[crankylinuxuser]

If they can do this before it is sold (eg: theft) and remotely prevent the device from working, how do users defend against having this done later for more capricious reasons?

Everything I've learned, is that for capabilities like this, the good reasons are the justifications, and then the owners migrate to less good reasons. The overall distrust I have with these kinds of systems are that they are Treacherous Software/Hardware. This capability is something that shouldn't be implemented. No user in their right mind would - but the companies that wish to retain ownership rights after sale do.

I would also object to this 'hacking of these devices' as violations of CFAA. Yes, the devices had lost chain of custody, and were reported as stolen. That doesn't allow any entity to then engage in more illegal behaviors exigent to the initial situation. If I am being robbed, I am allowed to defend myself and my goods. However I cannot stalk the robber, and then bash his/her kneecaps in after the fact. 2 wrongs, separated by time, do not make a right.