5 ms·

> Well, that's the fundamental problem. A better problem, some may say, than having a thriving market for stolen laptops. > Not a world I want to live in. Bu

> Well, that's the fundamental problem. A better problem, some may say, than having a thriving market for stolen laptops. > Not a world I want to live in. But a world many may prefer to the world with a thriving market for stolen laptops.

988747 4y ago
> A better problem, some may say, than having a thriving market for stolen laptops. Some may say that, because having their laptop stolen is a problem they actually experienced. Having your device remain owned by a vendor, who only "licenses" it for you to use opens up a whole new world of problems, some of which average person can't even imagine.
- kaba0 4y ago
  Isn’t that quite a slippery slope to call it licensing?
- gretch 4y ago
  > Having your device remain owned by a vendor, who only "licenses" it for you to use opens up a whole new world of problems, some of which average person can't even imagine. Actually, everyone experiences this right now. Macbooks are working like this. And 99% of people are fine with it. We don't have to imagine anything
  - jjav 4y ago
    > Actually, everyone experiences this right now. That's not true. I think you're saying that Mac users are already today in an ecosystem where this could bite them hard, that much is true. But nobody gives it any thought until they personally find their multi-thousand dollar device useless and Apple refuses to help even though they totally could if they cared. Only then do they realize what a terrible situation it is.
- brookst 4y ago
  And yet “average” people buy and sell MacBooks every day without imagining, let alone experiencing those problems. It is only thieves and ideologues who actually experience any difficulty. And while I’m all for righteous purity, I am also happy knowing that the thief who stole my MacBook from Spaces coworking in San Jose (do not ever use Spaces!) will get nothing for the risk they took, and/or that a buyer taking a too good to be true deal will get a brick. Yes, I like this world better than the free-open-insecure alternative.
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    > And while I’m all for righteous purity, I am also happy knowing that the thief who stole my MacBook from Spaces coworking in San Jose (do not ever use Spaces!) will get nothing for the risk they took, and/or that a buyer taking a too good to be true deal will get a brick. That might be a minor consolation, but the bigger point is that this will (hopefully) significantly disrupt the market for shady used MacBook sales and thus the incentive to target MacBooks for theft.
  - zakki 4y ago
    There is n=1 up there that someone is not stealing his laptop. He just forgot his firmware password. His Find My account still showing the device, but Apple doesn’t want to unlock it because he lost his receipt.
    - sbuk 4y ago
      It's unfortunate, for sure, but the warnings are abundant; in not so many words don't forget these passwords or the consequences will be dire. Losing receipts for big ticket items is, I'm afraid to say, irresponsible. File the hard copy, or scan and save in multiple secure locations. The burden of proof of ownership is on the owner, it cannot be any other way. Heck, I'm sure a credit card receipt would do. Find it on a bank statement and go to small claims in the worst case.
    - brookst 4y ago
      Sure. And that sucks. But do is it worth incentivizing the theft of n = many laptops? This is the government encryption backdoor all over again. There is no such thing as a security backdoor that can be used only by good guys. If Apple can’t determine someone is the legitimate owner of a locked device, they have two choices: allow thieves to unlock devices, resulting in more theft. Or decline to unlock for some legitimate owners who chose to lock their device and not take precautions. It’s a tough choice, but I think Apple is making the right one here. You may disagree, and that’s fine.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  If you own a car and by some bizarre sequence of events all evidence that you own it has vanished, and then you lock yourself out, you might have a hard time getting a locksmith to unlock it for you. Police might even get upset if they see you trying to break into it! This doesn't seem very relevant to whether or not you "own" the car or "only license it." Granted, there is probably some "last resort" where you go to a judge or something, but I bet if you got an order from a judge for Apple to unlock your laptop they would do it!
  - quesera 4y ago
    In my experience, and FWIW, locksmiths do not bother asking for ID when defeating the lock on your car or house.
    - dijit 4y ago
      I had to present ID when a locksmith drilled my lock in Sweden. He took down the details of it.
m4rtink 4y ago
While unfortunate for any affected individuals, still IMHO a much smaller problem than a few companies have basically full control over all computers people use. That's much more dangerous for the society than a few thieves making a buck.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - widowlark 4y ago
    Too true, as evidenced by the comments in this thread. I fear for open computing and software based on what im seeing here.
    - altairprime 4y ago
      “If you don’t know the credentials to reuse it, it’s bricked” is a valid choice whether the hardware is open source or not. Yubikey equivalents that are fully open source still have to be shredded rather than recycled, if properly secured. Open computing isn’t incompatible with secure computing — but secure computing is absolutely incompatible with reusable computing. I have nothing against reusable computing, but I’m tired of seeing “open” and “right to repair” erroneously held up as meaningful solutions to reusable–repurposeable computing. Focusing on the core issue at hand – that you feel we should have the right to repurpose hardware in our possession without impediment – would go a long ways towards starting the correct and necessary conversations about “security” and “anti-theft” that, today, will simply not happen productively under the open/repair banners that the reuse/repurpose movement is trying to ride under.
      - tshaddox 4y ago
        > Open computing isn’t incompatible with secure computing — but secure computing is absolutely incompatible with reusable computing. Is the first part even true? It does seem to me that there are a class of tasks, the most obvious being competitive video games, that do require that the user not have complete control over the hardware and software they're using.

