XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-10   
   From: this@ddress.is.invalid   
      
   AJL  wrote:   
   > On 1/20/2026 1:39 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:   
   > > AJL wrote:   
   >   
   > >>> Unless you're Jeffrey Epstein, they likely want the hardware, not   
   > >>> the data.   
   > >>   
   > >> True. But even then the reason for having a device lock is to make   
   > >> wiping it easier than the perp (or new owner) browsing your data   
   > >> and then wiping it...   
   > >   
   > > Well, I don't disagree that adding a pin/password/biometric or other   
   > > marketing gimmick is necessary for people "who live in the slums".   
   >   
   > In my last life I took 1000s of burglary reports. The better parts of   
   > town were definitely not spared. Not even those living on the mountain   
   > sides in their million dollar homes.   
      
     Please don't spoil his rant with facts from the real world.   
      
   > > But I'm not afraid of my wife. I'm not afraid of my family. I'm not   
   > > afraid of my friends. I'm not afraid of my neighbors.   
   >   
   > Me neither. If you're burglarized the perps will likely not be from   
   > your neighborhood.   
   >   
   > > The amount of times anyone is burglarized is so minuscule   
   >   
   > But I'll bet you have homeowners insurance that covers it.   
      
     Ouch!   
      
   > > it's something that has to be weighed against the inconvenience of   
   > > all this 'security'.   
   >   
   > The insurance of a pin/print is not a great inconvenience IMO. YMMV as   
   > always...   
      
     It's quite hilarious that someone who is so paranoid about his   
   'privacy' on Usenet, is so flippant about the risk of burglary/theft and   
   the real and possibly quite severe *privacy* consequences.   
      
     And, as you say, when properly set up, there hardly is any   
   'inconvenience' involved.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)