This is going to be a real PAIN. Suppose I get on a train for a couple of hours and ten people are in the train with their own AirTags. Am I going to get notifications from that? How would iOS know when I'm being tracked and when I'm not? Is it just based on time? What's the time minimum that triggers the warning? An hour? A day? A week?
If the owner is nearby the tag, I guess that would suppress that kind of message.
As I said above, that might solve the problem. Except that some people turn off their phones, (which is what some people do on airplanes, to save energy when they can't call) and when that happens, the alarms will have to start triggering again. Or in another case, if the luggage is just out of range of the person who owns the phone, but you're within range of that same luggage. It depends how the range feature is implemented. There will be many scenarios like this which will create so many false alarms the feature will just be turned off by users.
Ok? Most people don't have much of a concern with being stalked anyway.
it would only take one or two high-profile kidnapping or murder cases where an Airtag helped make it possible for it to suddenly become a major issue. I'd be certain Apple has realized that too and may be working with Google on Android compatibility.
My whole point is that most people (not me) have a very low tolerance for unwanted messages, so they would turn off the feature, and then end up being stalked/killed/etc. So Apple will say "it wasn't our fault, we allowed people to enable stalking detection" but nobody is going to use that feature because it might be very annoying. And if nobody uses the feature, it won't actually work or save anyone from being stalked.
My relatives whom I support will likely demand that the feature be turned off if they get false alarms. And if they keep the feature enabled, they won't have the wherewithal to realize when there's a threat.
This is going to be a real PAIN. Suppose I get on a train for a couple of hours and ten people are in the train with their own AirTags. Am I going to get notifications from that? How would iOS know when I'm being tracked and when I'm not? Is it just based on time? What's the time minimum that triggers the warning? An hour? A day? A week?
If the owner is nearby the tag, I guess that would suppress that kind of message.
As I said above, that might solve the problem. Except that some people turn off their phones, (which is what some people do on airplanes, to save energy when they can't call) and when that happens, the alarms will have to start triggering again. Or in another case, if the luggage is just out of range of the person who owns the phone, but you're within range of that same luggage. It depends how the range feature is implemented. There will be many scenarios like this which will create so many false alarms the feature will just be turned off by users.
Ok? Most people don't have much of a concern with being stalked anyway.
it would only take one or two high-profile kidnapping or murder cases where an Airtag helped make it possible for it to suddenly become a major issue. I'd be certain Apple has realized that too and may be working with Google on Android compatibility.
My whole point is that most people (not me) have a very low tolerance for unwanted messages, so they would turn off the feature, and then end up being stalked/killed/etc. So Apple will say "it wasn't our fault, we allowed people to enable stalking detection" but nobody is going to use that feature because it might be very annoying. And if nobody uses the feature, it won't actually work or save anyone from being stalked.
My relatives whom I support will likely demand that the feature be turned off if they get false alarms. And if they keep the feature enabled, they won't have the wherewithal to realize when there's a threat.
You seem very determined to find issues with a product and feature we know nothing about.
Let's start with this statement: "My whole point is that most people (not me) have a very low tolerance for unwanted messages, so they would turn off the feature, and then end up being stalked/killed/etc."
You are literally saying that most people will turn off this feature and will end up being stalked or killed*. Given that no one has this feature and the violent crime rate in the U.S. is really low, I don't know how you came to the conclusion that Apple introducing this feature and people disabling it will result in some sort of stalking and killing rampage. It just doesn't logically follow.
As for your concern about people getting unwanted messages goes, I doubt that will be an issue. As someone else mentioned I'm guessing Apple has put a lot of thought into this rather than adding it on a whim. And it isn't like Apple has have zero experience with spatial orientation of two devices. A Mac can tell where an Apple Watch is well enough to know if the wearer is trying to access their Mac or if someone hear the wearer is trying access their Mac. So, I'm guessing Apple's engineering team can figure out ways to tell when someone is on a train near other AirTags vs. there is an AirTag on their person and moving around with them. As for your car example, my phone pairs with my car via bluetooth. It knows when I am in my car so it isn't a big stretch for it to know that I am in my car, my car is moving and there is an AirTag in the car that isn't mine. You seem to think the only data points that Apple would use are the location of the phone and the AirTag and not the mountain of contextual data that phone can use to figure out the scenario and if there should be a concern about an unregistered AirTag near it.
