Plenty of companies don't care to unlock these properly before recycling and it's creating excessive waste.
E-waste is going to happen regardless and it would be more proper for Apple to have a computer recycling program, which already exists, or to turn the old computers into spare parts for repair.
Eliminating the potential for theft is a massive win. I remember what it was like before activation lock existed and how high of a target iPhones were. As soon as that feature came out the thieves were screwed out of a potential payday. Now we don’t have to worry about our phones being stolen.
Given that, removing the activation lock after notifying you with a 30/60/whatever day window to respond seems like a reasonable policy to me.
Not the same thing, depending upon how the authentication is handled.
I think it's perfectly fair for "legitamately acquired" to mean the original owner consented by unlocking the device. The peace of mind and security if you own a T2 device is the way it should be, and if you want to sell it, you just factory reset it, which is a quick process.
This is not true. The bankruptcy process attempts to recover as much value from assets as possible, and so creditors and the process should absolutely care to properly unlock in order to extract maximum value.
Similarly, aging out old equipment is still sold to make money, and unlocking should achieve more resale value.
The incentives are absolutely there. And the article does absolutely zero investigation as to where exactly there's a breakdown in incentives or communication, or if it's even a major issue at all. Maybe the process is working 99% of the time.
If bankcrupt, the original company may have a duty to unlock them because they will be worth more.
However, since Apple actually had full authority and cryptographic ownership of the chip, they can generate a key given serial number which will reset T2 contents.
Personally, I think the setup should be that you don't have to go to apple for it, but it should immediately wipe device identity and disk encryption then (and the disk should always be encrypted)
I don’t think that’s true, I’ve never had to do that, and this is not a part of Apple’s documented reset process for resale of a machine. If you are the device’s actual owner and you use the simple process Apple outlines, it will reset it for a new owner, period.
Been there, went with Apple support over it, the only reason I still don't have it unlocked is because I didn't have time or energy to redo the whole setup. Might redo the apple-driven unlock process, but the hw is not worth it really.
EDIT: Apparently the nice simpler procedure that does wipe FMM only arrived in Monterey.
It will unlock the device.
Any T2 Mac or newer requires only that button to be pressed, and then click through the wizard to complete the process. If someone is running outdated macOS, they won't have that button at all, since older versions of macOS required you to format computers the hard way using recovery mode, which didn't handle activation lock concerns.
You can also read this document: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208987
"Other ways to disable Activation Lock"
"Activation Lock is disabled when you use the Erase All Content and Settings feature."
which confirms the same thing. The experience that people have is very simple these days.
Which still leaves considerable amount of laptops with broken FMM registrations in T2. Especially since it was upgrading to Catalina, iirc, that started problems.
There is exactly that pathway. If you have the consent of the original owner, which I think is an important and required quality of "acquired legitimately", you can have the original owner remove the device from their Apple account remotely, or to wipe the device and reset it while logged in prior to physically handing it over to you.
If neither of these things have happened, on what basis do you believe the complaintant has "acquired legitimately"? Is consent of the original owner not important in your view?
> “Previous owners do not return phone calls“
It’s one thing to forward a request. But to give unlock after 30 days? That’s gonna be abused by thieves and unscrupulous refurbishers