[nkrisc]

> “People don’t steal a phone to then go run and drop it off at their local recycling center,” he quips. And smartphone thefts have plummeted over the last several years, so stolen phones are becoming less of a problem in the first place.

And this excerpt links to this article: https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/DA-Gasc-n-says-SF-...

Which mentions:

> Smartphone robberies have plunged 50 percent in the past three years in San Francisco after they soared to epidemic heights and prompted a push for remote “kill switches” to become mandatory in the devices, District Attorney George Gascón announced Thursday.

So the article states that the Activation Lock isn't necessary because device thefts have plummeted. But they plummeted because of Activation Lock and similar features. That's circular reasoning if I ever saw it.

[dwild]

> But they plummeted because of Activation Lock and similar features.

Activation Lock != kill switches

A kill switch is a switch. It's an action. The activation lock is always there, the action is required to remove it, not to kill it.

Kill switches are fine, because then the issue only happens when it's actually stolen.

Activation lock aren't fine because it also happens when it has been sold.