5 ms·

Yeah, I think the point of these devices is for locating lost items, not stolen items. Trying to handle the stolen use case but not allowing nefarious tracking

Yeah, I think the point of these devices is for locating lost items, not stolen items. Trying to handle the stolen use case but not allowing nefarious tracking seems to be at odds with each other.

pompino 2y ago
Sure, but the owner of the product gets to choose what they use it for. "You're holding it wrong" strikes again. If Apple's position is - "then don't buy it", they can come out and say it. They certainly have that right.
- happyopossum 2y ago
  > If Apple's position is - "then don't buy it", they can come out and say it. They certainly have that right. They have done that since day one, when AirTags shipped with anti-tracking features enabled...
mschuster91 2y ago
Depends on what you're trying to track if it's stolen. A compartment in something like a car or an eBike that allows removal only by using an actually high-security key (i.e. something that LockPickingLawyer can't pick) or power tools that would seriously compromise the structural integrity of the thing in question would be something I'd pay serious money for... but no manufacturer of anything I'm aware of has actually gone that far.
- close04 2y ago
  VanMoof bikes connected to the Find My network if I remember correctly. I thought you can pay for access. But to disincentivize theft, any device would have to be built in such a way that swapping the electronics or discarding that tracking module makes the device you were protecting worthless. Lots of secure handshakes between paired components, very secure software kept up to date, etc. which sounds unrealistic in most cases. Together with that network access fee probably makes such solutions economically infeasible today.
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    > I thought you can pay for access. Or I could just buy an AirTag on my own. > But to disincentivize theft, any device would have to be built in such a way that swapping the electronics or discarding that tracking module makes the device you were protecting worthless. Not really. It just needs to be so difficult to remove without a key that thieves physically cannot remove / disable the tag without threatening the stability of the bike, car or whatever. Doesn't need to be perfect, all it needs to do is provide sufficient survival time against your average crackhead.
    - close04 2y ago
      An AirTag is a lost item tracker. What I was mentioning is a stolen item tracker. Very different propositions. You’re proposing something that may be a paradox. The only way to make something physically hard to remove is to integrate it. Locks are proven to be ineffective for this purpose. When this ideal lock is invented you will simply lock your bike with it directly and achieve the goal of theft deterrence to begin with. No need for tracking if stealing the bike destroys it. Getting an AirTag into a mechanically locked compartment of your bike is useless. You even mentioned LPL so you know any such lock will be bypassed in a matter of seconds, maybe even less time than it takes you to put the AirTag you just bought in there. So your theoretical protection model hinges on something that doesn’t exist yet: a lock that you can easily open to put an AirTag in and service it but that nobody else can unlock. Car or e-bike manufacturers paying for access to any “find my” network means they can heavily integrate the expensive electronics in a way that makes removing the “tracker” part truly impossible (it’s on a main controller chip) or severely devalues the object if you do (the chip/board is prohibitively expensive and impossible to find on the open market). It’s more expensive and kills self repair but reliable anti theft might be worth it to you. Think of the iPhone model here. At the end of the day the Find My network exists to be used by different manufacturers [0]. The unpickable lock doesn’t. [0] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/04/apples-find-my-network-now-offers-new-third-party-finding-experiences/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/04/apples-find-my-networ...
      - mschuster91 2y ago

Yeah, I think the point of these devices is for locating lost items, not stolen items. Trying to handle the stolen use case but not allowing nefarious tracking seems to be at odds with each other.

pompino 2y ago

Sure, but the owner of the product gets to choose what they use it for. "You're holding it wrong" strikes again. If Apple's position is - "then don't buy it", they can come out and say it. They certainly have that right.

happyopossum 2y ago
> If Apple's position is - "then don't buy it", they can come out and say it. They certainly have that right. They have done that since day one, when AirTags shipped with anti-tracking features enabled...

mschuster91 2y ago

Depends on what you're trying to track if it's stolen. A compartment in something like a car or an eBike that allows removal only by using an actually high-security key (i.e. something that LockPickingLawyer can't pick) or power tools that would seriously compromise the structural integrity of the thing in question would be something I'd pay serious money for... but no manufacturer of anything I'm aware of has actually gone that far.

close04 2y ago
VanMoof bikes connected to the Find My network if I remember correctly. I thought you can pay for access. But to disincentivize theft, any device would have to be built in such a way that swapping the electronics or discarding that tracking module makes the device you were protecting worthless. Lots of secure handshakes between paired components, very secure software kept up to date, etc. which sounds unrealistic in most cases. Together with that network access fee probably makes such solutions economically infeasible today.
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > I thought you can pay for access. Or I could just buy an AirTag on my own. > But to disincentivize theft, any device would have to be built in such a way that swapping the electronics or discarding that tracking module makes the device you were protecting worthless. Not really. It just needs to be so difficult to remove without a key that thieves physically cannot remove / disable the tag without threatening the stability of the bike, car or whatever. Doesn't need to be perfect, all it needs to do is provide sufficient survival time against your average crackhead.
  - close04 2y ago
    An AirTag is a lost item tracker. What I was mentioning is a stolen item tracker. Very different propositions. You’re proposing something that may be a paradox. The only way to make something physically hard to remove is to integrate it. Locks are proven to be ineffective for this purpose. When this ideal lock is invented you will simply lock your bike with it directly and achieve the goal of theft deterrence to begin with. No need for tracking if stealing the bike destroys it. Getting an AirTag into a mechanically locked compartment of your bike is useless. You even mentioned LPL so you know any such lock will be bypassed in a matter of seconds, maybe even less time than it takes you to put the AirTag you just bought in there. So your theoretical protection model hinges on something that doesn’t exist yet: a lock that you can easily open to put an AirTag in and service it but that nobody else can unlock. Car or e-bike manufacturers paying for access to any “find my” network means they can heavily integrate the expensive electronics in a way that makes removing the “tracker” part truly impossible (it’s on a main controller chip) or severely devalues the object if you do (the chip/board is prohibitively expensive and impossible to find on the open market). It’s more expensive and kills self repair but reliable anti theft might be worth it to you. Think of the iPhone model here. At the end of the day the Find My network exists to be used by different manufacturers [0]. The unpickable lock doesn’t. [0] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/04/apples-find-my-network-now-offers-new-third-party-finding-experiences/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/04/apples-find-my-networ...
    - mschuster91 2y ago