So, how exactly is it necessary to test the phone while the user is inebriated with access to the public? They couldn't host a private party for that? Test it at workers houses? Why is access to the public so vital? It's not. If Apple condoned this form of testing they have to accept the risks. Crying for the nanny state to save you from your own actions is bullshit.
If you lose a phone in the public you should expect that any secrets become public. Apple seems to be OK with that risk. I don't understand the clamoring for gestapo police to swoop in and correct corporate mistakes.
>If you lose a phone in the public you should expect that any secrets become public
So, if you lost your wallet, it would be okay if I then knew your credit card numbers? Even if I didn't use them? I promise not to tell...
This isn't clamoring for a police state. It's recognizing that when property is lost, regardless of how, it still belongs to the person who lost it. I'm normally not one for "corporate rights", but in this case it doesn't matter that the entity that owned the phone was Apple. Hell, it could have been the next gen Blueberry (yes, I meant Blueberry) for all I care.
If you lose your wallet and assume that credit card numbers are not compromised you're an idiot.
Are you saying Gizmodo refused to return the phone to Apple claiming it was now their own property? Or that Gizmodo demanded reimbursement from Apple in exchange for returning the phone?
If you lose a phone in the public you should expect that any secrets become public. Apple seems to be OK with that risk. I don't understand the clamoring for gestapo police to swoop in and correct corporate mistakes.