6 ms·

It was the people placing the tags that knowingly was breaking the law. There have been devices available for years that makes it easy to track somebody, they'r

It was the people placing the tags that knowingly was breaking the law. There have been devices available for years that makes it easy to track somebody, they're only suing Apple because Apple have a lot of money so the potential payout is big. This is like suing the phone company because your creepy ex calls and threatens you.

tyingq 4y ago
That Apple's system uses the huge existing network of "every iphone" does reduce the barrier to entry quite a lot. It's cheaper, doesn't require as much technical knowledge, placement considerations for GPS antennas, power source for hungrier devices, etc. And Apple did tout the features intended to discourage it being used this way.
- josefresco 4y ago
  > That Apple's system uses the huge existing network of "every iphone" does reduce the barrier to entry quite a lot. I bought a handful of Tiles to track my ATV/snowmobile that I leave out of state. Even when they're in my driveway, well within my Wi-Fi range they do not work. I'm going to ditch them for AirTags.
  - chipsa 4y ago
    Tiles need Bluetooth to work, not Wi-Fi.
    - josefresco 4y ago
      Wow. I feel like an idiot. Despite mentioning "GPS" several times in their copy, it does seem that Bluetooth is the only way to "find" a device. I still don't understand how the "GPS" part of their trackers work. Anyone have details? I'm going to remove them and attach to "household" items instead.
      - tyingq 4y ago
        The GPS part is just the tiles talking to any tile-enabled phone. The GPS is only in the phones, like: Any tile-enabled phone -> sees a tile -> sends a packet to the Tile mothership with the tile UUID + phone location. (Plus perhaps some nuances like guessing a more specific location for the tag based on bluetooth radio data)
      - sorenjan 4y ago
        Tile and Airtags works the same way. They broadcast a unique serial number over BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy), and phones and other devices nearby detects those. The phone sends this serial number together with its location to a server, which then tells the registered owner of the tag where it is. To find it locally the simpler ones just use received signal strength over Bluetooth, Airtags and iPhones have a more sophisticated system with a higher frequency radio with better localization, I don't remember the details. It's this first system where other devices take part in a huge sensor network that makes Airtags so powerful, there a lot of iOS devices out there and crucially they all run this code in the background. Tiles will never work as well, because you won't get the same number of people willingly running their app all the time. It's a network effect more than a technical problem.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - crhulls 4y ago
    Hi, I'm the CEO of Life360 and we recently bought Tile. We run on 13% of all iPhones in the US, and have Android coverage, and we are turning on our network to scan for Tile devices. We will have much closer parity to iOS very soon - in fact it is already happening. We do not use wifi - as to other commenters it is bluetooth only, but we have some other big plans in the works.
    - josefresco 4y ago
      Thanks for chiming in. Looks like it was my mistake in interpreting your product features. I'm going to attach them to household items but I'm still perplexed why each of my Tiles hasn't been "seen" in over a year yet I've ridden my ATV/snowmobile a handful of times during that period, all while having my phone in my pocket. Does the iOS app need to be open?
      - crhulls 4y ago
        No, it doesn't need to be open. If you send me a note at chris at life360.com I'll investigate why it isn't working. I'm curious myself and we only recently completed our acquisition of the company.
- saberience 4y ago
  AirTags or other “tracking devices” are not illegal. We don’t sue gun companies for selling legal weapons which are then used to illegally murder someone, do we? Do we sue knife companies when someone stabs someone using one of their knives? AirTags, like knives, are a useful tool that can also be used for purposes which are either illegal or borderline illegal. But we have so many tools which are like that, are we going to sue every company that sells something that could be used nefariously?
  - tyingq 4y ago
    Presumably the case would focus on marketing claims of protection against this kind of use versus reality, or basic due diligence, etc. A gun company that claimed specific protective features that didn't work, or missed some obvious base safety features would probably get sued, yes. I don't know enough about the product to know if any of that has any merit, but I assume that's what the plaintiffs will try to prove.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      There are many cases, such as: https://www.wmur.com/article/lawsuit-new-hampshire-sig-sauer-p320-pistol/42153865 https://www.wmur.com/article/lawsuit-new-hampshire-sig-sauer... In this cause the suit is that the gun is defective, it can fire without a trigger pull. The Apple suit is claiming negligence on the part of Apple because they did NOT do something "simple" to prevent tracking. It'll likely come down to whether that "simple" thing actually was, whether it was known, etc, etc. How a product is marketed can also come into play, which is why Apple has been very careful (just like gun manufacturers) to never say or imply that it could be used for crimes.
