So don’t buy an iPhone if you don’t care about the security of your device and personal information. That would introduce a massive security hole that would negatively affect far more users than it would help.
I doubt that. The group of people you're talking about are those who have their phone maliciously stolen by people who are actively working to hack/exploit their way into the devices and then actively exploit the information stored on them. That is a utterly negligible percent of users, or even of users who have their phone stolen. The overwhelming majority of thieves of intent move the devices onto professional orgs that wipe them, jailbreak them, package them, and then ship them on to other entities that resell them.
The percent that might want to choose a different-than-latest version of OS would also of course be quite small, but I suspect it would be orders of magnitude larger than the other group we're speaking of just because that group of people is going to be so absurdly tiny.
In this world stolen iPhones are mostly worthless because they can’t easily be wiped without the password.
In your world, they could be.
I imagine iPhone thefts would go way up. They’re worth $1000 and we just carry them everywhere - if they were easily resellble it would be a very obvious quick-money theft opportunity.
iPhones are currently the primary target of thieves by an overwhelmingly wide margin. There are many ways to wipe them and its an industry in its own right. One of the most common, as always, is simple social engineering. They contact the victim posing as Apple, convince them to reveal their credentials in this way or that, wipe the device and away they go. If that fails they're stripped down and sold for parts, which is also reasonably lucrative.
I don't know for certain why thieves are generally not typically interested in abusing user data, but I'd imagine it's because the penalties if caught would go way up. That'd go from what is generally just petty theft, which carries a slap on the wrist, to wire fraud and a whole slew of other charges, which can leave people spending most of the rest of their life in prison.
Because a quick search for UK statistic shows that even though iPhones are minority of phones over here they are the overwhelmingly majority of all phone theft:
"In terms of smartphone models, the data also indicates who might be most at risk. Looking at the entirety of the UK, 68.6% of stolen phones are iPhones."
“In 2012, the National Crime Survey – which supplies data to the ONS – reported that there were roughly 608,000 theft from a person incidents across England and Wales, which was a high for the decade. However, since then, theft from person cases – including those including smartphones – have fallen year on year. A key factor for this continual decline could be that smartphone security has improved to a point that it’s no longer worth stealing them; with Face ID, trackers, and fingerprint scanners, it’s now harder for criminals to wipe and fence stolen property. It’s also possible that, due to the ubiquity of smartphones, the desire to steal them has simply decreased.”
I would say that phone theft is relatively rare. I didn’t mean to single out iPhone really - AFAIK the major manufacturers of Android phones provide similar protection, and if feel the same about them removing it.
To me the surprising claim would be that phone theft is common - I don’t think I know of anyone who’s had their phone stolen - but if you want stats, sticking with the UK, here’s the official statistics on robbery and ‘theft from a person’: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeand...
It’s more work than I have time for now, but I don’t think that any of the headline figures can be regarded as ‘common’.
More emotionally: Maybe it’s just my age showing, but it is notable to me that nowadays we’re all carrying around $1000 items at all times, and muggings aren’t through the roof. Perhaps society is kinder than I gave it credit for, but I think that the lack of utility of those $1000 items if you steal them (so, they’re not really worth $1000 to a mugger) is a major part of the reason they’re not.
In the US millions are stolen per year. Nobody knows the exact number because I suspect many may not even realize they've been stolen from and simply think they lost their phone somewhere. Thieves tend to target touristy areas where this is even more likely.
It's also going to make the targets even less likely to report the crime to police as well. 'Hi, I don't live in this country and I think my phone might have been stolen somewhere at some point in time over the past several hours, maybe.' is not even going to be investigated by the police, even if somebody does decide to file a report.
Come to think of it, this may all be yet another reason why thieves don't tend to abuse personal information. That sort of stuff is going to get reported and can be viably investigated by the police.
You've been paying attention to what's happened over the last few weeks and you qualify that threat as impotent? That impotent threat basically brought the rest of the world to it's knees.
They hit like 20 ships, people died. That’s why insurance went up. Literally the US navy will not go near the strait due to the ballistic missile threat.
To whom, and to what? A military threat to the continental US, sure. To US allies in the region, and to the global economy, it appears Iran is a much bigger threat than we were lead to believe, and still are. If anything, they're justifiably more emboldened now than ever.
If you keep picking fights with someone don’t be surprised if they learn how to fight. There’s literally a line in Sayings of Spartans about teaching your enemy to fight by making war with them.
> it feeds directly into my conspiracy theory about how people are being intentionally pacified using chemicals.
What is more likely? That there's a grand conspiracy involving thousands of people to chemically pacify the population. Or that products made with plastic are cheap and easy to make.
I don't know. I really wonder sometimes. For example:
Does adding an endocrine-disrupting 'tongue scraper' to children's toothbrush actually lower costs? Does this feature even add any value at all to the product? Why not clean the tongue with the bristles! The feature doesn't seem to justify the cost. All I can see is added marketing 'value'.
Also, people like to draw a distinction between "There is an intentional conspiracy by government officials to disrupt children's hormones" vs "Government officials know that children's hormones are being disrupted and they not only let it happen, they give the official seal of approval to the products, certifying their safety, when they are provably not safe in the aggregate if you look at population health statistics."
From my perspective, both cases are malicious and I don't see the point of trying to figure out which one is the case! It's a discussion of lesser evils and it seems like a deflection.
It's a conspiracy either way; in the second case, it's a conspiracy of neglect. A conspiracy of people getting paid to do nothing about a problem that they're claiming to be preventing! In the very best light, it's a false solution which acts as a placeholder for a real solution.
> The feature doesn't seem to justify the cost. All I can see is added marketing 'value'
You think marketing value does not justify added costs?
> Why not clean the tongue with the bristles!
Same reason you don't use the bristles to brush your hair. It doesn't work as well as a solution made for that purpose.
> Government officials know that children's hormones are being disrupted and they not only let it happen
Government officials define exact safety thresholds and rules for product materials to prevent health problems. That's why today we are debating trace amounts of something in plastic instead of lead in paint causing nationwide crime spikes and cognitive decline.
The speculative reasoning I've seen is that they have optimizations in their CC client that reduces their costs. If that's true, I think it's fair that they can limit subscription usage to their client. If you don't want those optimizations and prefer more freedom, use the API.
They rather have yolo permissions to run arbitrary code on your machine and phone home all the time, then opencode having it and phoning home all the time.
I find that supabase is pretty good at warning you about these things in their project specific security advisories, but obviously you need to actually pay attention to them and then take action.
reply