That cut down on a lot of the robbery bullshit, but then criminals simply found new buyer classes - they'd simply part stolen devices out and resell everything but the iCloud/Knox/whatever locked mainboard. Displays, cameras, speakers, batteries, flex cables, cases, everything.
So now, at least Apple is tagging the most "valuable" parts in new phones, simply to make stealing them unattractive for thieves, which frankly sucks but is necessary because it's a public safety issue.
(If anyone at Apple is reading this: ffs, allow the legitimate owner of a device to "unpair" all components in their phone in iCloud so that legitimate second-hand shops can strip a broken device at least for its parts)
You're responsible for your data, not Google, not Microsoft.
[0] advertising and marketing industry
Today though, I'd recommend skimming through uBlock Origin's Github readme: https://github.com/gorhill. Note the "Free. Open source. For users by users. No donations sought." in the About section. Our industry reflects our collective condition: some good, some bad, and some in between. The oft used Mr. Rogers quote about "look for the helpers" seems particularly appropriate for uBlock Origin and its creator (and maintainers :)).
P.S. In case this comes across as a lecture, I assure you that this was just as much for myself as a reminder, as it was for the community here :).
What was most unexpected is how, unprompted, a lot of the most ardent phone abusers in my social circle started gradually releasing themselves from their phones, putting them in a drawer, or just outright turning them off for weekends.
I have a single prepaid phone that my wife has the number to, it has no apps, no email, no scrolly things. When we are apart, it is turned on, otherwise, my time is otherwise occupied.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_riots
[2]: https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/sca/rls/rm/2005/43701.htm
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Activities_(Preventio...
I used to think Firefox trying to protect the entered passwords made some sense, but I've been convinced it isn't really such a good idea. Better would be a full profile being protected (with all files encrypted), or just rely on an OS level lock screen for inactivity lockout.
I'm not sure if the current system actually prevents recovering the passwords. Do they require this authorization even to use a show password option on a website or the equivalent effect via bookmarklet-style javascript? I suspect they don't and it doesn't try to protect from intentional theft only casual viewing of passwords. This might still be valuable for some people, but it would be more valuable to fully protect the profile. I worry that people will think they are more protected than they actually are and that this effect will be increased by the use of system login credentials.
Also, IMO the list of sites that you have passwords for should be treated as just as sensitive as the passwords themselves. I think as is you can often see the sites with accounts, visit them, and have the current password autofilled into the old password field of the change password dialog.
The "generate password" option is great, even though personally I would make it 21 characters rather than 15 (there might be an option for that?). IMO, no one should ever choose a password.
That being said, I do think that these features will overall lead to better password hygiene for people who do not have access to the kinds of info we have (especially where FF warns about passwords shared across sites; that's a feature that iOS does fairly well; in KeyChain, they show a warning label next to a password shared between multiple sites).
P.S. The point about securing a list of sites that you have passwords for is fantastic as well.
Anyone with a security background or someone who has thought through this more: what are the implications of making the OS level authentication the default, and then only ask to make a master pwd if there are no OS level login pwds? Is one or the other more secure?