10 ms·

What is the better solution that retains the anti-theft capabilities of the device? The value of stolen (activation-locked) iPhones and Macs is largely only on

• torstenvl 3y ago
  I fail to see how Apple's corporate policy robbing you of your device is somehow an anti-theft capability. If you are permanently deprived of your rightful property, you are a victim of theft. Whether it's via EULA and private keys, or via street thug with a wrench, I'm not sure it makes any realistic difference.
  • heinternets 3y ago
    How would you provide this type of locking system without giving users access to their own private keys, then having a much worse problem where dozens of users lose their private keys and forever brick their device?
    • teraflop 3y ago
      A system where users can recover their devices if they successfully hold onto their private keys is much better than a system where they can't recover their devices at all without Apple's reluctant help.
      • chongli 3y ago
        Maybe for power users, sure. But for regular people (Apple’s biggest market) it’s not an issue: they just register their devices and don’t have to worry about it.
      • ffgjgf1 3y ago
        Isn’t the issue in this case that the use didn’t enable “find my mac” in the first place, the thief was able to tie the device to their account and then brick it? I assume he would’ve been able to recover it if he had “held on to his private key” (having the device be linked to his account being the current equivalent)?
    • torstenvl 3y ago
      Keep the private key with Apple. But also... Sell an HSM (free when you buy a Mac > $2000? discounted in conjunction with AppleCare?) that will remove activation lock on the Mac it's purchased with.
    • beeboobaa 3y ago
      I wouldn't. It's unethical and frankly evil. Physical access should always trump any remotely installed policies, otherwise you can never truly own something. This, and remote attestation, are tools to enforce DRM. The anti theft stuff is just a marketing strategy you fell for.
      • KerrAvon 3y ago
        [flagged]
        • beeboobaa 3y ago
          What are you even talking about? That's just a bunch of exaggerated nonsense lol
        • matheusmoreira 3y ago
          Millions of children are gonna die if iPhones don't have DRM? No.
      • fsckboy 3y ago
        >Physical access should always trump any remotely installed policies so if you steal something and therefore have physical access to it, that should trump the original owner who no longer has it because you stole it even if they have the receipt with the serial number on it?
        • beeboobaa 3y ago
          Yeah. Techbros aren't the new police.
      • ffgjgf1 3y ago
        > It's unethical and frankly evil. Physical access should always trump any remotely installed policies, Isn’t that what happened here? The thief and not the owner reported it as “stolen” and thus bricked. The thief could’ve as well just thrown an actual brick on it with similar effects > The anti theft stuff is just a marketing strategy you fell for. Also it works. Both for deincentivizing theft and allows you to recover the device had you actually enabled the feature (so not this case)
    • Volundr 3y ago
      > without giving users access to their own private keys I wouldn't. If someone has a device that is unusable without keys they don't have, they don't actually own that device. Far be it from me to quote the crypto crowd but "not your keys...."
    • cycomanic 3y ago
      You seriously can't think of other ways? I can easily think of at least 10 other ways just of the top of my head.
    • ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
      That doesn't make sense. First of all, "this type of locking system" is clearly a failure because it allowed an unauthorized random person to report a computer as "lost" when he didn't own it. So the answer to your first question is: You wouldn't. Second, what does this even mean: "without giving users access to their own private keys, then having a much worse problem where dozens of users lose their private keys and forever brick their device?" What scenario exactly does that refer to?
      • ffgjgf1 3y ago
        > because it allowed an unauthorized random person to report a computer as "lost" Because (if I under the article correctly?) the owner hadn’t actually enabled “find my mac”?
        • ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
          The (admittedly vague article) said it was "wiped," though. By whom?
          • ffgjgf1 3y ago
            By the thief/shop who linked it to their account? IIRC you can still wipe macs without having the password as long as all the theft protection stuff isn’t enabled.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• jtriangle 3y ago
  Depends on the person/application. I, alone, have the keys to my laptop's drive. The device itself is cheap, and insured in most cases, so, if it gets stolen, no worries really. For a macbook and a not-tech-savvy user, well, we exchange cars all the time, and cars have keys, usually some flavor of RFID included. Cars are less than perfect of course, but, most can add/remove keys given a set of conditions are met. I don't think it'd be outrageous to just have an iphone app that handles the key exchange upon sale. Mix that with a little user education, a little UX, and you're good to go. More or less that'd involve a user resetting the machine and part of that process would include de-enrolling their 2nd factor from the machine to prep it for sale. That maintains all of the same functionality and then some.
