Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I have another hypothesis also that this is done for security reasons. Imagine yo are at a risk of high-profile spying. You lose your phone and then it reappears somehow - you should no longer trust your phone if these security features weren't in place. Maybe, just maybe, it's one of the reasons Apple does this.


>I have another hypothesis also that this is done for security reasons.

It always boggled my mind how much mental gymnastics, the supposedly tech-savy HN userbase is willing to do, to defend their favorite computer brand's anti-repair and anti-consumer practices as "security".

Let me break down your argument:

Firstly, if you're at risk of high profile spying, you should know better than to use any Apple/Google/Microsoft products as all those megacorps are in bed with the US three letter alphabet agencies.

Secondly, if you're a high profile target for spying, but dumb enough to use an iPhone as your daily driver, then the alphabet boys or nation states worldwide are more likely to use some of the dozens of iOS RCE exploits they developed themselves or bought from some shady Israeli security company or off the black market to get to you rather than go through all the trouble of hoping you don't notice when they steal your phone and replace your screen.

Thirdly, say nation state actors do manage to steal your phone and swap the screen really quickly before you notice, but how will they make sure it has the same level of wear and tear (cracks, scratches) that you won't recognize it to be different?

There's just so many plot holes in this type of scenario that security cannot be justified as an argument here.

Plus, if Apple really cared about security, then their bug bounty program wouldn't be such a horrible mess full of unacknowledged vulnerabilities that researchers need to take public.


I see your point, except the world doesn't end in the US and the country's three-letter agencies. There are countries outside of the US that might have their own goals and ways of achieving them (see the Pegasus scandal for example).


There isn't a practical scenario where using a device you suspect have been in the hands of an adversary isn't grounds for termination.

Game over.

It is not a relevant argument in this context.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: