change admn of a mac

[ae859HX]

A person in the household has remote access to an old mac.

It's running an old unsupported insecure version of mac os which is open to vulnerabilities and the true owner has data that may be at risk. Let's say we didn't want to deny access or wipe the machine and important files mostly documents can be backed up and removed.

What's the best approach to disassociating the true owner and apple id and supplying said person with a new admin account?

 

[DeltaMac]

If the remote user/real owner can remove the sensitive files (and the "person in the household still needs to remotely access that old Mac), why would that owner still need to change to a different admin account.
Sounds like you want to limit the real owner's access, and yet continue to get full remote access.
Would changing the admin account password be enough to give some additional sense of security for the owner?
You could (and perhaps should) also strongly suggest that the owner change their AppleID password.

 

[chrfr]

A person in the household has remote access to an old mac.

It's running an old unsupported insecure version of mac os which is open to vulnerabilities and the true owner has data that may be at risk. Let's say we didn't want to deny access or wipe the machine and important files mostly documents can be backed up and removed.

What's the best approach to disassociating the true owner and apple id and supplying said person with a new admin account?

This story doesn't make sense.

 

[ae859HX]

It's a safeguarding issue.

The owner is older and not cooperative.

The person accessing the Mac (and commandeering iPads) is tech savvy.

I've highlighted that the person cannot necessarily be trusted and there is evidence of this. iMessages have been intercepted among other concerns. The older person says they are happy with the situation ("I don't care") and is obstructive to correcting the situation, ie. repossessing the equipment and keeping it for personal use only.

I've explained that it's highly irregular to share full access (no doubt including all passwords, email correspondence, possibly bank details etc). That iPads are single user items. That the old computer is running a OS vulnerable to exploits, and could easily be compromised and should not be connected to the internet. It's also a concern that communications to that person can be intercepted, so it also affects everyone in contact with them.

It's a safeguarding issue.

The goal is to restore security and privacy.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Unless the rightful owner of the device has been legally declared incompetent and legal guardianship has been given to someone else, what you are wanting to do is not legal or morally right, no matter how much you may not like the situation.


In my opinion, no one here will help from a Mac Perspective. It wouldn’t be right.

 

[ae859HX]

What do you mean it's not legal or morally right?

That comment is false and wrong, and bereft of any morality.

It is the intrusion and coercion which is the issue, not any remedial action to protect a vulnerable individual who is naive to the technology they are using.

Indeed persons in the health authority have expressed concerns about issues relating to safeguarding, of which this is the latest development.

To be clear I'm not talking about doing anything without the owners consent.

 

[DeltaMac]

You do see how this appears, right?

You don't want to do "anything without the owners consent", yet you don't appear to mind that owner "doesn't care", seems to "obstruct correcting the situation" and wants to "keep it for personal use only"
And you say the owner is older and not cooperative.
That all appears to imply that you don't have the owners consent.
(?)
[paraphrasing]
It is not the intrusion and coercion that is the issue, but is the remedial action to protect a vulnerable individual who is naive to the technology they are using.[/paraphrasing]
(Isn't this how you wanted this sentence to read?)

Just curious: What version of OS X are you talking about that is old, unsupported and insecure?

Is there any kind of data involved that would be "at risk" that does not involve money? Or some files that are, perhaps, more important to you than to the "uncooperative person".

If the person is uncooperative, and you believe they are now in harm's way, then perhaps you need to pursue something like a legal declaration of incompetence - or at least contact a family counselor, or whatever similar service you have in your community.

 

[Apple_Robert]

What do you mean it's not legal or morally right?

That comment is false and wrong, and bereft of any morality.

It is the intrusion and coercion which is the issue, not any remedial action to protect a vulnerable individual who is naive to the technology they are using.

Indeed persons in the health authority have expressed concerns about issues relating to safeguarding, of which this is the latest development.

To be clear I'm not talking about doing anything without the owners consent.

You just contradicted yourself.

You previously said: "The older person says they are happy with the situation ("I don't care") and is obstructive to correcting the situation, ie. repossessing the equipment and keeping it for personal use only."

I stand by my previous post. It appears you don't have the owners rightful consent. You came here to get advice so you can usurp power under the guise of protecting the owner from himself, because you don't like what is going on. What I previously said was accurate.