* For context of just how ridiculous this claim is. 5 people per 100K are murdered and 1400 in every 100k experience some level of stalking. So 1.405% of the population is impacted by the two combined. There are 115-ish million iPhone users in the U.S and the U.S population is 328 million. If we define most iPhone users as 51% of the user base then you are suggesting that 16% of the U.S population is going to be stalked or killed due to turning off this feature. That would be a stunning rise in both crimes and all because Apple introduced a feature and people turned it off.
This is going to be a real PAIN. Suppose I get on a train for a couple of hours and ten people are in the train with their own AirTags. Am I going to get notifications from that? How would iOS know when I'm being tracked and when I'm not? Is it just based on time? What's the time minimum that triggers the warning? An hour? A day? A week?
If the owner is nearby the tag, I guess that would suppress that kind of message.
As I said above, that might solve the problem. Except that some people turn off their phones, (which is what some people do on airplanes, to save energy when they can't call) and when that happens, the alarms will have to start triggering again. Or in another case, if the luggage is just out of range of the person who owns the phone, but you're within range of that same luggage. It depends how the range feature is implemented. There will be many scenarios like this which will create so many false alarms the feature will just be turned off by users.
Ok? Most people don't have much of a concern with being stalked anyway.
it would only take one or two high-profile kidnapping or murder cases where an Airtag helped make it possible for it to suddenly become a major issue. I'd be certain Apple has realized that too and may be working with Google on Android compatibility.
My whole point is that most people (not me) have a very low tolerance for unwanted messages, so they would turn off the feature, and then end up being stalked/killed/etc. So Apple will say "it wasn't our fault, we allowed people to enable stalking detection" but nobody is going to use that feature because it might be very annoying. And if nobody uses the feature, it won't actually work or save anyone from being stalked.
My relatives whom I support will likely demand that the feature be turned off if they get false alarms. And if they keep the feature enabled, they won't have the wherewithal to realize when there's a threat.
It's hard to tell if you're making these bad faith arguments intentionally or if you are simply unable to see the multiple logical fallacies you're presenting. You honestly think Apple hasn't considered how this product/service presents itself in real world use? Please.
The newly-renamed "AirTags" privacy feature (source: Benjamin Mayo)
Anybody else think this message is confusing as he11 - what am I disabling - the owner of the unknown item's ability to see my location or my notification of unknown items?
That was my reaction too. Bad wording.
I think that's a warning message that you're disabling notification because you're setting a safety feature slider to off, so in the context of the Settings app it probably makes more sense.
This is going to be a real PAIN. Suppose I get on a train for a couple of hours and ten people are in the train with their own AirTags. Am I going to get notifications from that? How would iOS know when I'm being tracked and when I'm not? Is it just based on time? What's the time minimum that triggers the warning? An hour? A day? A week?
It’s like you can never imagine Apple testing the most common of test cases.
This is going to be a real PAIN. Suppose I get on a train for a couple of hours and ten people are in the train with their own AirTags. Am I going to get notifications from that? How would iOS know when I'm being tracked and when I'm not? Is it just based on time? What's the time minimum that triggers the warning? An hour? A
Do you really think Apple didn't consider that use case? I would wait and see.
This is going to be a real PAIN. Suppose I get on a train for a couple of hours and ten people are in the train with their own AirTags. Am I going to get notifications from that? How would iOS know when I'm being tracked and when I'm not? Is it just based on time? What's the time minimum that triggers the warning? An hour? A day? A week?
If the owner is nearby the tag, I guess that would suppress that kind of message.
As I said above, that might solve the problem. Except that some people turn off their phones, (which is what some people do on airplanes, to save energy when they can't call) and when that happens, the alarms will have to start triggering again. Or in another case, if the luggage is just out of range of the person who owns the phone, but you're within range of that same luggage. It depends how the range feature is implemented. There will be many scenarios like this which will create so many false alarms the feature will just be turned off by users.
Ok? Most people don't have much of a concern with being stalked anyway.
it would only take one or two high-profile kidnapping or murder cases where an Airtag helped make it possible for it to suddenly become a major issue. I'd be certain Apple has realized that too and may be working with Google on Android compatibility.
My whole point is that most people (not me) have a very low tolerance for unwanted messages, so they would turn off the feature, and then end up being stalked/killed/etc. So Apple will say "it wasn't our fault, we allowed people to enable stalking detection" but nobody is going to use that feature because it might be very annoying. And if nobody uses the feature, it won't actually work or save anyone from being stalked.
