The article is about software security and how it compares (or doesn't compare) to real-world security, and what this means for the Apple case.
What drew me in is mostly that the beginning is written in a very light-hearted style, so it's a pretty easy read at first.
Usually I go in the other direction and redefine bland, e.g. https://medium.com/@blakeross/don-t-outsource-your-thinking-.... Had a little Friday fun with this one.
Either way, I identified with some of the points being made and easily picked up on the things I'd not considered from this angle thanks to the funny examples.
I still see unease with some of my friends and family about the topic, and although perhaps some of them have realized the ultimate question of should the cockpit or the cabin control things, I don't think they have a good understanding of why that is, or how this phone security compares to other things that are called "security," whether a door lock or the airport security line.
Very vivid writing that explains this for everyone. And I dig this type of humor.
For example, who is "you" in the following two bullet points:
It is not 'secure' as the Coke recipe is secure.
Coca Cola has the key to its vault, but you don’t
have the key to yours.
It is not “secure” as the Pentagon is secure. Those
blueprints are closely guarded, but your plans — even
much of your security code — are known to all.