  • dylan604 3y ago
    A car !== A computer State secrets, corporate secrets, personal secrets can all be on a computer. Financial data can be on a computer. There are all sort of things that need much more protection than a car. The attempt at comparing the two in thinking their security levels can even be compared is just not even sensible
    • cycomanic 3y ago
      For the vast majority of people there will not be state secrets on the computer, many not even financial data. And I sincerely hope that if you carry around state secrets, it's not apple who holds the keys. The reality is for most people the most valuable thing on their laptop are some photos. The car on the other hand holds significantly more monetary value for many, so the financial impact of loosing a car is typically much higher
      • dylan604 3y ago
        That's why they have insurance. For most people, the most valuable thing they have is the browser with all of their cookies saving their accounts and stored password managers. If readers on this forum can't think of why a laptop or other personal computing device like phone might be more valuable and how to access that data, then I'd suggest creative thinking is just not being applied very well. the state secret thing was in jest.
• twodave 3y ago
  This line of argument just _irks_ me. I don't care enough about thieves for this to even matter to me. And I think this is zero-sum for the consumer. Maybe more devices get stolen (probably not, if I'm a thief I'm still snatching it and throwing it in a river or something). What this really does is suffocate the secondary parts market, so it costs more to repair the things or they just require a replacement. Many, many users of these devices have rarely, if ever, had anything stolen from them. And as one such person, I don't want to hear a company tell me I can't even have the _option_ of an open device because "it's for my own good". I can damned well decide that on my own.
  • heinternets 3y ago
    You can decide this by not owning an Apple device
    • twodave 3y ago
      Obviously.
    • ryandrake 3y ago
      I mean, this is the obvious end state for a lot of us. I've been an Apple fanboy and Mac owner for over 10 years, and Apple is slowly but surely losing me as a customer due to all these ideas that nerf their computers "for my own sake". I don't need protection from my computer and applications, and my computer does not need protection from me. The user should be the final authority on what gets run on the computer, and Apple has been steadily drifting from this principle. My next computer will sadly probably not be a Mac. Who knows what I won't be allowed to do with it by the time it comes to refresh mine.
      • phs318u 3y ago
        That's the decision I came to a couple of years ago after 18 years as an Apple hardware user. Having said that, I still use an iPhone because the use and risk profiles are so different. The phone is literally the "keys to my kingdom".
    • deleted 3y ago
• spookie 3y ago
  You could encrypt your boot partition as well as the others. ahem... A "friend" of mine does this and he sure looks silly decrypting the laptop 2 times upon turning it on! Of course, this approach only solves the biggest problem when your device is stolen (your data won't be easily accessible, if at all really). But I wager this friend of mine recognises that as the only thing that has any actual value in there. There are ton of devices out there.
• SenAnder 3y ago
  > What is the better solution that retains the anti-theft capabilities of the device? Include the unlock key in the box the device was sold in, and in Apple's database. Tech-savvy users can, possessing the key, change it. Tech-unsavvy users can behave the same as they have now, even if they lost the key, as long as they didn't change it. So long as they don't carry the key with the device, all the anti-theft remains. The freedom-respecting solution is literally trivial. The only reason it is not implemented is because Apple likes owning your devices.
• matheusmoreira 3y ago
  The better solution is to not have "anti-theft" nonsense to begin with. They invariably involve giving up the keys to the machine to the trillion dollar corporation. It's not our computers anymore, it's the corporation's and they're merely allowing us to use them. This "anti-theft" stuff is really just DRM disguised as a feature.
• akira2501 3y ago
  > What is the better solution that retains the anti-theft capabilities of the device? One that doesn't literally make the device unusable in the case of a mistake. We protect far more valuable property with far less fancy mechanisms. If you're genuinely worried about theft, then you need layers of simple security, not a one shot nuclear bomb embedded into your device. > The inability for a thief to just flash the device with fresh firmware and use it as if it were new is a key selling point of the device and might justify the higher price tag to some buyers. Is that why people care about theft?
  • lotsofpulp 3y ago
    > We protect far more valuable property with far less fancy mechanisms. I cannot name a single thing I own that is more valuable than the information contained in my electronic devices. You could steal the contents of my house and the building materials and it still would not be more valuable.
