5 ms·

Yeah, that sentence tells everyone who's paying attention all they need to know. These folks are not operating a legitimate business and they're mad that their

Yeah, that sentence tells everyone who's paying attention all they need to know. These folks are not operating a legitimate business and they're mad that their fencing operation can't handle stolen Apple products.

rchaud 4y ago
Most people selling their Macs do not even know that they have to formally pass ownership on to someone else, as though it were a car. This is a restriction that was not there pre-M1.
- theshrike79 4y ago
  But it has been there for a good decade for iPhones. The buyer should know this and ask the seller to unlock their device(s). And if it's a legit seller, you can contact them afterwards and have them unlock it.
  - kibwen 4y ago
    > But it has been there for a good decade for iPhones. And iPhones still get stolen. As much as people may not like theft, it is less of a social ill than waste is. If you want to deter theft, work towards a society that doesn't drive people to thievery, rather than trying to solve it with weak technical solutions that do nothing to address the underlying problem. Apple could be more effective at preventing theft by donating a billion dollars a year to fight poverty, although that would risk doing some good for the world.
    - tristor 4y ago
      > As much as people may not like theft, it is less of a social ill than waste is. That's... a take. It sounds like you don't personally believe in property rights, and therefore think solving global poverty (an intractable problem that has never had a meaningful solution in all of human history) is a better way to solve theft than just addressing theft directly. The weird thing is people steal even when they aren't experiencing poverty. Theft is an unalloyed social ill, and the only examples of theft that can be remotely justified are contrived examples of theft under oppression of basic survival needs, which is not the context, socially or otherwise, of the places where iPhones and laptops are being stolen, so not really relevant. Theft is wrong. Theft is social ill that has far-reaching consequences and many second and third order effects in society. Ending theft is a good thing, and is more than worth the trade-off of the minimal additional waste (considering aluminum is very recyclable).
      - kibwen 4y ago
        > That's... a take. It sounds like you don't personally believe in property rights I allege that this is a take. It's possible to believe in property rights while also understanding that human desperation drives people to theft. The vast majority of people resorting to thievery were driven to it because of the circumstances of their life, not because they're doing it for kicks. In a battle between property rights and human rights, at some point human rights takes precedence. You don't need to go Full Communism, you just need to acknowledge that desperate societies are not polite or prosperous societies.
        tristor 4y ago
        > In a battle between property rights and human rights, at some point human rights takes precedence. Property rights are human rights. I have a human right to be secure in my person and personal effects, and a human right to enforce that security against transgressors.
        kibwen 4y ago
        > Property rights are human rights. Sure, then we can consider the category of human rights may contain (among other things) the right to personal property, as well as the right to be assured of your next meal, and there is no law of nature that says that rights cannot be in conflict. In a society of extreme scarcity, the latter may be unachievable. In a prosperous society like the one that I live in, the latter is entirely achievable, although sabotaged by short-sighted people who have yet to understand that treating crime at the source--human desperation--is more effective and efficient than treating the symptoms of crime.
        tristor 4y ago
        > as well as the right to be assured of your next meal No such right seems to exist, in my view. That said, we have a duty and obligation as a society to help out those in need, but this is not the same thing as this being a human right. That meal requires the labor of another, and there is no human right in my viewpoint that causes the enslavement of someone else.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- ezfe 4y ago
  They don't need to "pass ownership", just hit the reset all content button (on modern devices). Any competent recycling/disposal process tells people to do this. And if they don't, they can delete the device from iCloud.com (Find My) to bypass the issue.
- petesergeant 4y ago
  > Most people selling their Macs do not even know that they have to formally pass ownership on to someone else Then the person who buys it from them is going to send it back, and they'll know next time, or however that gets resolved. If they're selling it to a reputable commercial entity, that entity will know it needs to be done, and will ask them to do it first. Every iPhone I've sold to a company in the last x years has needed this process done...
- tr81 4y ago
  Hopefully, now people will know this. And it is a good thing. There are plenty of stories of people selling their laptops without wiping data and laptop falling in wrong hands.
- bredren 4y ago
  Both the 2018 and 2019 Intel-based MBAs also had the T2 chip. Other non-portable macs did as well. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208862 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208862
kennywinker 4y ago
This is wrong. Stuff makes it into the recycle/waste stream all the time without the owners careful de-authing. People die and their estates are liquidated. Things are damaged and discarded, or lost and written off, all the time. Accusing someone trying to keep electronics out of the trash of laundering stolen goods is not ok.
- natch 4y ago
  Too bad. Small price to pay.
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    You’re not the one paying the “small price”, the planet is the one paying it. Given that, I don’t think you get to say if it’s a small price or not. But as i’ve addressed in a root level comment - this is not an either-or situation, we can have both e-waste recycling and even better anti-theft measures: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34506120 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34506120
    - natch 4y ago
      I get to say anything I want. In any case the planet is reaping other rewards from the deal, and the tradeoff is worth it. And ewaste does not go away in any scenario other than humans going away, which is not on the table as far as I know.
      - kennywinker 4y ago
        Of course, you can say anything you like. I meant say as in “decide”. What rewards is the planet reaping from “the deal”?
        natch 4y ago
        Healthier societies with more effective constructive creative people who can solve problems and do wonderful new things.

