Hacker News Reader

Comment by trinsic2 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

>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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com