[southerntofu]

Why, though? Physical access to the hardware should prevent you from accessing existing files (encryption at rest) but should not prevent you from resetting/reusing the device.

Does your fridge come with FridgeID? Or a book? Introducing such mechanisms is really hostile to users, especially poorer users of second-hand hardware who have to go through extra (shady) hoops to get a device running just because some rich Silicon Valley start-uppers thought locking hardware down was a feature.

[blacksmith_tb]

I think the argument that locking down hardware is unfair to thieves is not likely to garner a lot of support. But the larger argument that it's unfair to users should. The majority of whom didn't know they were signing up for a machine that is so theft-proof they can't give it to a grandparent or donate it to a school. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that easily-bricked hardware leads to more sales for Apple (and I hope I don't need to wipe my Mini any time soon...)

[southerntofu]

> I think the argument that locking down hardware is unfair to thieves

That was not my point. Most times, users of a stolen device are unaware and not complicit in the fact it was stolen in the first place. They usually have acquired it from legitimate second-hand markets.

[blacksmith_tb]

That's a good point, thanks for clarifying it.

[lupire]

Who is going to walk a away with my fridge? How about my car? Many users appreciate having anti-theft protections on their easy to physically-access devices, and very few need to wipe of the owner's account.

It's great that you have a niche use case, but that doesn't make your case the priority over the main use cases.

[southerntofu]

> Who is going to walk a away with my fridge?

People would steal your wallet, your jewelry... There's a lot more value to be extracted from a stolen credit card than from a "smart" phone.

> It's great that you have a niche use case, but that doesn't make your case the priority over the main use cases.

You're taking it the other way around. The common use case for first-world software developers is the niche use case for the rest of the world. In the rest of the world (i.e. the vast majority), who can't afford buying new luxury devices, people are more concerned with getting locked out after forgetting their password (or after their kids changed it) or about acquiring a second-hand device, than about "protecting" their device from thieves.

Because this "protection" doesn't protect anything. Once your iPhone is stolen, it's gone. No iCloud lock is going to bring it back, so why prevent other, less-privileged folks from using it when you can't use it? That type of "mine or noone else's" capitalist mentality is actively harming users and destroying the environment

https://www.ifixit.com/News/34072/apples-activation-lock-wil...

[crististm]

Think of it as a 'fuck you' to the thief and whoever might get the brick. Maybe you get that, otherwise you can be bitter all you want about the inequality and how stealing will resolve that.

[kstrauser]

More practically, I want to remove the financial incentive from stealing my phone. I want a thief to see it and think "why bother, I can't get anything for it".

[southerntofu]

From what i can see, it does not seem to work. Here in western Europe in the big cities many people buy locked phones second hand and the vendor explicitly says you have to get it unlocked, which is a service provided by many phone shops (somewhat under the table).

These locked iPhones sold for 50-200€ are acquired by users who will turn to their tech friends/neighbors to get it unlocked. When these tell them they can't help with that (no package in Debian for that yet), they end up spending 20-50€ in a shop to get it unlocked anyway, financing a very shady market.

Previous discussion on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19845934

Quote from the article that sparked the discussion:

> To do this, they phish the phone’s original owners, or scam employees at Apple Stores, which have the ability to override iCloud locks. Thieves, coders, and hackers participate in an underground industry designed to remove a user’s iCloud account from a phone so that they can then be resold.

At the end of the day, if the thief doesn't get the phone unlocked themselves, they will sell the phone for half (or less) the price they would have sold it unlocked, but they're still making a buck.

[crististm]

You make the argument against locking devices (which I agree with) for reasons related to that not deterring theft - which has a point.

Thieves will not profile a person using a premium locked phone against stealing it because it might not be worth it. They don't care about that. They will take whatever they can if only for practicing their skills.

Locking phones does not deter theft but unlocking them will offset the price of unlocking from the phone-shop to the thief increasing the profitability of theft.

I personally don't care about Apple, their phones, their M1's and their ecosystem. But acting out your premise leads to a place I don't like. And others as well. And if you think you can buy a cheaper premium phone if it is unlocked, ask yourself why thieves would continue to sell you cheaper if they know they give you a usable device?

[1996]

> Once your iPhone is stolen, it's gone. No iCloud lock is going to bring it back, so why prevent other, less-privileged folks from using it when you can't use it?

Because I would like to inflict damage back. Stealing from me cause damage. I do not believe thieves should get a free pass on causing me damages just because they are less privileged.

Ideally, a small amount of C4 and a "remote explode" taking a few fingers off the thief would be a proper deterrent, as well as a good use of Sharia law.

[crististm]

Yes. In a PC ecosystem this is true - physical access renders the machine in your control (modulo Intel Management System and other backdoor schemes).

For Apple, there is a different set of axioms and some people seem to agree with them.

[southerntofu]

> For Apple, there is a different set of axioms and some people seem to agree with them.

I don't think this is true for all Apple products though, or at least that was not the case in the past. To my knowledge, setting up a free OS on a second-hand Macbook has never been a problem.

However, you are correct Apple is trying to impose new axioms with the iPhones: unique app market (taking controversial posture, such as forbidding alternative browser engines), iCloud lock, non-interoperable hardware (eg. power socket)...