4 ms·

Domestic abuser busted in the act of putting an AirTag on a car

11 points by ashitlerferad 5y ago

kelseyfrog 5y ago
The article gives a false impression that those being tracked have the tools to discover that they are being tracked. It lists two ways. One is that "the AirTag itself begins sounding an alarm after it has been separated from its owner for a time." Which is how they are designed, but not necessarily how they used in practice[1]. AirTag speakers can be disabled, and are resold this way for this use. The second way is more insidious. It shifts the responsibility to the people being tracked by making the claim "After a period of time, the victim's iPhone would show a notification that an AirTag had been tracking them. If the victim has an Android instead, then there wouldn't be the same on-screen notification." That's not exactly terrible for iPhone users, but offers nothing for the 66% of people[2] who are not iPhone users. It assumes that Apple's manufacture of such devices is inevitable - that nothing can be done to stop it, so everyone else must live with the consequences. Especially people who have already opted out by not purchasing an iPhone. The suggested behavior for these folks? Buy an iPhone to ensure you're not tracked, or what? 1. Silenced AirTags with disabled speakers are popping up for sale online (gizmodo.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30196371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30196371 2. In the US.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  It's only a mitigation and requires user action, but there is an Android app "Tracker Detect" that should detect separated trackers when it is running. There is also some talk of a cross platform framework. Which would be a good outcome compared to no cross platform framework (but it doesn't really solve the problem).
  - kelseyfrog 5y ago
    Yes, even though such measures exist, I personally feel that strongly puts the social imperative on the person being tracked and that is wrong. If I hear the phrase, "but she could have scanned for AirTags", I fear my blood will boil at the implication that someone thought the person being tracked was in anyway culpable of the consequences.

11 points by ashitlerferad 5y ago

The article gives a false impression that those being tracked have the tools to discover that they are being tracked. It lists two ways. One is that "the AirTag itself begins sounding an alarm after it has been separated from its owner for a time." Which is how they are designed, but not necessarily how they used in practice[1]. AirTag speakers can be disabled, and are resold this way for this use. The second way is more insidious. It shifts the responsibility to the people being tracked by making the claim "After a period of time, the victim's iPhone would show a notification that an AirTag had been tracking them. If the victim has an Android instead, then there wouldn't be the same on-screen notification." That's not exactly terrible for iPhone users, but offers nothing for the 66% of people[2] who are not iPhone users. It assumes that Apple's manufacture of such devices is inevitable - that nothing can be done to stop it, so everyone else must live with the consequences. Especially people who have already opted out by not purchasing an iPhone. The suggested behavior for these folks? Buy an iPhone to ensure you're not tracked, or what? 1. Silenced AirTags with disabled speakers are popping up for sale online (gizmodo.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30196371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30196371 2. In the US.

maxerickson 5y ago
It's only a mitigation and requires user action, but there is an Android app "Tracker Detect" that should detect separated trackers when it is running. There is also some talk of a cross platform framework. Which would be a good outcome compared to no cross platform framework (but it doesn't really solve the problem).
- kelseyfrog 5y ago
  Yes, even though such measures exist, I personally feel that strongly puts the social imperative on the person being tracked and that is wrong. If I hear the phrase, "but she could have scanned for AirTags", I fear my blood will boil at the implication that someone thought the person being tracked was in anyway culpable of the consequences.