      - tyingq 4y ago
        >Apple has been very careful (just like gun manufacturers) to never say or imply that it could be used for crimes They have talked about it: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/02/an-update-on-airtag-and-unwanted-tracking/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/02/an-update-on-airtag-a... Even on the main product page (https://www.apple.com/airtag/ https://www.apple.com/airtag/) ..."AirTag is designed to discourage unwanted tracking".
- graywh 4y ago
  any civilian could even leverage someone's own Apple device to track them
NegativeK 4y ago
> This is like suing the phone company because your creepy ex calls and threatens you. I was going to try and come up with some witty way to claim that your phone company could enable direct physical violence against you, but that feels disingenuous. We have a responsibility, as humans, to not enable bad actors -- and the Airtag lies somewhere between a phone company and an obviously illegally sold remote access trojan. I think Apple's fucked up because they've been told repeatedly that they're making it trivially easy for people to commit crimes against others, whether it be vehicle theft or stalking, and their solution is just to add a very easily defeatable speaker. I want a lot more from one of the most powerful corporations in the world.
- arolihas 4y ago
  People on hackernews, for self-evident reasons, tend to not be receptive to the argument that some technologies shouldn't be made.
- yunwal 4y ago
  They have anti-stalking features (little notifications that say "The owner of this Airtag can see your location."). You can also trigger the airtag to play a sound if it's in your vicinity I believe. Ultimately, any device with location services will eventually be used this way. Even if it's cost-prohibitive now, you can definitely buy 5-year-old smartphones for the same purpose. This feels like something that you can't expect Apple to solve more than they already have, and needs to be handled by law enforcement.
  - NegativeK 4y ago
    I think we're disagreeing that if a organization makes bad behavior notably easier (a cheap Airtag with a long battery life that's implementable by the vast majority of people, versus an old cellphone), they bear proportionate responsibility for the bad behavior. It's not acceptable to me to significantly enable evil and just say that someone else (LEO) can handle it. In this case, that means figuring out stronger controls before releasing a product.
    - 4y ago
post_break 4y ago
Question, do you believe gun makers should be sued by victims of shootings? Do you believe beer makers should be sued by victims of drunk driving crashes? Just trying to see where we draw the line to be honest.
- SllX 4y ago
  You draw the line at personal responsibility. The gun maker didn’t pull the trigger and the beer maker didn’t pour it into your mouth and hand you the keys to your own car, and Apple didn’t attach these AirTags to these two women: but someone did, and that’s who is responsible.
  - sigzero 4y ago
    I don't know why this is so hard to understand. They are of course suing because $$$$.
    - SllX 4y ago
      I know, but that isn’t the question I was addressing.
  - yunwal 4y ago
    I think there are cases where manufacturers blatantly disregard opportunities for misuse that should fall upon them (Tesla's FSD releases with Elon's "wink wink don't take your hands off the wheel" come to mind). I just don't think this is one of them.
    - SllX 4y ago
      I would still hold the driver responsible in that case. The driver is licensed, they received the warnings, and it explicitly isn’t FSD (if you correct me and tell me that they’ve re-marketed the existing driver assist feature set as FSD I’ll probably believe you, just give me a link, but as far as I know they haven’t crossed that threshold).
causality0 4y ago
Welcome to the US. You shoot somebody and they sue the gun maker, you stab somebody and they sue the knife maker, you run somebody over and they sue the car maker.
- bound008 4y ago
  You can't civilly sue the gun maker for the actions of their users: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_...
  - tinalumfoil 4y ago
    Anymore. You only need a law because it was happening.
- robalfonso 4y ago
  This is hyperbole. You typically can't sue (and win) against the maker of an item used in a crime just because they manufactured it. There is usually some extenuating circumstance when these cases do prevail. For instance one manufacturer was found to have such incendiary marketing around their assault rifle it had risen to the level of a "call to arms". So typically it has to be more than "We are the manufacturer"
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    > For instance one manufacturer was found to have such incendiary marketing around their assault rifle it had risen to the level of a "call to arms". Which case? Corporations have free speech rights. They have artistic license to advertise their product as they see fit. I don't see how that's a "call to arms" anymore than military movies are.
hungryforcodes 4y ago
I think the payout is the main point here.
jeromenerf 4y ago
Apple has deep pockets and good lawyers. High reward, low probability. A judge may decide whether malice or stupidity led to the release of such commoditized trackers. I feel like it’s legitimate.

