4 ms·

Isn't it obvious why this policy exists? Apple doesn't want to be in the business of fielding customer complaints about missing or unreadable files. Which, in

Isn't it obvious why this policy exists? Apple doesn't want to be in the business of fielding customer complaints about missing or unreadable files. Which, in the context of a hard drive replacement or repair, is not exactly an uncommon outcome. Apple also doesn't want to be in the business of helping people recover files from dead drives. Apple really, really doesn't want to be in the business of ensuring that the drive it removed from a computer goes back to the same owner as the original machine. Try to imagine what the Apple repair depo looks like: Drives everywhere. Try to remember that a drive inside a computer is protected by a user password, but a drive sitting outside the computer is not protected at all. Except perhaps by Filevault, which many users do not enable. If you think getting no drive back is bad, imagine the scandal if you got someone else's drive, and someone else got your drive. Apple's simple policy solves all of these problems. They don't send drives back. Instead they promise to erase them. Either you find this credible or you don't. If you don't, you'd better be using Filevault, because once you put an unencrypted drive in the hands of a tech its content is as good as disclosed. And if you are using Filevault, what is the problem with refurbing your drive? It's filled with unreadable encrypted data! Finally, dare I suggest that nobody except the typical HN reader is better at disposing of old hard drives without a security incident than Apple is? I bet if you hand a broken hard drive back to the average buyer, outside of a computer, 90% of those drives will eventually get thrown away intact. Exactly how is throwing a readable hard drive in your local dumpster more secure than Apple's dedicated drive-erasure-or-disposal facility?

ericb 16y ago
> Exactly how is throwing a readable hard drive in your local dumpster more secure than Apple's dedicated drive-erasure-or-disposal facility? I agree with many of your points, but would argue throwing a hard drive in a dumpster is more secure. Bank robbers rob banks because that's where the money is. Where would tech savvy people looking for unerased hard drives find a supply--where the hard drives are! Those folks are more likely to work at Apple than dumpster dive for a living.
- mechanical_fish 16y ago
  Well, it depends on the threat model. If someone has the plan to search through a thousand hard drives belonging to a cross-section of random people, one byte at a time, looking for something of value, then sure - it might be worth the effort to corrupt someone at Apple. But if you are an industrial spy looking for a particular secret, or a personal enemy looking for data about one person, or an aspiring burglar casing a particular building - you look in the trash can belonging to your target. I think the latter threat is as plausible as the former.

ericb 16y ago

> Exactly how is throwing a readable hard drive in your local dumpster more secure than Apple's dedicated drive-erasure-or-disposal facility? I agree with many of your points, but would argue throwing a hard drive in a dumpster is more secure. Bank robbers rob banks because that's where the money is. Where would tech savvy people looking for unerased hard drives find a supply--where the hard drives are! Those folks are more likely to work at Apple than dumpster dive for a living.

mechanical_fish 16y ago
Well, it depends on the threat model. If someone has the plan to search through a thousand hard drives belonging to a cross-section of random people, one byte at a time, looking for something of value, then sure - it might be worth the effort to corrupt someone at Apple. But if you are an industrial spy looking for a particular secret, or a personal enemy looking for data about one person, or an aspiring burglar casing a particular building - you look in the trash can belonging to your target. I think the latter threat is as plausible as the former.