3 ms·

Anecdotally, in my area it's been the exact opposite. iPhones (back when they were cheaper!) used to be much less locked down, and thieves would target people

Anecdotally, in my area it's been the exact opposite. iPhones (back when they were cheaper!) used to be much less locked down, and thieves would target people specifically to steal their iPhone. Now, as the phones are locked down, and even using them for parts is much harder with the serialization of parts, it seems that the targeted theft of iPhones is much, much lower.

paganel 3y ago
Yeah, that makes sense and it's partly covered by what I was saying, i.e. because the iPhones have become more expensive and hence, by definition, more valuable to both those owning them and to potential thieves, Apple has had to implement these locking policies which have caused the problem the author of the article had. I can understand how come fewer iPhones would get stolen now compared to previous times, but I do think that that the level of "implicit" targeting by thieves has indeed increased which has made Apple also increase the level of locking. In a way this situation is similar to thieves stealing from poor people house's compared to stealing from wealthy people's houses. Meaning that, even going by percentages, I'm sure that poor people's houses are broken in by thieves a lot more compared to wealthy people houses, and that is, mostly, because wealthy people's houses are a lot more better protected (because there's much more valuable stuff to steal from there compared to poor people's houses). But that extra protection comes with its one intrinsic/hidden costs for those enjoying said protection, for example one cannot freely "choose" where to own a wealthy house, you're restricted by the "good" and "safe" areas, in effect limiting your freedom of choice (which is a cost in itself). There's also the "inner" phycological cost of realising that your own protection depends on a system outside of your control, a house's security system in the case I mentioned or a big US corporation in the case of the author here, that's also a hidden cost. And there are many other such costs. All this is part of the many paradoxes related to security and defence, really interesting topic by itself.

paganel 3y ago

Yeah, that makes sense and it's partly covered by what I was saying, i.e. because the iPhones have become more expensive and hence, by definition, more valuable to both those owning them and to potential thieves, Apple has had to implement these locking policies which have caused the problem the author of the article had. I can understand how come fewer iPhones would get stolen now compared to previous times, but I do think that that the level of "implicit" targeting by thieves has indeed increased which has made Apple also increase the level of locking. In a way this situation is similar to thieves stealing from poor people house's compared to stealing from wealthy people's houses. Meaning that, even going by percentages, I'm sure that poor people's houses are broken in by thieves a lot more compared to wealthy people houses, and that is, mostly, because wealthy people's houses are a lot more better protected (because there's much more valuable stuff to steal from there compared to poor people's houses). But that extra protection comes with its one intrinsic/hidden costs for those enjoying said protection, for example one cannot freely "choose" where to own a wealthy house, you're restricted by the "good" and "safe" areas, in effect limiting your freedom of choice (which is a cost in itself). There's also the "inner" phycological cost of realising that your own protection depends on a system outside of your control, a house's security system in the case I mentioned or a big US corporation in the case of the author here, that's also a hidden cost. And there are many other such costs. All this is part of the many paradoxes related to security and defence, really interesting topic by itself.