Two Slashes

It’s not uncommon for thieves to eye up anything they can swap around for a quick buck on eBay. Sunglasses, electronics…anything they can get a decent price for to make it worth their deal. And the worst part is that for the most part, these transactions are untraceable - unless the victim notes the serial number, and sees that serial number in a picture on eBay, chances are it’ll be across the country in a week.

One of the biggest “cash cows” for thieves is an iPod. In short, that Apple “luxury” you get when you overpay for the damn thing is only lining the thief’s pocket with even more green when they steal it and try to turn it around for cash. Exhibit A: 8072 listings (at time of posting) in the Apple iPod category on eBay. Now, I’m no expert, but usually when so many people are getting rid of something, most of them are either illegitimate or the product sucks and people can’t get a refund. (I wouldn’t be suprised if it was that second option, even though I know for a fact it isn’t; they’re decent devices, but there are better products for cheaper that can do so much more, and with a lot more expandability. However, now’s not the time for me to tangent into this. Maybe next post…)

That’s why when Apple proposed a way to disable the iPods from charging when they’re used on a computer they’re not supposed to be, I came to wonder what the f*** the Cupertino crew’s thinking. Sure, iPods are great targets for thieves, but implementing something like that is just asking for problems. I’ve got plenty of real-life scenarios, too.

1. At my (old) high school, most computer classes (and some others) allowed the use of MP3 players when the students were to be working on projects (which, in reality, was at least 75% of the time).

   Now, seeing as these are teenagers who don’t charge anything up unless it doesn’t even turn on, these people needed a way to power their players when they ran dry. And with a computer sitting right in front of you (99% of them being a Mac, no less), what better way than by plugging the thing in?I’m not questioning this practice; I actually see it as a sign that the students are “exploiting” their surroundings (in a good way), so to speak. But if the next generation iPods are going to check that the computer is theirs before even bothering to charge, you’re going to find that the students start to get mightily ticked off when that so-called “guardian circuit” is set off and their iPod becomes a very expensive “luxury” paperweight.
   

2. What happens when you buy a new computer, or have to do some serious renovation to your current one as the result of some damaged or failing hardware? Windows makes you reinstall, some of your applications might need another license purchased; in short, it’s a lot to deal with just getting the computer up and running. But now let’s add a new iPod into that, after the thing follows Windows in saying “This isn’t the same computer - buy a new license.”
3. Some people sync players between multiple computers; some they own, some they merely play the songs off the iPod while they work there (which is something the kids at school also did). While I assume that computers sharing the authorization on an account would share a code, what would become of the iPod when the fun-loving, music-seeking soul brings their player to the library?
4. I’d love to see a “security code” that matches the user’s computer manufactured into a wall charger a third-party accessory like a boombox. Those things aren’t ever going to be receiving authorization codes for iTunes, so plugging an iPod into one of those would be like forcing your player to commit suicide.

The worst part? If this actually gets implemented into anything, chances are other companies will follow with similar (though obviously not violating the patent) solutions. The same “monkey see, monkey do” approach Microsoft and Apple share when it comes to new OS features. Pretty soon it won’t be an MP3 market anymore so much as a “music brick”. And the fact that this is a hardware approach, buried so deep into the player as it is, certifies that while people won’t be circumventing this with any ease, any user with the know-how to repair it, well…can’t. It’s like putting Lo-Jack on a car and finding that the police arrest you for being in possession of the Lo-Jack-enabled car, “hot” or not.

Remember the famous saying? “Locks only keep honest people honest.” That wasn’t referring to any digital lock…that was referring to physical security locks like on a door. Digital locks like this novel theft deterrent, and even plainer and more simply, DRM, aren’t the ideal solution in this day and age.

A better idea, or one that would at least require far more know-how to deal with, would be to build the protection into the firmware in such a way that the user needs to enter a PIN (from the box, maybe, or displayed when they first authorize the iPod for the first time, or maybe user-set at initial setup) and needs to be used to charge and/or sync the device. This code would be embedded permanently into non-rewritable memory (preferrably encrypted, checksummed, and all that jazz to prevent tampering), would resist resetting with one of the Apple factory resets. Not only would that require an extreme amount of skill to remove by anyone other than an Apple techie, but it’d ensure the device could only be used by anyone who had the code.

Oh, and did I mention that it should be optional to set up, to avoid any outcry of people inconvenienced by their ATM code from avoiding the product. In this way, users can pick either the antitheft system, and a slight inconvenience, or ignore the security to avoid the hassle. Let the paranoid have their security, and let the lazy have their hurdle-less sync.

Enough rambling. Apple, if by some extremely odd chance you’re reading, I could use a bit of cash.