This (I think) refers not to the people securing their devices against third parties but the vendors "securing" the devices against loss of profits.

Essentially, the question referenced here is that of ownership. Is it your device, or did you rent it from Apple/Samsung/etc. If it is locked down so that you can't do anything you want with it, then you might not actually be its owner.

___

_Ideally_ you wouldn't need to trust Apple as a corp to do the right thing. Of course, as this example shows, they seem to actually have done one right thing, but you do not know if they will always do.

That's why a lot of people believe that the idea of such tight vendor control is fundamentally flawed, even though in this specific instance it yielded positive results.

For completeness, No, I do not know either how this could be implemented differently.

One valid concern about "locked down computing" is the potential for 3rd parties to secure computing devices against their owners.

In this case I think "valid concerns about locked down computing" is referring to the owner's use of the phone being restricted, so that they can't download applications they want to use, they don't have unrestricted access to the filesystem, they are forced to pay an Apple commission to engage in certain forms aloft commerce, etc. These may be acceptable tradeoffs but they're valid concerns nonetheless.

I don't have to have any concern to be able to secure my device against third parties, it's just good operational discipline.

I don't do anything classified, or store something I don't want to be found out. On the other hand, equally I don't want anyone to be able to get and fiddle a device which is central to my life.

That's all.

It's not "I have nothing to hide" (which I don't actually have), but I don't want to put everything in the open.

Security is not something we shall earn, but shall have at the highest level by default.

Corrupt government officials gunning down inconvenient people.

Lockdown mode significantly effects the usability of the phone.

It completely disables JIT js in Safari for example.

Pegasus.

Jedi.

SKyWIper.

Rogue Actors.

Rogue thief’s.

Rogue governments.

Your spouse.

Separating corporate IT from personal IT.

There’s plenty of reasons.

Oh, come on. Don't look at another man's Portal Gun history. We all go to weird places.

I get so annoyed by this Socratic line of questioning because it’s extremely obvious.

Terrorist has plans and contacts on laptop/phone. Society has a very reasonable interest in that information.

But of course there is the rational counter argument of “the government designates who is a terrorist”, and the Trump admin has gleefully flouted norms around that designation endangering rule of law.

So all of us are adults here and we understand this is complicated. People have a vested interest in privacy protections. Society and government often have reasonable interest in going after bad guys.

Mediating this clear tension is what makes this so hard and silly lines of questioning like this try to pretend it’s simple.

Some platforms will side-load anything the telecom carrier sends.

It is naive to assume iOS can be trusted much more than Android. =3

Think of the children