14 ms·

> I’m not familiar with any ToS that permits a company to repossess your PC or parts of it. I would call iCloud locking an embodiment of this. It's probably an

> I’m not familiar with any ToS that permits a company to repossess your PC or parts of it. I would call iCloud locking an embodiment of this. It's probably an unpopular example because people seem to broadly like it, but it does demonstrate the principal that the seller retains full control of the hardware and can "repossess" the device. The original purchaser does not receive a master unlock code. Even if locking yourself out of your device is "your fault", it doesn't alter the fact that at that point only Apple retains control of the device. Same with bios locks and management engines on PCs. The idea that possession = ownership is gone. And we're almost all ok with that especially since it makes us a little safer and more "secure". At least until we can't trust Apple, Intel, etc. anymore. One could argue that the black market value for your locked phone compared to unlocked phone is a proxy for how much you actually own the phone.

GeekyBear 3y ago
> I would call iCloud locking an embodiment of this. Activation locks were required by law to deter armed theft. > A new report from Reuters found that iPhone theft dropped by 50 percent in London, 40 percent in San Francisco and 25 percent in New York. The drops represent theft activity as measured during the 12 months following Apple’s introduction of the remote locking feature in September 2013 as part of iOS 7. With iOS 8, Apple made its so-called said “kill switch” active by default, in accordance with California regulation, and that should help the rates of theft continue to trend downwards. https://techcrunch.com/2015/02/11/apples-activation-lock-leads-to-big-drops-in-smartphone-theft-worldwide/ https://techcrunch.com/2015/02/11/apples-activation-lock-lea...
- yenwodyah 3y ago
  Well, it wouldn’t be the first time that a law with good intentions has prefaced a loss of freedom
  - jfengel 3y ago
    Laws pretty much always mean a loss of freedom, with the intent of promoting some other positive goal (often, some other freedom). That's why we make them. Balancing these goals is not easy, but we don't get to avoid it just because we want "freedom" as an abstraction. It's an important consideration but only one when you put a lot of people with conflicting goals together.
- rhn_mk1 3y ago
  It's ironic that property rights have been eroded in the name of protecting property.
  - baq 3y ago
    It isn’t ironic, it’s precisely how it’s supposed to work. Laws take freedom (as in do whatever you want) from people and give it to other people so the total expected gains are bigger than without the law, pretending that dishonest lawmakers don’t exist (false obviously). Also, all laws are bets on their outcomes and sometimes they go south.
  - GeekyBear 3y ago
    I believe it had more to do with the fact that armed robbery is inherently dangerous than just protecting property.
swayvil 3y ago
Now there's a product. "Universal safety and security". Universal safety and security is pushed almost ubiquitously. Like it's a holy truth. Trumping all other concerns. And anybody who argues for anything else is just selfish or whatever.

GeekyBear 3y ago

> I would call iCloud locking an embodiment of this. Activation locks were required by law to deter armed theft. > A new report from Reuters found that iPhone theft dropped by 50 percent in London, 40 percent in San Francisco and 25 percent in New York. The drops represent theft activity as measured during the 12 months following Apple’s introduction of the remote locking feature in September 2013 as part of iOS 7. With iOS 8, Apple made its so-called said “kill switch” active by default, in accordance with California regulation, and that should help the rates of theft continue to trend downwards. https://techcrunch.com/2015/02/11/apples-activation-lock-leads-to-big-drops-in-smartphone-theft-worldwide/ https://techcrunch.com/2015/02/11/apples-activation-lock-lea...

yenwodyah 3y ago
Well, it wouldn’t be the first time that a law with good intentions has prefaced a loss of freedom
- jfengel 3y ago
  Laws pretty much always mean a loss of freedom, with the intent of promoting some other positive goal (often, some other freedom). That's why we make them. Balancing these goals is not easy, but we don't get to avoid it just because we want "freedom" as an abstraction. It's an important consideration but only one when you put a lot of people with conflicting goals together.
rhn_mk1 3y ago
It's ironic that property rights have been eroded in the name of protecting property.
- baq 3y ago
  It isn’t ironic, it’s precisely how it’s supposed to work. Laws take freedom (as in do whatever you want) from people and give it to other people so the total expected gains are bigger than without the law, pretending that dishonest lawmakers don’t exist (false obviously). Also, all laws are bets on their outcomes and sometimes they go south.
- GeekyBear 3y ago
  I believe it had more to do with the fact that armed robbery is inherently dangerous than just protecting property.

swayvil 3y ago

Now there's a product. "Universal safety and security". Universal safety and security is pushed almost ubiquitously. Like it's a holy truth. Trumping all other concerns. And anybody who argues for anything else is just selfish or whatever.