Have you ever dealt with a death? None of those proof you are the executor. You get a specific document from the courts saying that, yes, this person is by law able to take possession of all of the estate, and distribute it as per the will.

The death certificate just says "this person died".

The will just says 'if I die, id like my possessions to be distributed this way"

A solicitor can write whatever they want. My solicitor wrote a letter I should get all of Job's online content, but they didn't listen to him either.

The only thing that matters is the document saying you are assigned to execute the will and handle all estate matters.

Apple is right here. Someone should be able to show a document saying that they are the executor of the estate. This is needed for many things like bank accounts and such. It is entirely reasonable that this also applies to cloud based content. Without it, if apple would unlock the data, and someone else shows up with a proof of being executor, apple could have a problem.

We just went through all of this after my wife's mother's death, and although it's a big hassle, it's just something that has to be done. Get proof you are the executor, then claim all possessions including cloud based data. This could include things like photos which may have emotional value, so of course data is part of what the executor has to deal with.

I just hope Linus, with his obvious anger management issues, doesn't end up like Reiser or McAfee.

Which is most of the population. Id say pretty much the whole US middle class and lower is financially ruined if they had a serious medical issue.

Im not from the US, so im not entirely sure what a 'National Security Letter' entails. Wikipedia seems to suggest a very broad spectrum of requests. If it's anything like europe, the vast majority of those requests are about email boxes. Actual wiretaps, where all data on the line is forwarded to law enforcement, is likely a small percentage of requests. Ok, maybe Comcast could get a few hundred, since they're quite big, but I highly doubt thousands.

You're right, a lot of the costs are in administrative and legal departments. Are the requests valid, are they possible (you wouldnt believe how often they still ask things you just cant do or know), etc. But there definitely are pretty high infrastructure costs! If you think an ISP that takes this seriously will let normal infrastructure handle wiretapping, you are wrong (at least, I would hope you are). You have to put a totally separate, totally unconnected, fibre splicing, infrastructure in place. Why? Because you cant have regular network engineers or even hackers get their hands on extremely sensitive wire tapping information. Knowing who is being wiretapped is information that needs to be secret, in some cases it may even fall under intelligence services. This equipment needs to be in a secure location, and even network engineers that are 'curious' should not be able to get their hands on the data inside these cabinets. Now imagine you have a pretty spread out network, directly connected to multiple peering points, so no single point to put taps but instead many, maybe dozens or even more, you are looking at serious costs. Not that many boxes can handle multiple 10gbit fibre sniffing links you know.

I cant speak for Comcast, but the idea that any ISP would gladly get more warrants just so they could recoup their costs sounds ridiculous to me. This stuff is being implemented against the will of most companies. Regular people work there, no one with a white cat on their lap :)

Regards,

Cor