tyingq 4y ago

That Apple's system uses the huge existing network of "every iphone" does reduce the barrier to entry quite a lot. It's cheaper, doesn't require as much technical knowledge, placement considerations for GPS antennas, power source for hungrier devices, etc. And Apple did tout the features intended to discourage it being used this way.

josefresco 4y ago
> That Apple's system uses the huge existing network of "every iphone" does reduce the barrier to entry quite a lot. I bought a handful of Tiles to track my ATV/snowmobile that I leave out of state. Even when they're in my driveway, well within my Wi-Fi range they do not work. I'm going to ditch them for AirTags.
- chipsa 4y ago
  Tiles need Bluetooth to work, not Wi-Fi.
  - josefresco 4y ago
    Wow. I feel like an idiot. Despite mentioning "GPS" several times in their copy, it does seem that Bluetooth is the only way to "find" a device. I still don't understand how the "GPS" part of their trackers work. Anyone have details? I'm going to remove them and attach to "household" items instead.
    - tyingq 4y ago
      The GPS part is just the tiles talking to any tile-enabled phone. The GPS is only in the phones, like: Any tile-enabled phone -> sees a tile -> sends a packet to the Tile mothership with the tile UUID + phone location. (Plus perhaps some nuances like guessing a more specific location for the tag based on bluetooth radio data)
    - sorenjan 4y ago
      Tile and Airtags works the same way. They broadcast a unique serial number over BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy), and phones and other devices nearby detects those. The phone sends this serial number together with its location to a server, which then tells the registered owner of the tag where it is. To find it locally the simpler ones just use received signal strength over Bluetooth, Airtags and iPhones have a more sophisticated system with a higher frequency radio with better localization, I don't remember the details. It's this first system where other devices take part in a huge sensor network that makes Airtags so powerful, there a lot of iOS devices out there and crucially they all run this code in the background. Tiles will never work as well, because you won't get the same number of people willingly running their app all the time. It's a network effect more than a technical problem.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- crhulls 4y ago
  Hi, I'm the CEO of Life360 and we recently bought Tile. We run on 13% of all iPhones in the US, and have Android coverage, and we are turning on our network to scan for Tile devices. We will have much closer parity to iOS very soon - in fact it is already happening. We do not use wifi - as to other commenters it is bluetooth only, but we have some other big plans in the works.
  - josefresco 4y ago
    Thanks for chiming in. Looks like it was my mistake in interpreting your product features. I'm going to attach them to household items but I'm still perplexed why each of my Tiles hasn't been "seen" in over a year yet I've ridden my ATV/snowmobile a handful of times during that period, all while having my phone in my pocket. Does the iOS app need to be open?
    - crhulls 4y ago
      No, it doesn't need to be open. If you send me a note at chris at life360.com I'll investigate why it isn't working. I'm curious myself and we only recently completed our acquisition of the company.
saberience 4y ago
AirTags or other “tracking devices” are not illegal. We don’t sue gun companies for selling legal weapons which are then used to illegally murder someone, do we? Do we sue knife companies when someone stabs someone using one of their knives? AirTags, like knives, are a useful tool that can also be used for purposes which are either illegal or borderline illegal. But we have so many tools which are like that, are we going to sue every company that sells something that could be used nefariously?
- tyingq 4y ago
  Presumably the case would focus on marketing claims of protection against this kind of use versus reality, or basic due diligence, etc. A gun company that claimed specific protective features that didn't work, or missed some obvious base safety features would probably get sued, yes. I don't know enough about the product to know if any of that has any merit, but I assume that's what the plaintiffs will try to prove.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    There are many cases, such as: https://www.wmur.com/article/lawsuit-new-hampshire-sig-sauer-p320-pistol/42153865 https://www.wmur.com/article/lawsuit-new-hampshire-sig-sauer... In this cause the suit is that the gun is defective, it can fire without a trigger pull. The Apple suit is claiming negligence on the part of Apple because they did NOT do something "simple" to prevent tracking. It'll likely come down to whether that "simple" thing actually was, whether it was known, etc, etc. How a product is marketed can also come into play, which is why Apple has been very careful (just like gun manufacturers) to never say or imply that it could be used for crimes.
    - tyingq 4y ago
      >Apple has been very careful (just like gun manufacturers) to never say or imply that it could be used for crimes They have talked about it: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/02/an-update-on-airtag-and-unwanted-tracking/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/02/an-update-on-airtag-a... Even on the main product page (https://www.apple.com/airtag/ https://www.apple.com/airtag/) ..."AirTag is designed to discourage unwanted tracking".
graywh 4y ago
any civilian could even leverage someone's own Apple device to track them

