6 ms·

As much as we all like to poke fun at Apple for some of their annoying decisions with lack of user choice, their locked-down systems also have pretty impressive

by hbn 4y ago

As much as we all like to poke fun at Apple for some of their annoying decisions with lack of user choice, their locked-down systems also have pretty impressive results in that they've made it nearly useless to steal any of their devices. I remember hearing that in certain "protests" (definitely not riots) a couple years ago, where people were looting stores, Apple was able to easily get the serial numbers of all the stolen devices and remotely brick them. The contrast of how valuable Apple products are both new and second hand, compared to how useless they are to steal is pretty wild. I can't think of any other product like that.

jgwil2 4y ago
There was really no need to shoehorn a snarky political talking point into this discussion.
- ImHereToVote 4y ago
  Talking is just a cheap talking point.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  "Need" is a subjective bar. Was there a need for you to reply? Was there a need for me to reply to you?
  - jgwil2 4y ago
    OP was ostensibly making a completely unrelated point. The word "need" was referring to the relationship between the original topic of discussion and the snarky aside that OP dropped into it. There was no need for there to be a political component to make that point. It didn't add anything to the discussion. Obviously people are downvoting my comment, so people don't think that I was contributing to the discussion either, but I thought it was worth a shot to try to discourage the kind of comments that I believe degrade online discussions. I think I made my point in a pretty civil fashion, and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      Need is a value judgment. There's no need for this website. If you want to say it's irrelevant, that would make more sense, and then as you say your comment would be relevant to OP's.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
strict9 4y ago
Weird side angle to get in your political views known on HN, completely unnecessary.
- jeoqn 4y ago
  If you don't use quotes you are legitimising the "protests", which is a political view as well (but I guess you wouldn't care about that one)
  - jgwil2 4y ago
    The comment didn't need to mention it at all, especially considering that it was preceded by "I remember hearing." It didn't add anything to the point about security and it goes against the spirit of the site.
  - Taywee 4y ago
    They should have just called them riots, then. "I remember hearing that in certain protests a couple years ago" or "I remember hearing that in certain riots a couple years ago" would both work. The wording as-is is provocative for no actual benefit to the point. Whether you agree with their position or not, it's not really relevant to this discussion to draw attention to the ethics of those protests/riots.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - TomSwirly 4y ago
    Using quotes is sarcasm and mockery. It is not a good look. It costs nothing to be polite. Even if your political beliefs revere rudeness, leave it at home here.
- bakugo 4y ago
  Believing that mass looting stores isn't a legitimate form of protesting is a controversial political view now?
obituary_latte 4y ago
I think I also read the the comments last time this was posted someone talking about how their kids locker room had a bunch of phones stolen but the thief's left all of the iPhones because they couldn't be unlocked.
- judge2020 4y ago
  The comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34504990 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34504990
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Not even thieves want them. Like how Jerry tried to get his smelly car stolen.
- YellowTech 4y ago
  Don't Android phones have a similar feature with a linked Google Account? I once needed to contact the old Owner of an Samsung phone because of such an account lock.
  - dmitrygr 4y ago
    Sadly, not as effective: https://www.google.com/search?q=FRP+workaround+android https://www.google.com/search?q=FRP+workaround+android
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Security good. A vendor being able to remote wipe your device is bad. I wonder if they could burn a fuse when the user logs in so that Apple can no longer do that but the owner can.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  I don't see how popping an eFuse would really prevent anything. Even if logging in triggered some sort of key generation for remote bricking that was tied to the phone's password, at the end of the day Apple still controls everything. You'd still have to trust that they wouldn't just silently push out an update that replaces the key, because they'd have to have the ability to replace the key anyway. If you don't trust Apple to not remotely brick your iPhone, don't buy an iPhone.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    Im just spitballing here. I'm sure Apple could securely create a scheme that all sides are happy with but they obviously don't care because it makes them money.
    - fragmede 4y ago
      Well spitball a bit harder because it's actually a hard problem to solve - given buying and selling of used items, how do you prove who actually owns a device? The official registered owner is the one who's iCloud locked the device. If you were the legitimate owner, you could just iCloud unlock the device. If you bought it off Craigslist legitimately, the old owner would be able to iCloud unlock the device, if cooperative. If it's a time-based thing, then thieves just have to steal the phone, wait 6-months 3-years whatever, and then they get a free phone/laptop/iMac. If you have to show a receipt to Apple to prove you bought it, a thief could just have a friend make a post on craigslist that they "answer", and there you go. If you go into the Apple store and request a firmware reset, Apple will ask you for the original receipt before sending it off to the factory to do it, but they can. But given how expensive their laptops are, a rogue employee at a computer recycling center could still slip in a few stolen ones and pocket the gains if Apple worked with recycling centers to unlock their laptops.
adolph 4y ago
Hmm, 'vendor can remotely brick my device' could be a selling point or a not buying point depending on view point.
- amelius 4y ago
  Why does the vendor need to be in control, though? Why can't I be the one in control over my own laptop if it is stolen? Or why can't I assign a different entity to be in control over my laptop?
  - frumper 4y ago
    You are in control. You attaching your account to it is what is bricking it for anyone else. You can always remove your account from it and hand it to another entity. The only thing Apple is doing in these cases is saying no to letting someone else remove your account/mdm association.
    - amelius 4y ago
      No, Apple is clearly in control by being the only possible provider of accounts. For example I could run my own account/password system, and lock my own phone if it is stolen. Or transfer that right to another organization. Saying that "vendor can remotely brick the phone" is the only way to have this functionality is not true.
      - frumper 4y ago
        Good thing I didn't say anything about the vendor locking the phone is the only way. Apple designed their system and yes, they do have control. It's also a good thing that Apple has delegated the ability for you to lock/unlock your own phone when you want.
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    I'm trying to figure out how you want this to work. If your own laptop is stolen, you're no longer in physical possession of it. So from the perspective of the laptop, some sort of interaction should brick it. What should that interaction be? It needs to happen early, before thieves have a chance to disable it. So it needs to happen before login, say. Really it needs to happen at either bootup or as soon as the laptop establishes a connection to the internet. At which point it should... reach out to you? How? Must you own a second Apple device for that to work? Okay, let's go with that. You have an iPhone, and you use Find My to brick the laptop. So now someone can steal your phone and use it to brick your laptop? Your laptop needs to talk to your phone every time it boots up or connects to the internet? I'm not sure you've thought this through. It seems reasonable to me that the only entity that makes sense here is Apple. Even a savvy thief, who might block packets to anywhere unexpected--and "person's iPhone somewhere" is definitely unexpected--is going to need to let packets go to Apple, making them the only party with the means and opportunity to do this.
kjkjadksj 4y ago
People can still part them out or scam others

