4 ms·

I don't understand why AirTags being used for stalking would open Apple to lawsuits. If I buy a hammer and use it to attack someone, the manufacturer of the ham

I don't understand why AirTags being used for stalking would open Apple to lawsuits. If I buy a hammer and use it to attack someone, the manufacturer of the hammer isn't open to a lawsuit. Of course I'm not saying Apple shouldn't try to protect people from stalkers using their control over their products, I just don't see why it would make Appld responsible if someone misused their products.

TuringNYC 2y ago
IANAL but the hammer doesnt include an ongoing service, but the AirTag is facilitated with a constant service from the manufacturer.
- unsupp0rted 2y ago
  Also AirTags are meant for tracking personal possessions. Hammers aren't meant for murder. Murder is an off-label use of hammers. If AirTags stopped notifying users they're being tracked, then AirTags would also be meant for tracking people.
  - franga2000 2y ago
    > If AirTags stopped notifying users they're being tracked, then AirTags would also be meant for tracking people. What?? That's like by not including a sound device that screams "look out, you're being murdered!" on every hammer when it's swung, manufacturers are saying their hammers are also intended for murder. Now that Apple has this feature, sure, removing it might raise some eyebrows, but the theft tracking use-case is so obvious and useful that no judge would ever believe that Apple did this specifically to enable stalking.
0xffff2 2y ago
Conversely, people have been suing gun manufacturers after shootings basically forever.
- jjeaff 2y ago
  Ya, but those cases have tended to get a bit more traction because the primary purpose of firearms is to kill and there are lots of things that gun makers could do to make it more difficult to kill people with them (like built in locking mechanisms). A little different than say, a hammer, which is not meant as a weapon of death.
  - wyager 2y ago
    Gun manufacturers could add pointless and customer-hostile complications to guns just like apple can add customer-hostile complications to airtags. The case against Apple is even stronger, because at least apple's complications have a chance of doing something useful, and Apple provides an ongoing service where firearm manufacturers do not. There's also no reasonable standard by which you can claim guns are being made to murder people but AirTags are not being made to stalk people. A vanishingly small fraction of total sales ever goes towards either of these undesirable use cases. The smart move here is to get your risk models in order and stop worrying about either of these things.

TuringNYC 2y ago

IANAL but the hammer doesnt include an ongoing service, but the AirTag is facilitated with a constant service from the manufacturer.

unsupp0rted 2y ago
Also AirTags are meant for tracking personal possessions. Hammers aren't meant for murder. Murder is an off-label use of hammers. If AirTags stopped notifying users they're being tracked, then AirTags would also be meant for tracking people.
- franga2000 2y ago
  > If AirTags stopped notifying users they're being tracked, then AirTags would also be meant for tracking people. What?? That's like by not including a sound device that screams "look out, you're being murdered!" on every hammer when it's swung, manufacturers are saying their hammers are also intended for murder. Now that Apple has this feature, sure, removing it might raise some eyebrows, but the theft tracking use-case is so obvious and useful that no judge would ever believe that Apple did this specifically to enable stalking.

0xffff2 2y ago

Conversely, people have been suing gun manufacturers after shootings basically forever.

jjeaff 2y ago
Ya, but those cases have tended to get a bit more traction because the primary purpose of firearms is to kill and there are lots of things that gun makers could do to make it more difficult to kill people with them (like built in locking mechanisms). A little different than say, a hammer, which is not meant as a weapon of death.
- wyager 2y ago
  Gun manufacturers could add pointless and customer-hostile complications to guns just like apple can add customer-hostile complications to airtags. The case against Apple is even stronger, because at least apple's complications have a chance of doing something useful, and Apple provides an ongoing service where firearm manufacturers do not. There's also no reasonable standard by which you can claim guns are being made to murder people but AirTags are not being made to stalk people. A vanishingly small fraction of total sales ever goes towards either of these undesirable use cases. The smart move here is to get your risk models in order and stop worrying about either of these things.