[serichsen]

> Until very recently, this situation would not have occurred.

Until very recently, people didn't even have smartphones that could have been suspected to contain useful information.

> Apple and Google […] could no longer unlock their own products as a result.

It is not "their own product". It is the customer's. He has bought it.

The rest of the article is based on these false assumptions.

[51Cards]

>It is not "their own product". It is the customer's. He has bought it.

It is still their "Product" though, yes, they no longer own it. My car is a product of General Motors. My computer is a product of Lenovo. My Phone is a product of LG. Even though all are owned by me.

[morganvachon]

Literally speaking, you are correct, but I believe the insinuation was that Apple and Google still control the devices apart from encryption. And really, that's true; both Apple and Google have the ability to add or remove apps, remotely lock/wipe the device, and possibly eavesdrop on communications to and from the device. The carrier also has some measure of control; they can blacklist the IMEI so the device can't be used on their service, effectively forcing the owner to change providers, and they also possibly can eavesdrop on communications.

However, it seems the article author is under the assumption that Apple and Google still "own" the devices and are just leasing them to the user, which would imply that the companies should retain the ability to decrypt them at will. However, the user is the one who ultimately owns the device, and Apple and Google have started respecting that level of ownership by going hands-off with encryption and allowing the owner to choose whether to encrypt and who has access.

All of that said, I'd be surprised to learn there isn't some sort of limited back door, probably in the baseband.

[joshontheweb]

The point is that they shouldn't be able to unlock the product once ownership has been transferred.