by hbn 4y ago

jgwil2 4y ago

There was really no need to shoehorn a snarky political talking point into this discussion.

ImHereToVote 4y ago
Talking is just a cheap talking point.
robertlagrant 4y ago
"Need" is a subjective bar. Was there a need for you to reply? Was there a need for me to reply to you?
- jgwil2 4y ago
  OP was ostensibly making a completely unrelated point. The word "need" was referring to the relationship between the original topic of discussion and the snarky aside that OP dropped into it. There was no need for there to be a political component to make that point. It didn't add anything to the discussion. Obviously people are downvoting my comment, so people don't think that I was contributing to the discussion either, but I thought it was worth a shot to try to discourage the kind of comments that I believe degrade online discussions. I think I made my point in a pretty civil fashion, and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    Need is a value judgment. There's no need for this website. If you want to say it's irrelevant, that would make more sense, and then as you say your comment would be relevant to OP's.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

strict9 4y ago

Weird side angle to get in your political views known on HN, completely unnecessary.

jeoqn 4y ago
If you don't use quotes you are legitimising the "protests", which is a political view as well (but I guess you wouldn't care about that one)
- jgwil2 4y ago
  The comment didn't need to mention it at all, especially considering that it was preceded by "I remember hearing." It didn't add anything to the point about security and it goes against the spirit of the site.
- Taywee 4y ago
  They should have just called them riots, then. "I remember hearing that in certain protests a couple years ago" or "I remember hearing that in certain riots a couple years ago" would both work. The wording as-is is provocative for no actual benefit to the point. Whether you agree with their position or not, it's not really relevant to this discussion to draw attention to the ethics of those protests/riots.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- TomSwirly 4y ago
  Using quotes is sarcasm and mockery. It is not a good look. It costs nothing to be polite. Even if your political beliefs revere rudeness, leave it at home here.
bakugo 4y ago
Believing that mass looting stores isn't a legitimate form of protesting is a controversial political view now?

