3 ms·

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,

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.
- HeWhoLurksLate 3y ago
  Why not? State secrets can also be in one of those mailer boxes in your car, or you might have a body in the trunk you don't want people to find. Or I might be inside the car, and I want as much protection as possible (but without adding too much weight) You can also buy "hardened" cars that make intrusion significantly harder, there's also a vocal minority that wants to understand everything going on the car and doesn't trust the government (coreboot/ pre-emissions controls) and there's people who use vehicles that are the road equivalent of a Chromebook and also people that have really tricked-out systems that have more power on demand than will ever conceivably be used anywhere other than synthetic workloads (dynamometers) or high-end professional stuff (racing.)
  - saghm 3y ago
    > State secrets can also be in one of those mailer boxes in your car, or you might have a body in the trunk you don't want people to find. Or I might be inside the car, and I want as much protection as possible (but without adding too much weight) Sure, but nobody is clamoring for literally every car on the market to have a remote lockout only possible to disable by the OEM or if the original owner chooses explicitly to pass on the privilege. It would be ludicrous for the solution to potentially accidentally leaving some documents in the glove compartment to be allowing the original owner of a used car to retain the privilege to brick the car after someone else buys it.
- saghm 3y ago
  It's also a lot harder to steal someone's car without already having the ability to get in and turn it on; you can't just pick it up and walk away. I also think that car security is maybe not a good standard to try to emulate, given how often they have what in my opinion might be the worst security message of all time: the car alarm. I've never once heard a car alarm and thought "aha, someone must be trying to steal that car". As far as I can tell, false positives are both much more common than true positives and literally indistinguishable to bystanders, so any time someone hears a car alarm the person causing it could just claim it's their car and they activated it by mistake and no one would question it. They're also so annoyingly loud that they disturb basically everyone on the block, and they can happen at literally any time. After around 10 seconds of a car alarm waking me up from deep sleep I would probably root for a thief to get away with taking the car just to make the sound go away.
  - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
    You can pick up a car and take it without the owners consent, it needs heavy equipment (though there are also under-wheel robots that can move a car).
    - saghm 3y ago
      Sure, cars can be physically lifted and moved, but it's pretty obviously not nearly as easy in terms of prep time and throughput compared to laptops or phones, which any able-bodied person could do at a moment's notice and with a reasonable sized bag carry several at a time.
- xxs 3y ago
  > !== Why so many characters for inequality.
  - Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago
    They must be a user of a language that needs === meaning "real equal not imaginary equal" Also I wish you could still buy cars that were not computers.
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      > They must be a user of a language that needs === meaning "real equal not imaginary equal" This is something that, weirdly enough, perl did really well and then everyone else ignored the good solution in favor of much worse alternatives. In perl, 0 and "0" will compare equal, which can lead to trouble. But perl prevented virtually all of that trouble by making the operators on strings different than the operators on numbers. So "1" + 2 is 3, whereas "1" . 2 is 12.
      - dylan604 3y ago
        . vs + for string concat is still one that causes many basic syntax errors for me as I switch back and forth between PHP and JS. I know immediately what I've done as soon as the corresponding syntax error is thrown, but still not immediate enough for when I'm actually typing it.
    - xxs 3y ago
      >Also I wish you could still buy cars that were not computers. That was the joke
  - dylan604 3y ago
    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=!%3D%3D&t=h_&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=!%3D%3D&t=h_&ia=web

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.
HeWhoLurksLate 3y ago
Why not? State secrets can also be in one of those mailer boxes in your car, or you might have a body in the trunk you don't want people to find. Or I might be inside the car, and I want as much protection as possible (but without adding too much weight) You can also buy "hardened" cars that make intrusion significantly harder, there's also a vocal minority that wants to understand everything going on the car and doesn't trust the government (coreboot/ pre-emissions controls) and there's people who use vehicles that are the road equivalent of a Chromebook and also people that have really tricked-out systems that have more power on demand than will ever conceivably be used anywhere other than synthetic workloads (dynamometers) or high-end professional stuff (racing.)
- saghm 3y ago
  > State secrets can also be in one of those mailer boxes in your car, or you might have a body in the trunk you don't want people to find. Or I might be inside the car, and I want as much protection as possible (but without adding too much weight) Sure, but nobody is clamoring for literally every car on the market to have a remote lockout only possible to disable by the OEM or if the original owner chooses explicitly to pass on the privilege. It would be ludicrous for the solution to potentially accidentally leaving some documents in the glove compartment to be allowing the original owner of a used car to retain the privilege to brick the car after someone else buys it.
saghm 3y ago
It's also a lot harder to steal someone's car without already having the ability to get in and turn it on; you can't just pick it up and walk away. I also think that car security is maybe not a good standard to try to emulate, given how often they have what in my opinion might be the worst security message of all time: the car alarm. I've never once heard a car alarm and thought "aha, someone must be trying to steal that car". As far as I can tell, false positives are both much more common than true positives and literally indistinguishable to bystanders, so any time someone hears a car alarm the person causing it could just claim it's their car and they activated it by mistake and no one would question it. They're also so annoyingly loud that they disturb basically everyone on the block, and they can happen at literally any time. After around 10 seconds of a car alarm waking me up from deep sleep I would probably root for a thief to get away with taking the car just to make the sound go away.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  You can pick up a car and take it without the owners consent, it needs heavy equipment (though there are also under-wheel robots that can move a car).
  - saghm 3y ago
    Sure, cars can be physically lifted and moved, but it's pretty obviously not nearly as easy in terms of prep time and throughput compared to laptops or phones, which any able-bodied person could do at a moment's notice and with a reasonable sized bag carry several at a time.
xxs 3y ago
> !== Why so many characters for inequality.
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago
  They must be a user of a language that needs === meaning "real equal not imaginary equal" Also I wish you could still buy cars that were not computers.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    > They must be a user of a language that needs === meaning "real equal not imaginary equal" This is something that, weirdly enough, perl did really well and then everyone else ignored the good solution in favor of much worse alternatives. In perl, 0 and "0" will compare equal, which can lead to trouble. But perl prevented virtually all of that trouble by making the operators on strings different than the operators on numbers. So "1" + 2 is 3, whereas "1" . 2 is 12.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      . vs + for string concat is still one that causes many basic syntax errors for me as I switch back and forth between PHP and JS. I know immediately what I've done as soon as the corresponding syntax error is thrown, but still not immediate enough for when I'm actually typing it.
  - xxs 3y ago
    >Also I wish you could still buy cars that were not computers. That was the joke
- dylan604 3y ago
  https://duckduckgo.com/?q=!%3D%3D&t=h_&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=!%3D%3D&t=h_&ia=web