> Playing devil's advocate, what are your security expectation when someone steals your device? Is it acceptable that they immediately gain control of all services available through your them, such as email address, bank accounts, and investment portfolios?

Legally they have no right to anything. Physically, they access whatever they access. That's how it's been forever. I don't get the point of the question.

▲

motorest a day ago | parent [-]

> Legally they have no right to anything.

What are you talking about? The scenario involves someone stealing from you. Do you think the legality of it is a dissuasion?

Also, OP's point was that "Physical ownership = real ownership."

> Physically, they access whatever they access. That's how it's been forever. I don't get the point of the question.

The whole point is that that's not the expectation or desire of every single person around you. Not one.

That's the fact you're not understanding. The ability to lock down a device and prevent unauthorized third parties from accessing it is a strong ask by everyone, not only "megacorps". The ability to track down and remotely pull a kill switch are sold as premium features by some manufacturers. Mobile operators have for a long time the ability to block cellphones by IMEI to prevent theft. A very popular product from one of the biggest companies in the world is a small tag that consumers can attack to their property to be able to find them and recover them.

And in spite of all these facts, are we suppose to pretend no one wants control access to their hardware to prevent unauthorized access from third parties?

▲

dataflow a day ago | parent [-]

> Also, OP's point was that "Physical ownership = real ownership."

You don't have "ownership" over something you stole. You have possession of it. Possession != ownership.

> The whole point is that that's not the expectation or desire of every single person around you. Not one.

Then you're misunderstanding what people are arguing. People want the owner to be the ultimate authority. The owner gets to encrypt what they like, expose what they like, track what they like, trust megacorp they like, etc. And if a thief steals the device, they get whatever they get as a result of the owner's decisions. Which could be all their data, or a visit from the local police, depending on how the owner prepared for it.

▲

motorest a day ago | parent [-]

> You don't have "ownership" over something you stole. You have possession of it. Possession != ownership.

You need to develop your functional literacy skills because you clearly are failing to even understand the topics being discussed, let alone the arguments going either way.

	▲	rep_lodsb a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You were literally saying "not one" person (period!) wants the ability to control their own device. Clearly such people exist, even if we aren't the majority. What is wrong about the OPs arguments that suggests a failure of literacy on their part? If you want a device that is locked down by the manufacturer so it only runs software they approve of, in the name of security, that is a tradeoff you should be allowed to make, and the free market is ready to accomodate your desire. Unfortunately, those of us who want the opposite are not so lucky currently. Is it really impossible to see for you why some people have a problem with this situation persisting, and with comments like yours further normalizing it?
	▲	rcxdude a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Hi, also chiming in as someone who also would like to stop cheering when these kinds of vulnerabilities are found, and I'll do it when manufacturers stop treating me, the person buying their products, like the thief in your example.