3 ms·

The original vice article had a key fact that is missing from the macworld article. The issue is the laptops are received by recyclers in an ill-gotten manner.

The original vice article had a key fact that is missing from the macworld article. The issue is the laptops are received by recyclers in an ill-gotten manner. Companies were sending thousands of laptops to be destroyed and instead the ended up in recyclers who are attempting to wipe and then resell them, which is why recyclers could not get the original legal owners to remove the activation lock. If the recycler had an agreement to wipe and reuse the machines, and the activation lock prevented it, then those thousands of machines should be shipped back to the company to dispose of, along with a bill for the shipping cost, and time.

dns_snek 4y ago
The original Vice article[1] makes no such claim. I'm assuming you drew that conclusion from the following quote: > Often the previous owners are corporations or schools who buy and sell the machines in bulk and aren't interested in helping recyclers or refurbishers unlock them. "Previous owners do not return phone calls, and large corporations that dump 3000 machines assume they have been destroyed, so it is critical we have a solution that does not depend on the previous owner approving,” Bumstead said. But if you check his website[1], the terms of sale make it clear that devices are intended for resale: > Although RDKL, Inc., always attempts to erase hard drives and remove personal data before a device is sold to another party, RDKL, Inc., cannot guarantee that all traces of the seller's identity have been permanently removed, and it is therefore the seller's responsibility to remove personal data from a device before selling it to RDKL, Inc. Why would he pay for devices that he would be contractually obligated to destroy, at his own expense? [1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgybq7/apple-macbook-activation-lock-right-to-repair https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgybq7/apple-macbook-activat... [2] https://www.rdklinc.com/sell-terms https://www.rdklinc.com/sell-terms
- balls187 4y ago
  Yes, I inferred that by having machines that were thought to be destroyed, the PC refurbisher got them in violation of an agreement. > Why would he pay for devices that he would be contractually obligated to destroy, at his own expense? That assumes RDKL was the original service provider chosen to destroy the macbooks; it's also probable that RDKL purchased those dumped machines from another service provider, the latter collecting not only the fee to destroy the machine but revenue for reselling usable machines.

dns_snek 4y ago

The original Vice article[1] makes no such claim. I'm assuming you drew that conclusion from the following quote: > Often the previous owners are corporations or schools who buy and sell the machines in bulk and aren't interested in helping recyclers or refurbishers unlock them. "Previous owners do not return phone calls, and large corporations that dump 3000 machines assume they have been destroyed, so it is critical we have a solution that does not depend on the previous owner approving,” Bumstead said. But if you check his website[1], the terms of sale make it clear that devices are intended for resale: > Although RDKL, Inc., always attempts to erase hard drives and remove personal data before a device is sold to another party, RDKL, Inc., cannot guarantee that all traces of the seller's identity have been permanently removed, and it is therefore the seller's responsibility to remove personal data from a device before selling it to RDKL, Inc. Why would he pay for devices that he would be contractually obligated to destroy, at his own expense? [1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgybq7/apple-macbook-activation-lock-right-to-repair https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgybq7/apple-macbook-activat... [2] https://www.rdklinc.com/sell-terms https://www.rdklinc.com/sell-terms

balls187 4y ago
Yes, I inferred that by having machines that were thought to be destroyed, the PC refurbisher got them in violation of an agreement. > Why would he pay for devices that he would be contractually obligated to destroy, at his own expense? That assumes RDKL was the original service provider chosen to destroy the macbooks; it's also probable that RDKL purchased those dumped machines from another service provider, the latter collecting not only the fee to destroy the machine but revenue for reselling usable machines.