I heard
that might work is to buy a paid yahoomail account on her behalf (assuming
there's some way to verify her identity) and see if someone in support can get
her back on the right track so that she can keep getting her spam and point
anyone contacting her to her new address.

I hope this stuff gets easier before I get to _my_ 90s.

------
newscracker
I get how extremely frustrating and angering this must be! I’d recommend
chatting with Apple Support or calling Apple Support first, since there’s no
way to do anything similar with Google (AFAIK).

Not that this can prevent such an occurrence for others, but my guess is that
providing a phone number while registering for Google services and verifying
that number makes the user more trustworthy to Google than otherwise. This is
a big compromise on privacy for someone like me (and I’ve anyway switched to
other providers), but anyone who’s tied to Gmail/Google and does not want to
use paid and better alternatives could probably benefit from this.

------
bouke
Welcome to the world of algorithms, unaccountably going about their business
while we entrust them with more and more power.

------
SQL2219
Take devices to Apple store. Get protonmail account. Done.

------
Waterluvian
Just go into your local branch and politely ask to talk to the manager. They
have the power to override all mistakes and are reasonable rational people.

~~~
LyndsySimon
Do you mean an Apple Store?

If so, that’s not very helpful advice for many people. The nearest Apple Store
to me is about three hours away. That’s better than it was a couple of years
ago, when I would have had to have driven six or more hours to get to one.

~~~
Waterluvian
I'm being a smartass commenting on how that era of human intractable business
is dying or dead.

~~~
jacquesm
That's funny and all but when someone is asking for actual advice it is also
treating them in a way that is similar to using someone who is already down as
a soap box to tell your jokes. At least put a /s in there.

------
TrueNomad
If you are using a free product, your opinion of how to make that product act
is as important as someone on the other side of the planet screaming, i.e.,,
do not matter. If you are in need of a reliable email provide, sign up with a
provider, which will not do such things in return of paying them some money.
Problem solved. Free products are free for a reason. Because you are the
product. If you are not using your gmail, google is not recouping what it is
spending on keeping your account alive. Why should they do such a thing ?
Businesses are there to make money, not to lose it.

~~~
aaomidi
This is a terrible argument. Our personal lives and digital lives are becoming
amalgamated to an extent never seen before.

Our emails, for better or worse, are mainly handled by private companies while
giving the importance of physical addresses.

We can't expect everyone to understand the nuances of this and should protect
them from abusive practices of private companies. E.g. You should be able to
keep a readonly email even after getting banned so you can slowly move off of
it.

Google shouldn't be able to just wipe out a good portion of your digital
identity through an algorithm or a press of a button.

Maybe this sort of legislation would make them double think their business
decisions and if they want to stay in this business. I suspect they would,
email is a massive part of their industry footprint.

------
throwaway29303
If I were in your shoes I'd use other products/services instead.

The problem with the "billion user audience" products/services is that they do
not have enough people (if any) as support when stuff like this happens.

Try other services/products as suggested by other posters here. It sucks but
it's the only solution to this problem.

Good luck.

~~~
reaperducer
_If I were in your shoes I 'd use other products/services instead._

Not a lot of grandparents have the ability to just throw away a $500 tablet.

~~~
kleer001
the resale market is pretty good for apple devices

------
ThePowerOfFuet
[https://getsupport.apple.com/](https://getsupport.apple.com/)

------
ac29
Having never used an iDevice, is this actually correct? Is a Apple ID/Account
actually required to use the device?

Android devices certainly dont require a Google account or any other account
to use.

~~~
colejohnson66
No it’s not required. But if you want to backup your data without a computer,
you need an iCloud account.

------
choeger
Well, ianal, but I would say that apple cannot block you from your legally
owned device, so maybe good old fashioned letter or visit to the Apple
customer support is order.

------
exlurker
Sad story, indeed :( I'm currently slowly, but steadily migrating to fastmail,
and I can feel the burden off my shoulders each service i re-reroute.

I hope this gets resolved soon, I also recommend switching mail providers.

------
jolmg
> Why the hell is google allowed to lock you down

Google can do whatever they want with the _free_ service they're _giving
away_.

Hell, even if they charged you for it, they're still free to end the service
for whatever reason they want.

> from even receiving (not even talking about sending) emails

It's not like receiving is free for them or even cheaper for them than
sending.

It's interesting how it's common to think that the services that Google gives
away are some kind of public service, that they're somehow obligated to
provide, as if they were paid for by taxes or something.

~~~
AndrewUnmuted
It’s funny how some people will arbitrarily become a right-libertarian to come
to the defense of some company but wont follow that defense through to its
conclusion.

Sure, Google is a company comprised of shareholders but it’s also a publicly
traded company, which invokes numerous protections and services of the State,
which no private person could ever dream of getting for themselves.

