3 ms·

Yes, and I can do all that now without your device, and I was able to do it before digital devices became prevalent. Yet, it does not happen, because no on

Yes, and I can do all that now without your device, and I was able to do it before digital devices became prevalent. Yet, it does not happen, because no one has any motive to do this to you even if the means to do it has now been reduced to simply taking your phone. If someone has that motive then access to your phone will /not/ be the deciding factor. The opportunity costs don't bear out either, as just because someone has an expensive piece of tech, does not mean they have the kind of assets you can drain into Bermuda. The reward ratio is not significant to plan for this eventuality in any meaningful way. Which is why most people when faced with the prospect of insane security will just choose to layer two simpler methods together instead, such as basic old 2FA via SMS or FIDO. These technically reduce security barrier of entry but allow the portions of the implementation to live further apart from each other, which for most people, is enough. Also, if your work didn't issue you a secure PC and trusted 2FA hardware, then allows you to have privileged information like email on your home laptop, that's entirely bad policy on their part.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
>If someone has that motive then access to your phone will /not/ be the deciding factor. Ease of committing a crime is surely a factor in probability of that crime occurring. Far more people are willing to look over a shoulder for someone’s phone PIN or slip them a roofie to get access to bank account apps and transfer money than they are to confront them while conscious and threaten them to give them their money. (Hence the advice to keep access information to only nominal amounts of wealth in phones).
- throwaway290 3y ago
  > Ease of committing a crime is surely a factor in probability of that crime occurring. The other factor is turning a profit. You have a brick, you can sell it for parts through China and get a few cents. You have a fully functioning phone/laptop, you can sell it for a lot. If everyone had Find My on then stealing Apple hardware would be pointless. It's the orthodoxy geeks who turn it off to feel like they "own" their hardware that make it a chance play & worth a shot for the criminals & hurt normies. > confront them while conscious and threaten them to give them their money This is called robbery, theft means no confrontation.

lotsofpulp 3y ago

>If someone has that motive then access to your phone will /not/ be the deciding factor. Ease of committing a crime is surely a factor in probability of that crime occurring. Far more people are willing to look over a shoulder for someone’s phone PIN or slip them a roofie to get access to bank account apps and transfer money than they are to confront them while conscious and threaten them to give them their money. (Hence the advice to keep access information to only nominal amounts of wealth in phones).

throwaway290 3y ago
> Ease of committing a crime is surely a factor in probability of that crime occurring. The other factor is turning a profit. You have a brick, you can sell it for parts through China and get a few cents. You have a fully functioning phone/laptop, you can sell it for a lot. If everyone had Find My on then stealing Apple hardware would be pointless. It's the orthodoxy geeks who turn it off to feel like they "own" their hardware that make it a chance play & worth a shot for the criminals & hurt normies. > confront them while conscious and threaten them to give them their money This is called robbery, theft means no confrontation.