[meddlin]

No. Simply no.

What is stopping a "criminal" from bypassing this activation lock? Time and technical ability? It surely isn't legal recourse or fear of losing the device. It's a matter of time before this is moot.

On top of that, I've left "criminal" in quotes because quite frankly, I don't care if Apple claims breaking this lock is a breach of DMCA, ToS, or anything else. I've paid for the device. It's mine. The data on it is mine. If I want something out of it bad enough, I'm getting to it. Regardless of their corporate philosophy.

On recycling, this is likely a step away from being generally responsible. Apple already has locks in place preventing parts from "non-genuine" repair shops being used. In addition they engineer components to be tightly-coupled to one another. Now they want to lock the entire device?

At best, this can be argued as "pro-customer", but not pro-consumer. Apple has made good decisions in the past; this isn't one of them.

[293984j29384]

While I agree with the overall idea behind your post, your assumption that the activation lock can be defeated by sheer git and determination is silly. If implemented correctly (and I have no idea if it will be) it's very likely that it won't be bypassed.

[mvanbaak]

If there's a way to bypass it, it will be used. By the authorized recyclers as well as the thieves (including government agencies).

[meddlin]

Yep. This is awfully close to the staring contest between Apple and the US gov't a while back on unlocking iPhones for criminal investigations.

I know--different context--but the technical implementation is similar. Which would suggest the impact of those discussions is larger than previously thought.