Let’s say I make stoves, and I become aware that somebody could maliciously alter the stove to turn it into an IED. Realizing this, I make some changes to make the stove harder to turn into an IED.
Is the argument really, “Are you aware that malicious actors can just go out and buy explosives, so there’s no point in making it difficult to turn a stove into an explosive device?”
Or maybe I make a device for the home. I work hard to secure it against malicious actors. Is anybody going to say, “Don’t bother, most people have insecure light bulbs in their home, so there’s no point securing this WiFi speaker you’re selling?”
I. Think. Not.
It’s always a good idea to reduce the threat area. Security for most people is not a simple binary “secure or not.”
---
Also, what’s with the phrase “domestic abuse activists?” Is that supposed to be some kind of slur? I’m baffled, it adds nothing to your argument, and in fact it hints at some kind of cultural bias on your part, which is irrelevant to the soundness of your reasoning.
All in all, my advice is to drop language like this unless you are specifically trying to make an argument about social activism. Sprinkling arguments with emotional devices like this subtracts from your message, it doesn’t add to it.
Just because similar devices already exist doesn't mean there isn't also a potential for harm with this device, particularly since these will be sold at every Apple Store and have much more exposure.
A) Apple doesn't sell those and wouldn't sell those
B) The airtags are more capable than those, more affordable, and easier to use
C) If you own an airtag, this will be available on a moment's notice. Is your wife going to get lunch with a friend? take it off your keyring and throw it in the glovebox. Boom, now you've got realtime tracking in about 5 seconds.
This obviously won't solve the problem of domestic abuse that existed before airtags were introduced, but it will go a long way towards not making it worse.
Murderers could also kill someone by strangling them any old time, but guns make it a lot easier. Sometimes simply improving the user experience of a heinous act is enough.
Personally I am old fashioned and blame the murderer. I must not be involved with communists or ambulance chasers enough to have been imbued with values like "The person with money is always the most at fault."
Is the argument really, “Are you aware that malicious actors can just go out and buy explosives, so there’s no point in making it difficult to turn a stove into an explosive device?”
Or maybe I make a device for the home. I work hard to secure it against malicious actors. Is anybody going to say, “Don’t bother, most people have insecure light bulbs in their home, so there’s no point securing this WiFi speaker you’re selling?”
I. Think. Not.
It’s always a good idea to reduce the threat area. Security for most people is not a simple binary “secure or not.”
---
Also, what’s with the phrase “domestic abuse activists?” Is that supposed to be some kind of slur? I’m baffled, it adds nothing to your argument, and in fact it hints at some kind of cultural bias on your part, which is irrelevant to the soundness of your reasoning.
All in all, my advice is to drop language like this unless you are specifically trying to make an argument about social activism. Sprinkling arguments with emotional devices like this subtracts from your message, it doesn’t add to it.