obituary_latte 4y ago

I think I also read the the comments last time this was posted someone talking about how their kids locker room had a bunch of phones stolen but the thief's left all of the iPhones because they couldn't be unlocked.

judge2020 4y ago
The comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34504990 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34504990
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Not even thieves want them. Like how Jerry tried to get his smelly car stolen.
YellowTech 4y ago
Don't Android phones have a similar feature with a linked Google Account? I once needed to contact the old Owner of an Samsung phone because of such an account lock.
- dmitrygr 4y ago
  Sadly, not as effective: https://www.google.com/search?q=FRP+workaround+android https://www.google.com/search?q=FRP+workaround+android

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

Security good. A vendor being able to remote wipe your device is bad. I wonder if they could burn a fuse when the user logs in so that Apple can no longer do that but the owner can.

jaywalk 4y ago
I don't see how popping an eFuse would really prevent anything. Even if logging in triggered some sort of key generation for remote bricking that was tied to the phone's password, at the end of the day Apple still controls everything. You'd still have to trust that they wouldn't just silently push out an update that replaces the key, because they'd have to have the ability to replace the key anyway. If you don't trust Apple to not remotely brick your iPhone, don't buy an iPhone.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Im just spitballing here. I'm sure Apple could securely create a scheme that all sides are happy with but they obviously don't care because it makes them money.
  - fragmede 4y ago
    Well spitball a bit harder because it's actually a hard problem to solve - given buying and selling of used items, how do you prove who actually owns a device? The official registered owner is the one who's iCloud locked the device. If you were the legitimate owner, you could just iCloud unlock the device. If you bought it off Craigslist legitimately, the old owner would be able to iCloud unlock the device, if cooperative. If it's a time-based thing, then thieves just have to steal the phone, wait 6-months 3-years whatever, and then they get a free phone/laptop/iMac. If you have to show a receipt to Apple to prove you bought it, a thief could just have a friend make a post on craigslist that they "answer", and there you go. If you go into the Apple store and request a firmware reset, Apple will ask you for the original receipt before sending it off to the factory to do it, but they can. But given how expensive their laptops are, a rogue employee at a computer recycling center could still slip in a few stolen ones and pocket the gains if Apple worked with recycling centers to unlock their laptops.

adolph 4y ago

Hmm, 'vendor can remotely brick my device' could be a selling point or a not buying point depending on view point.

amelius 4y ago
Why does the vendor need to be in control, though? Why can't I be the one in control over my own laptop if it is stolen? Or why can't I assign a different entity to be in control over my laptop?
- frumper 4y ago
  You are in control. You attaching your account to it is what is bricking it for anyone else. You can always remove your account from it and hand it to another entity. The only thing Apple is doing in these cases is saying no to letting someone else remove your account/mdm association.
  - amelius 4y ago
    No, Apple is clearly in control by being the only possible provider of accounts. For example I could run my own account/password system, and lock my own phone if it is stolen. Or transfer that right to another organization. Saying that "vendor can remotely brick the phone" is the only way to have this functionality is not true.
    - frumper 4y ago
      Good thing I didn't say anything about the vendor locking the phone is the only way. Apple designed their system and yes, they do have control. It's also a good thing that Apple has delegated the ability for you to lock/unlock your own phone when you want.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  I'm trying to figure out how you want this to work. If your own laptop is stolen, you're no longer in physical possession of it. So from the perspective of the laptop, some sort of interaction should brick it. What should that interaction be? It needs to happen early, before thieves have a chance to disable it. So it needs to happen before login, say. Really it needs to happen at either bootup or as soon as the laptop establishes a connection to the internet. At which point it should... reach out to you? How? Must you own a second Apple device for that to work? Okay, let's go with that. You have an iPhone, and you use Find My to brick the laptop. So now someone can steal your phone and use it to brick your laptop? Your laptop needs to talk to your phone every time it boots up or connects to the internet? I'm not sure you've thought this through. It seems reasonable to me that the only entity that makes sense here is Apple. Even a savvy thief, who might block packets to anywhere unexpected--and "person's iPhone somewhere" is definitely unexpected--is going to need to let packets go to Apple, making them the only party with the means and opportunity to do this.

kjkjadksj 4y ago

People can still part them out or scam others