These forced MitMs are all very similar, though I don't see how that gets us anywhere. It's not a valid way of enforcing any policy no matter how twisted, becau

These forced MitMs are all very similar, though I don't see how that gets us anywhere. It's not a valid way of enforcing any policy no matter how twisted, because people will root their devices and circumvent the lock-down. The reason I call it twisted is because I'm wondering why that lock-down is necessary in the first place: you don't want them to "abuse" the device, causing potential damage? This might be a valid concern with company cars due to the life-threatening aspect of driving, but extending this concept to laptops seems abusive. Either way, the risk posed to the school or company's assets can be effectively taken into account by some kind of insurance policy, not by attempting to lock down the device.