...and IMHO those "security or privacy issues" are an acceptable cost of freedom, the same way that I see crime in general: no one wants to be a victim, but you can see that, as long as crime still exists, so does freedom. If no one can do "bad things", then everyone has already had the essence of life taken out of them. I wrote this comment a few months ago when (almost) everyone was wondering what could be done, in the wake of a massive malware attack:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14339031

More timely, the WTC attacks 16 years ago marked another notable event whereafter great freedom was lost in the name of safety.

As that old saying goes, "Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."

As I mentioned in a sibling comment, and it's almost ironic thinking about it, this "freedom for security" tradeoff we're making here is not what it seems.

I see your point in the context of e.g. WannaCry and WTC attacks emboldening authoritarians, however this privacy move we're discussing is actually an anti-authoritarian move. It gives the user more privacy and more freedom.

Advocating more lax privacy/security in this case is siding with authoritarian tendencies.

Apple is only shifting the authority to itself. They still have the signing keys and control what you can or cannot do with the device you "purchased".

In that vein, it would be awesome to see some base open sourced ala Darwin. Even if all it did was drop your iPhone into a command prompt after boot it would be enough.

That argument is more reasonable if users had no platform choice. A cellphone can track your location and listen in on your conversations so you may reasonably want more security than say a PC.