5 ms·
I wonder how manufacturers will reconcile this with their promise of device security. I'm mostly against parts pairing but I do like the fact that someone can't
by s3p 3y ago
I wonder how manufacturers will reconcile this with their promise of device security. I'm mostly against parts pairing but I do like the fact that someone can't steal my iPhone and resell everything. It's mostly dead weight to them (unless they know my password ig)
- zer00eyz 3y agoParts paring also has to do with device security... Most of the parts are computer systems in their own right. The last thing you want is them to get replaced with "compromised" versions.
- Brian_K_White 3y agoNot one of the rationalizations Apple gives for any of the things they do are actually required in order to produce the desired functionality, including secondary effects like the incentives of theives. I build you a house with very solid walls and doors. No one is getting in without the keys. I do not give you the keys. You have to ask me to let you in every time, and I decide if you're you and should be allowed in. It is a true statement that the house is secure from theives. It is not a true statement that you can't have the keys to your house because "security".
- sumuyuda 3y agoI actually think having the device become unusable, if not under the user’s control, is terrible from an environmental stand point, as the device is useless and has to be scraped. It would be much better if instead of locking everyone out of the device, it instead gets wiped after some conditions are met. This way your data isn’t compromised and the device can be used by other parties. There are plenty of cases where the device isn’t stolen this affects, such as someone dying, or an employee not removing their Apple ID when handing back in work equipment. Apple gains by having the device become unusable, as it is taken out of circulation.