Reminder that quote is so out of context that the actual meaning, as it was intended, is wildly different.

https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-be...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5268899

https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...

I am sorry if I have caused any misunderstanding; the point I was trying to make is that, as ownership is a nebulous concept, yet one that must be protected, one with physical access to a device ought to be able to do whatever they want to it. To imply that bootloader locking is not primarily used to restrict what the owner of a device is able to do with it is disingenuous at best. I fundamentally disagree with the concept of bootloader locks in general under the idea that the evil that corporations are able to enact with them has historically far outweighed the real life security concerns that they actually protect users against. I understand this may be a controversial viewpoint but personally I feel (opinion) that the erosion of ownership is one of the most important issues we face today.