988747 4y ago

> A better problem, some may say, than having a thriving market for stolen laptops. Some may say that, because having their laptop stolen is a problem they actually experienced. Having your device remain owned by a vendor, who only "licenses" it for you to use opens up a whole new world of problems, some of which average person can't even imagine.

kaba0 4y ago
Isn’t that quite a slippery slope to call it licensing?
gretch 4y ago
> Having your device remain owned by a vendor, who only "licenses" it for you to use opens up a whole new world of problems, some of which average person can't even imagine. Actually, everyone experiences this right now. Macbooks are working like this. And 99% of people are fine with it. We don't have to imagine anything
- jjav 4y ago
  > Actually, everyone experiences this right now. That's not true. I think you're saying that Mac users are already today in an ecosystem where this could bite them hard, that much is true. But nobody gives it any thought until they personally find their multi-thousand dollar device useless and Apple refuses to help even though they totally could if they cared. Only then do they realize what a terrible situation it is.
brookst 4y ago
And yet “average” people buy and sell MacBooks every day without imagining, let alone experiencing those problems. It is only thieves and ideologues who actually experience any difficulty. And while I’m all for righteous purity, I am also happy knowing that the thief who stole my MacBook from Spaces coworking in San Jose (do not ever use Spaces!) will get nothing for the risk they took, and/or that a buyer taking a too good to be true deal will get a brick. Yes, I like this world better than the free-open-insecure alternative.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  > And while I’m all for righteous purity, I am also happy knowing that the thief who stole my MacBook from Spaces coworking in San Jose (do not ever use Spaces!) will get nothing for the risk they took, and/or that a buyer taking a too good to be true deal will get a brick. That might be a minor consolation, but the bigger point is that this will (hopefully) significantly disrupt the market for shady used MacBook sales and thus the incentive to target MacBooks for theft.
- zakki 4y ago
  There is n=1 up there that someone is not stealing his laptop. He just forgot his firmware password. His Find My account still showing the device, but Apple doesn’t want to unlock it because he lost his receipt.
  - sbuk 4y ago
    It's unfortunate, for sure, but the warnings are abundant; in not so many words don't forget these passwords or the consequences will be dire. Losing receipts for big ticket items is, I'm afraid to say, irresponsible. File the hard copy, or scan and save in multiple secure locations. The burden of proof of ownership is on the owner, it cannot be any other way. Heck, I'm sure a credit card receipt would do. Find it on a bank statement and go to small claims in the worst case.
  - brookst 4y ago
    Sure. And that sucks. But do is it worth incentivizing the theft of n = many laptops? This is the government encryption backdoor all over again. There is no such thing as a security backdoor that can be used only by good guys. If Apple can’t determine someone is the legitimate owner of a locked device, they have two choices: allow thieves to unlock devices, resulting in more theft. Or decline to unlock for some legitimate owners who chose to lock their device and not take precautions. It’s a tough choice, but I think Apple is making the right one here. You may disagree, and that’s fine.
tshaddox 4y ago
If you own a car and by some bizarre sequence of events all evidence that you own it has vanished, and then you lock yourself out, you might have a hard time getting a locksmith to unlock it for you. Police might even get upset if they see you trying to break into it! This doesn't seem very relevant to whether or not you "own" the car or "only license it." Granted, there is probably some "last resort" where you go to a judge or something, but I bet if you got an order from a judge for Apple to unlock your laptop they would do it!
- quesera 4y ago
  In my experience, and FWIW, locksmiths do not bother asking for ID when defeating the lock on your car or house.
  - dijit 4y ago
    I had to present ID when a locksmith drilled my lock in Sweden. He took down the details of it.

m4rtink 4y ago

While unfortunate for any affected individuals, still IMHO a much smaller problem than a few companies have basically full control over all computers people use. That's much more dangerous for the society than a few thieves making a buck.

smoldesu 4y ago
[flagged]
- widowlark 4y ago
  Too true, as evidenced by the comments in this thread. I fear for open computing and software based on what im seeing here.
  - altairprime 4y ago
    “If you don’t know the credentials to reuse it, it’s bricked” is a valid choice whether the hardware is open source or not. Yubikey equivalents that are fully open source still have to be shredded rather than recycled, if properly secured. Open computing isn’t incompatible with secure computing — but secure computing is absolutely incompatible with reusable computing. I have nothing against reusable computing, but I’m tired of seeing “open” and “right to repair” erroneously held up as meaningful solutions to reusable–repurposeable computing. Focusing on the core issue at hand – that you feel we should have the right to repurpose hardware in our possession without impediment – would go a long ways towards starting the correct and necessary conversations about “security” and “anti-theft” that, today, will simply not happen productively under the open/repair banners that the reuse/repurpose movement is trying to ride under.
    - tshaddox 4y ago
      > Open computing isn’t incompatible with secure computing — but secure computing is absolutely incompatible with reusable computing. Is the first part even true? It does seem to me that there are a class of tasks, the most obvious being competitive video games, that do require that the user not have complete control over the hardware and software they're using.