4 ms·
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 ano
by 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 agoIt'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.
- 015a 3y agoI think the "getting rid of private ownership" thing is a red herring. I don't think its accurate to say that most people hold it as some kind of deep personal philosophy; not to the "renting is sometimes convenient and good" degree, but the "ownership is bad and should be discouraged" degree. Obviously there exists people with communist ideology, which while I disagree with feels at least defensible; but we're not talking about Land and Inventions, we're talking about, you know, bricks of Smart Metal in our bags. That differentiation is important, because it reveals the main reason why Apple is successful, and why they don't get market pushback: Most people just don't care. There's a good chunk of radicalization on the side of Freedom, there's very little radicalization on the other side, mostly just people who haven't thought about it enough, and then there's the vast majority in the middle who just don't care. I take comfort in that reality, because it indicates to me that this will probably change. We're seeing right to repair gain steam in US legislature. It takes time to develop shared language and understanding on why this is important, and why it matters, with those people in the center, many in positions of power.
- pixelfarmer 3y agoMost people don't care for a simple reason: As long as these things are not in their way, they certainly don't care. That changes as soon as such stuff presents obstacles, which can start simply by such tech causing issues for the legal owners of such products. This is why this whole issue causes more trouble with John Deere: It is in the way of what people do. A dictatorship can work out nicely as long as it doesn't stand in the way of the people.
- microtherion 3y agoIf you don't care about the "anti-theft" capabilities, simply don't turn on activation lock. This story is about somebody who did exactly that, and then discovered they suddenly cared about theft when their device was stolen. Pick a lane.