    • akira2501 3y ago
      This seems to imply that your device contains the only copy of this information in existence and that cloud backups and PIN keys are inadequate for your security requirements. Are people actually trying to steal your information or just the chunk of valuable plastic that's currently a portal for accessing some of it? Meanwhile.. all the animals and sometimes children at my house are more valuable than any of my information, at least, to me. And of course, the most valuable and abstract of them all, my own health.
      • jameshart 3y ago
        It's not losing the information that the computer holds that's the risk. For most people, their computer contains the keys to be able to steal all their money and major assets, commit crimes in their name, defraud their family and friends, and endanger their employment. Those keys are embodied in the trusted ability to access their primary email and social media accounts, and possibly their work accounts too.
• 015a 3y ago
  There are two kinds of people in the world; people who believe "anti-theft" is a reasonable justification for this, and people who believe that this is just another tired "trade freedom for security" argument. You'll rarely convince either side to change their mind on this. Its an issue that pokes at a really deep element of personal philosophy. Here's my argument from the opposite side to try, however: Asking about how you can retain the anti-theft capability isn't relevant to the discussion, because sacrificing freedom for that, especially to the degree Apple does, is not worth any trade-off. This is the same right to repair issue that HackerNews, generally, derides John Deere for; the main difference, beyond Apple's psy-op level marketing, is that Apple hasn't pushed exploitation of this control as hard. But: They absolutely, undeniably do exploit many of the people within their system of control, not just indirectly ("the control is exploitation" is kind of a dumb argument), but very directly, between extremely high upfront costs, high repair fees, cryptographically refusing to allow third party parts, etc. Additionally: their self-control in pushing further exploitation is almost definitely a product of market success, because in the mega-capitalist system Apple lives in benevolence may be the result of culture or leadership, but it is allowed by market success, and denied during market failure. A lot of that boils down to the original thesis; very fundamental personal philosophy. I don't believe, personally, that it is ethical for individuals or companies to do something unethical (non-negotiably asserting significant control over physical goods they sell) because it enables something ethical (reducing incidents of theft). That might be controversial, which is fine. I think a point of that which is likely even more controversial is the argument that even asserting control over devices in isolation is unethical. I hope it isn't controversial, but I feel like it might be simply given the way the world is turning. That's a different topic of discussion; but in short, I think there's a strong argument that restricting freedom to independently modify and repair physical goods you purchase is a form of classism. Additionally, to turn the dial to 11 on this, that this assertion of central control has a very real, negative impact on national security.
  • userbinator 3y ago
    It's only controversial because it goes against their narrative of wanting to do away with private ownership completely (and wanting you to be happy about it.) I've seen it called "digital feudalism" here.
• CivBase 3y ago
  I see this argument made all the time. Is there literally any other product for which this is seen as an acceptable "anti-theft" feature? Imagine if we did that to cars.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• m463 3y ago
  you could have a hardware dongle that you initialize when you activate your phone/laptop. It can be stored at home or in a safe. Then that dongle can unlock the device completely at any time. Instead, the keys are stored by apple and never returned to you.
  • calamari4065 3y ago
    Ship the keys with the device on a sheet of paper. Generate them on first boot, display them and strongly encourage users to print and save them. Provide keys to the user on request after a reasonable identity verification. Have the user provide an emergency fallback password on device registration. Hire a skywriter to draw random characters and give the user a particular time to start and stop recording. Mail a hardcopy of the keys to the user. Encode the keys as a subliminal message that your device plays to you in Steve Jobs' voice while you sleep. Really, literally any other option than "never give the user keys".
    • microtherion 3y ago
      FileVault ALREADY gives you the option of creating a backup code to print out and save. AppleID ALREADY gives you numerous methods of recovering lost passwords, if you remember to set them up in advance.
      • m463 3y ago
        those do not apply to the laptop hardware They apply to the person's data.
• ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
  There apparently ARE no "anti-theft" capabilities. Look at this: "They explained to me that the MacBook was wiped in the middle of August (after I had lost it) and then reported lost by a newly created iCloud account" How can an unauthorized user suddenly claim ownership of a wiped computer and then "report it lost?" Why does Apple accept a loss report from someone who is not the owner of the computer? If this is actually what happened, there's no excuse for that glaring stupidity.
  • chongli 3y ago
    Because the person in the article left their laptop unregistered and unlocked on purpose. When it was stolen, the thief was able to register it as though it were brand new (which it basically was).
    • ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
      Nope. From the article: "While the person didn’t reset it themselves, they did take it to a shop, and asked them to unlock it. The shop didn’t unlock it, however, they did reset it." So it WAS "locked." I don't know what you mean by "unregistered," either.
      • microtherion 3y ago
        Presumably the computer had a password set. This makes it non-trivial for an unsophisticated thief to unlock it, but there is a documented procedure to do so if you know how to look it up: https://support.apple.com/en-us/102673 https://support.apple.com/en-us/102673
• simion314 3y ago
  >What is the better solution that retains the anti-theft capabilities of the device? Apple can afford to pay smart people to think for days for a solution. The solutions we will give here after 1 minute of thinking will not be optimum.
• Log_out_ 3y ago
  Allow the owner to neuter anti theft if he wants? Make it trapdoor opt out?
• prmoustache 3y ago
  > What is the better solution that retains the anti-theft capabilities of the device? A private key that is given to you upon purchase and that you can store in your password manager.
  • microtherion 3y ago
    As opposed to your AppleID password, that you pick yourself, and that you can store in your password manager?
    • prmoustache 3y ago
      You shouldn't have to need an appleid in the first place, as an account can be terminated/revoked any time by the company holding it.
• xxs 3y ago
  >solution that retains the anti-theft capabilities of the device First, this is a self-imposed problem; spread crime (theft) won't be solved by reducing the access. Next, I could have an encrypted drive and a key stored in a key stored in a bank, or an USB storage, or print, or whatever. As a matter of fact, I do have such laptop. And last - car thievery is still a thing in the EU, even though registering a stolen car is exceeding hard - they are either sold for parts... or exported to Russian (not so much recently for obvious reasons). Of course, Apple comes and tells that only they can repair the laptops/phones/etc. b/c of thievery and serialized parts.
• trevyn 3y ago
  >What is the better solution that retains the anti-theft capabilities of the device? I have a private key, not on the device, that matches a public key on the device. The device will not perform certain significant operations without a signature from my private key. C'mon people, this is not rocket science.
  • microtherion 3y ago
    [Puts on my best suit and "Elder Microtherion" badge] Howdy stranger! Have you heard the good news about "FileVault Recovery Keys" ? https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/protect-data-on-your-mac-with-filevault-mh11785/mac https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/protect-data-on-you...
• varispeed 3y ago
  If Apple didn't actively block supply of spare parts, this wouldn't be as attractive as it would have been much cheaper to buy parts from the manufacturer than steal phones, ship them overseas and get (most likely) forced labourers to strip them for parts and ship back. It Apple's corporate greed that fuels that and government corruption that allows it.
• trinsic2 3y ago
  I equate this to owning a car, but giving the master keys to a third-party that doesn't have your best interest at heart, with the ability to lock the owner out of the car simply because his keys were taken. Any anti-theft method needs to give complete and full control to the owner of the device so this kind of bullshit doesn't happen. The fact that Apple doesn't provide a mechanism for the owner to gain full and complete control of his device at any given moment has more to do with Apple wanting to control their technology for ulterior motives. We live in an age where corporations want to take away ownership, and we're letting it happen because we're stupid enough to think that they have our back.
• Brian_K_White 3y ago
  a: Trivial. User controls the keys, the service only controls the service. b: Irrelevant. There is a value to the consumer, but it is not worth the cost. There are countless possible conveniences that could be made possible if you were just willing to let someone else have essentially power of attorney over your life. c: Even if you want to say that there is a technical limitation making a: impossible, and you have a different opinion on b:, the laptop WAS ultimately unbricked, which means all arguments and excuses that were given up to that point to justify not unbricking were proven demostrably false. I don't just mean they always had the physical ability, I mean the fact that they were ever eventually willing, proves that all along the necessary information existed to allow them to. If there are supposedly two facts: "We can't know it's really you." plus "For integrity and principle reasons, we can't do it if we can't know it's really you.", then even Tim Cook should not have done it no matter the publicity pressure. Tim Cook should have made it a big promotional selling point plastered on those big Apple billboards in NYC how they refused to do the wrong thing even in the face of massive public pressure. Instead, they did it, which means they could have done it in the first place, not just physically but logically. It proves that they chose not to for reasons which are valuable to Apple and NOT to the user. Another aspect of b: value not worth the cost. Cost being being at someone else's mercy who you have no leverage over.