3 ms·
> True, but to be fair, the same mechanism also blocks thieves from using and/or selling stolen Macs. That would be a fair excuse if the mechanism was under t
by gspr 6y ago
> True, but to be fair, the same mechanism also blocks thieves from using and/or selling stolen Macs.
That would be a fair excuse if the mechanism was under the control of the machine's rightful owner.
- metafunctor 6y agoWhat do you mean? As fas as preventing a thief from using a stolen Mac, it is under the owner's control.
- kuschku 6y agoIf it was about preventing theft, then the rightful owner could modify the keys and software without any worry. But they can’t. Because it’s not about giving you control, but about controlling you.
- mindslight 6y agoThe bits about "preventing theft" and "user security" are secondary justifications. It's the same basic pattern as all authoritarianism - the main goal is the control itself, which then provides trickle-down stability. I'll be interested in trusted hardware when I see an implementation that actually puts the device owner into the privileged position, rather than reserving it for the device manufacturer.
- afroboy 6y agoHe mean the owner can disable it to repair his machine, and not forced on him.
- 95014_refugee 6y agoThe function of the anti-theft mechanism is, at its most basic level, to assert the concept of "rightful owner". Subverting these mechanisms provides a way to prevent the system from making this assertion. Likewise, the alleged "anti-repair" mechanism for TouchID sensors and TouchBar relate directly to protecting the system's ability to distinguish between the "rightful owner" and a thief. "Do what I want with the machine I own" is functionally indistinguishable from "increase the resale value of the machine I stole".