Many governments have entangled themselves with google, which is one of the
most compelling reasons for Alphabet’s current enormity. They do sketchy
things for intelligence arms of governments, law enforcement, etc., which is
taxpayer-funded.

People who truly believe in the principles you’re invoking here - the idea
that private property rights allow people to do “whatever” - would disagree
with your fundamental premise, which tells me that you don’t apply this
position in a principled way.

~~~
jolmg
I'm not sure I understand you. What do you think I'm not following through on?
What does Google being a publicly traded company or their offering services to
government entities have to do with their right to decide who to give away
services to?

> People who truly believe in the principles you’re invoking here - the idea
> that private property rights allow people to do “whatever”

That seems more generic than what I said.

I'm also not sure I'd call it a principle. If a man is giving away sandwiches
to everyone, would it be invoking principles to say that he has no obligation
to give a sandwich to each and every person? I think it's just a statement of
fact.

> would disagree with your fundamental premise

Sorry, I'm not familiar with this type of language. What is this premise that
you refer to?

EDIT:

> people will arbitrarily become a right-libertarian to come to the defense of
> some company but wont follow that defense through to its conclusion.

I'm not sure if the idea I expressed is right-libertarian. If it is, then ok.
However, saying that I become right-libertarian seems to imply that I believe
in everything that is right-libertarian, which might not be the case. Is your
idea of following through to stick with one of these labels and everything
they imply and the exclusion of everything implied with every other label? I'm
not sure people and their ideals can be categorized so neatly like that.

~~~
AndrewUnmuted
> I'm not sure people and their ideals can be categorized so neatly like that.

Right-libertarians can be. Ideological consistency, which disregards one's own
personal abstract preferences, is the name of the game within that political
ideology.

Many people take on the form of right-libertarians when its rhetoric can
easily suit the practical outcomes they seek. Social media censorship, when it
is in a left-leaning person's favor, is often justified by their claiming,
"Twitter are a private company. They can censor whomever they want." A more
controversial example is the "pro-choice" argument for abortion in the US,
which commonly holds the position of self-ownership, from where the phrase "my
body, my choice," derives.

Many, or dare I say, most constituencies who hold these positions - positions
with which I agree wholeheartedly, by the way - will fail to carry them over
to other issues where its application is just as logical, if not more-so. A
great example is the gun control debate, where these same people will fail to
recognize the property rights of law-abiding, non-violent gun owners. This is
an arbitrary inconsistency, one which cannot be defended with ideas, only with
emotions and fury.

If you are going to take the very brave position of respecting property
rights, you had better be ready to defend them consistently. Otherwise, you
will encounter numerous ideological, not to mention practical, pitfalls with
your argument.

~~~
jolmg
> Right-libertarians can be. Ideological consistency, which disregards one's
> own personal abstract preferences, is the name of the game within that
> political ideology.

Just because a person might agree with a right-libertarian on a specific
point, doesn't mean they now have to adopt everything about their ideology or
apply it in everything without regard to differences in the topics at hand.

> Many, or dare I say, most constituencies who hold these positions -
> positions with which I agree wholeheartedly, by the way - will fail to carry
> them over to other issues where its application is just as logical, if not
> more-so. A great example is the gun control debate, where these same people
> will fail to recognize the property rights of law-abiding, non-violent gun
> owners.

Are you sure they fail to recognize them? or perhaps they do to an extent, but
they see there are other points to consider regarding guns specifically,
points that perhaps they value more than the recognition of property rights on
this specific subject.

> This is an arbitrary inconsistency, one which cannot be defended with ideas,
> only with emotions and fury.

It very much is arbitrary, and I think that's fine. Gun control is not exactly
the same problem as the abortion controversy, though they have some similar
aspects. In the case of gun control, some people will feel that unlimited
recognition of property rights with regards to guns would lead to public
safety issues. Different people will want to stand on different points of that
scale, valuing property rights vs public safety.

I think this can be defended with ideas. The emotions and fury come from
people not being able to articulate their ideas, or their not understanding
the ideas of others, or perhaps having mutual understanding but seeing that
they're a minority in how they're affected by proposed policies that everyone
else seems to agree on. It doesn't mean there's lack of ideas. Ideas and
emotions/fury are 2 different things. You can't use them for the same, and are
best left mostly ignored, if not taken as an indication that something is
lacking in someone's communication.

> If you are going to take the very brave position of respecting property
> rights, you had better be ready to defend them consistently.

Well, I think I've stated my point, but to conclude, I don't think respecting
property rights necessitates holding them above all else. That a person sees
the recognition of property rights on one topic as the most important aspect
doesn't mean they now have recognize it as the most important aspect in every
other topic.

Every topic involves different aspects whether that's public safety, the
property rights of a potential mother with regards to her body, the right to
life of a fetus, etc. Every person will arbitrarily value each aspect
differently, see the trade-offs that the issue at hand necessitates, and
choose their position accordingly.