rchaud 4y ago

Most people selling their Macs do not even know that they have to formally pass ownership on to someone else, as though it were a car. This is a restriction that was not there pre-M1.

theshrike79 4y ago
But it has been there for a good decade for iPhones. The buyer should know this and ask the seller to unlock their device(s). And if it's a legit seller, you can contact them afterwards and have them unlock it.
- kibwen 4y ago
  > But it has been there for a good decade for iPhones. And iPhones still get stolen. As much as people may not like theft, it is less of a social ill than waste is. If you want to deter theft, work towards a society that doesn't drive people to thievery, rather than trying to solve it with weak technical solutions that do nothing to address the underlying problem. Apple could be more effective at preventing theft by donating a billion dollars a year to fight poverty, although that would risk doing some good for the world.
  - tristor 4y ago
    > As much as people may not like theft, it is less of a social ill than waste is. That's... a take. It sounds like you don't personally believe in property rights, and therefore think solving global poverty (an intractable problem that has never had a meaningful solution in all of human history) is a better way to solve theft than just addressing theft directly. The weird thing is people steal even when they aren't experiencing poverty. Theft is an unalloyed social ill, and the only examples of theft that can be remotely justified are contrived examples of theft under oppression of basic survival needs, which is not the context, socially or otherwise, of the places where iPhones and laptops are being stolen, so not really relevant. Theft is wrong. Theft is social ill that has far-reaching consequences and many second and third order effects in society. Ending theft is a good thing, and is more than worth the trade-off of the minimal additional waste (considering aluminum is very recyclable).
    - kibwen 4y ago
      > That's... a take. It sounds like you don't personally believe in property rights I allege that this is a take. It's possible to believe in property rights while also understanding that human desperation drives people to theft. The vast majority of people resorting to thievery were driven to it because of the circumstances of their life, not because they're doing it for kicks. In a battle between property rights and human rights, at some point human rights takes precedence. You don't need to go Full Communism, you just need to acknowledge that desperate societies are not polite or prosperous societies.
      - tristor 4y ago
        > In a battle between property rights and human rights, at some point human rights takes precedence. Property rights are human rights. I have a human right to be secure in my person and personal effects, and a human right to enforce that security against transgressors.
        kibwen 4y ago
        > Property rights are human rights. Sure, then we can consider the category of human rights may contain (among other things) the right to personal property, as well as the right to be assured of your next meal, and there is no law of nature that says that rights cannot be in conflict. In a society of extreme scarcity, the latter may be unachievable. In a prosperous society like the one that I live in, the latter is entirely achievable, although sabotaged by short-sighted people who have yet to understand that treating crime at the source--human desperation--is more effective and efficient than treating the symptoms of crime.
        tristor 4y ago
        > as well as the right to be assured of your next meal No such right seems to exist, in my view. That said, we have a duty and obligation as a society to help out those in need, but this is not the same thing as this being a human right. That meal requires the labor of another, and there is no human right in my viewpoint that causes the enslavement of someone else.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
ezfe 4y ago
They don't need to "pass ownership", just hit the reset all content button (on modern devices). Any competent recycling/disposal process tells people to do this. And if they don't, they can delete the device from iCloud.com (Find My) to bypass the issue.
petesergeant 4y ago
> Most people selling their Macs do not even know that they have to formally pass ownership on to someone else Then the person who buys it from them is going to send it back, and they'll know next time, or however that gets resolved. If they're selling it to a reputable commercial entity, that entity will know it needs to be done, and will ask them to do it first. Every iPhone I've sold to a company in the last x years has needed this process done...
tr81 4y ago
Hopefully, now people will know this. And it is a good thing. There are plenty of stories of people selling their laptops without wiping data and laptop falling in wrong hands.
bredren 4y ago
Both the 2018 and 2019 Intel-based MBAs also had the T2 chip. Other non-portable macs did as well. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208862 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208862

kennywinker 4y ago

This is wrong. Stuff makes it into the recycle/waste stream all the time without the owners careful de-authing. People die and their estates are liquidated. Things are damaged and discarded, or lost and written off, all the time. Accusing someone trying to keep electronics out of the trash of laundering stolen goods is not ok.

natch 4y ago
Too bad. Small price to pay.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  You’re not the one paying the “small price”, the planet is the one paying it. Given that, I don’t think you get to say if it’s a small price or not. But as i’ve addressed in a root level comment - this is not an either-or situation, we can have both e-waste recycling and even better anti-theft measures: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34506120 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34506120
  - natch 4y ago
    I get to say anything I want. In any case the planet is reaping other rewards from the deal, and the tradeoff is worth it. And ewaste does not go away in any scenario other than humans going away, which is not on the table as far as I know.
    - kennywinker 4y ago
      Of course, you can say anything you like. I meant say as in “decide”. What rewards is the planet reaping from “the deal”?
      - natch 4y ago
        Healthier societies with more effective constructive creative people who can solve problems and do wonderful new things.