4 ms·
Given all the edge cases with AirTags (i.e., everything from "dog stalker" to actual stalkers), I get the sense Apple didn't bother to do much adversarial usabi
by the_snooze 4y ago
Given all the edge cases with AirTags (i.e., everything from "dog stalker" to actual stalkers), I get the sense Apple didn't bother to do much adversarial usability testing on these things. They made a thing because it's cool tech, damn everything else, if you don't like it then tough shit.
- madeofpalk 4y agoI get the complete opposite impression - they did more of that than others, compromising the product (in one sense) to accomodate for bad actors, resulting in 'bugs' like this.
- the_snooze 4y agoI disagree in that I see bugs like this help bad actors. If users are conditioned to accept false alarms from rather common use cases, then that weakens true alarms about actual stalkers. It's an inherent contradiction in the AirTag's anti-stalking requirements: it needs to be a useful alarm and not go off under "normal" proximity relationships, but most stalkers are people close to the victim to begin with. If I were building a system with such self-defeating requirements, I would take a step back and either roll it out very slowly, or conclude that this is a bad idea completely.
- some_random 4y agoI can't imagine you've actually read into the anti-stalking measures they've implemented because it's pretty damn clear to me that they've thought about adversarial usage. You can absolutely disagree with where they drew the lines between safety and usability, but claiming they didn't think about it past "cool tech" is farcical.