Hacker News Reader

Comment by xoa | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

My dad was given an old company laptop a while back. He has since switched jobs. The laptop is locked with an UEFI password but is no longer in anyone's system and I doubt anyone ever stored a real receipt. He has a receipt from the company that gave him the laptop I believe, but the manufacturer won't ever take that as proof of ownership.

> In this case, if a device is given to you, why can't you have the person giving it to you (assuming they're the legitimate owner obviously) remove activation lock if they forgot?

The device was given away after it was written off. The data related to it has been deleted, there is no receipt any more. I don't have the receipt of the laptop I bought seven years ago, why should I?.

> Why not check the device quickly at time of transaction?

They could have, but they forgot. Now they can't.

You can think of processes and procedures all you want but in real life people lose receipts and forget to check some stuff.

I would say not everyone who has the activation lock enabled knows it exists or how to remove it. My parents, for instance. I fully expect one day they’ll take it to goodwill and it’ll be slag.

I’m actually not concerned about this. The security value is higher. I’m just pointing out ownership doesn’t require a receipt.

> In this case, if a device is given to you, why can't you have the person giving it to you (assuming they're the legitimate owner obviously) remove activation lock if they forgot?

What happens if the original owner died?

Apple will transfer control to a legal heir.

Does it also need the receipt?

think these discussions can be higher quality if you spend a minute thinking through your hot takes and doing a bit of research. In this case, > > if a device is given to you, why can't you have the person giving it to you (assuming they're the legitimate owner obviously) remove activation lock if they forgot?

Because it creates too much friction at the point of transfer.

Decryption security should be handled in a way that the decouples user data from the device itself. There will always be theft. The impact that we have on the planet is something we can no longer afford to ignore.

This isn't an issue of turning off our brains. We have two problems we have an issue with theft and how security mechanisms that are tied directly to the device strongly prevents reuse and resale.

>Because it creates too much friction at the point of transfer.

The definition of the desired process outcome is "it is demonstrable that the asset was transferred willingly". What is your idea of "less friction at the point of transfer" that achieves that goal? Otherwise, we're back to "this is indistinguishable from theft".

Who is the authority that determines that "it is demonstrable that the asset was transferred willingly"?

Receipts from Best Buy

No, its Apple inserting themselves into the process. The same process apple uses to deny independent computer repair centers access to parts. This isn't about preventing theft. Its about apple controlling how hardware is accessed and used and you can see that be how the treat their customers and repair centers.

>No, its Apple inserting themselves into the process.

How exactly do you think this works, without a trusted third party?

By trusted 3d party do you mean Apple? The same company profiting of off making hardware less accessible, forcing people to by new devices instead of being able to repair there own stuff. You mean that trusted 3d party?

There should be a tiny (a couple minutes at most) amount of friction for the transfer of $1000s of dollars worth of property.

Activation lock doesn't prevent resale, it prevents theft.

I don't agree. We don't need a company the same company that provides the product tell its users how to protect themselves. Thats up to the people purchasing the product. It creates a conflict of interest and it causes people to loose the freedom on how they wish to protect their devices.

“There will always be theft so we shouldn’t try to reduce theft” is pretty circular.

There will always be theft, but only one livable planet. You do the math. The way Apple is implementing this security makes the impact on the planet worse. In the long run, its not worth it, for user control or for the environment.

>Because it creates too much friction at the point of transfer.

It takes literally a minute.

These discussions would be higher quality of blatant apple shills didn't write 4 paragraphs defending an obviously flawed policy that is objectively sending good hardware to the landfill.

You can't post like this to HN, regardless of how wrong other people or you feel they are.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. Note this one:

"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com