NegativeK 4y ago

> This is like suing the phone company because your creepy ex calls and threatens you. I was going to try and come up with some witty way to claim that your phone company could enable direct physical violence against you, but that feels disingenuous. We have a responsibility, as humans, to not enable bad actors -- and the Airtag lies somewhere between a phone company and an obviously illegally sold remote access trojan. I think Apple's fucked up because they've been told repeatedly that they're making it trivially easy for people to commit crimes against others, whether it be vehicle theft or stalking, and their solution is just to add a very easily defeatable speaker. I want a lot more from one of the most powerful corporations in the world.

arolihas 4y ago
People on hackernews, for self-evident reasons, tend to not be receptive to the argument that some technologies shouldn't be made.
yunwal 4y ago
They have anti-stalking features (little notifications that say "The owner of this Airtag can see your location."). You can also trigger the airtag to play a sound if it's in your vicinity I believe. Ultimately, any device with location services will eventually be used this way. Even if it's cost-prohibitive now, you can definitely buy 5-year-old smartphones for the same purpose. This feels like something that you can't expect Apple to solve more than they already have, and needs to be handled by law enforcement.
- NegativeK 4y ago
  I think we're disagreeing that if a organization makes bad behavior notably easier (a cheap Airtag with a long battery life that's implementable by the vast majority of people, versus an old cellphone), they bear proportionate responsibility for the bad behavior. It's not acceptable to me to significantly enable evil and just say that someone else (LEO) can handle it. In this case, that means figuring out stronger controls before releasing a product.
  - 4y ago

post_break 4y ago

Question, do you believe gun makers should be sued by victims of shootings? Do you believe beer makers should be sued by victims of drunk driving crashes? Just trying to see where we draw the line to be honest.

SllX 4y ago
You draw the line at personal responsibility. The gun maker didn’t pull the trigger and the beer maker didn’t pour it into your mouth and hand you the keys to your own car, and Apple didn’t attach these AirTags to these two women: but someone did, and that’s who is responsible.
- sigzero 4y ago
  I don't know why this is so hard to understand. They are of course suing because $$$$.
  - SllX 4y ago
    I know, but that isn’t the question I was addressing.
- yunwal 4y ago
  I think there are cases where manufacturers blatantly disregard opportunities for misuse that should fall upon them (Tesla's FSD releases with Elon's "wink wink don't take your hands off the wheel" come to mind). I just don't think this is one of them.
  - SllX 4y ago
    I would still hold the driver responsible in that case. The driver is licensed, they received the warnings, and it explicitly isn’t FSD (if you correct me and tell me that they’ve re-marketed the existing driver assist feature set as FSD I’ll probably believe you, just give me a link, but as far as I know they haven’t crossed that threshold).

causality0 4y ago

Welcome to the US. You shoot somebody and they sue the gun maker, you stab somebody and they sue the knife maker, you run somebody over and they sue the car maker.

bound008 4y ago
You can't civilly sue the gun maker for the actions of their users: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_...
- tinalumfoil 4y ago
  Anymore. You only need a law because it was happening.
robalfonso 4y ago
This is hyperbole. You typically can't sue (and win) against the maker of an item used in a crime just because they manufactured it. There is usually some extenuating circumstance when these cases do prevail. For instance one manufacturer was found to have such incendiary marketing around their assault rifle it had risen to the level of a "call to arms". So typically it has to be more than "We are the manufacturer"
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  > For instance one manufacturer was found to have such incendiary marketing around their assault rifle it had risen to the level of a "call to arms". Which case? Corporations have free speech rights. They have artistic license to advertise their product as they see fit. I don't see how that's a "call to arms" anymore than military movies are.

hungryforcodes 4y ago

I think the payout is the main point here.

jeromenerf 4y ago

Apple has deep pockets and good lawyers. High reward, low probability. A judge may decide whether malice or stupidity led to the release of such commoditized trackers. I feel like it’s legitimate.