My relatives whom I support will likely demand that the feature be turned off if they get false alarms. And if they keep the feature enabled, they won't have the wherewithal to realize when there's a threat.
You seem very determined to find issues with a product and feature we know nothing about.
Let's start with this statement: "My whole point is that most people (not me) have a very low tolerance for unwanted messages, so they would turn off the feature, and then end up being stalked/killed/etc."
You are literally saying that most people will turn off this feature and will end up being stalked or killed*. Given that no one has this feature and the violent crime rate in the U.S. is really low, I don't know how you came to the conclusion that Apple introducing this feature and people disabling it will result in some sort of stalking and killing rampage. It just doesn't logically follow.
As for your concern about people getting unwanted messages goes, I doubt that will be an issue. As someone else mentioned I'm guessing Apple has put a lot of thought into this rather than adding it on a whim. And it isn't like Apple has have zero experience with spatial orientation of two devices. A Mac can tell where an Apple Watch is well enough to know if the wearer is trying to access their Mac or if someone hear the wearer is trying access their Mac. So, I'm guessing Apple's engineering team can figure out ways to tell when someone is on a train near other AirTags vs. there is an AirTag on their person and moving around with them. As for your car example, my phone pairs with my car via bluetooth. It knows when I am in my car so it isn't a big stretch for it to know that I am in my car, my car is moving and there is an AirTag in the car that isn't mine. You seem to think the only data points that Apple would use are the location of the phone and the AirTag and not the mountain of contextual data that phone can use to figure out the scenario and if there should be a concern about an unregistered AirTag near it.
* For context of just how ridiculous this claim is. 5 people per 100K are murdered and 1400 in every 100k experience some level of stalking. So 1.405% of the population is impacted by the two combined. There are 115-ish million iPhone users in the U.S and the U.S population is 328 million. If we define most iPhone users as 51% of the user base then you are suggesting that 16% of the U.S population is going to be stalked or killed due to turning off this feature. That would be a stunning rise in both crimes and all because Apple introduced a feature and people turned it off.
If you really think that I said "most people would end up getting killed" then you really have a good imagination. The word "most" was only meant to apply to "have a low tolerance for unwanted messages." Do you disagree that most people have a low tolerance for unwanted messages? Obviously I was not saying that "most iPhone users who turn off this feature would be stalked or killed." That's an obvious misinterpretation by you. I don't need to defend myself. Obviously I was not saying "16% of the US population is going to get stalked or killed due to turning off this feature" as you said I was saying. I don't think I've ever used the words "straw man argument" before, but this post really deserves that. A perfect example.
But since this is your first post against me in months, I won't chalk this up to anything but an honest mistake. If it was Crawley, I would assume the error was intentional. Although by tomorrow I might have forgotten everything Crawley said.
This is going to be a real PAIN. Suppose I get on a train for a couple of hours and ten people are in the train with their own AirTags. Am I going to get notifications from that? How would iOS know when I'm being tracked and when I'm not? Is it just based on time? What's the time minimum that triggers the warning? An hour? A
Do you really think Apple didn't consider that use case? I would wait and see.
For it to effectively work without being used to stalk someone Airtags would need to be discoverable by non-Apple devices too. Requiring an iPhone in order to be notified covers far less than a third of the US population so chances are high you would not be aware of the stalker without a companion Android notification. Even then millions of Americans would lack any notice at all.
I'm not sure how that would work as there isn't and really can't be a universal and secure system in place for this. Apple has one, and it's already in use for items that are offline. This just takes it to another level with UWB in AirTags.
If your missing device can’t connect to the internet, the Find My app can still help you track it down using the Find My network — hundreds of millions of iPhone, iPad, and Mac devices around the world. Nearby devices securely send the location of your missing device to iCloud, then you can see where it is in the Find My app. It’s all anonymous and encrypted to protect everyone’s privacy.
This is going to be a real PAIN. Suppose I get on a train for a couple of hours and ten people are in the train with their own AirTags. Am I going to get notifications from that? How would iOS know when I'm being tracked and when I'm not? Is it just based on time? What's the time minimum that triggers the warning? An hour? A day? A week?
If the owner is nearby the tag, I guess that would suppress that kind of message.
As I said above, that might solve the problem. Except that some people turn off their phones, (which is what some people do on airplanes, to save energy when they can't call) and when that happens, the alarms will have to start triggering again. Or in another case, if the luggage is just out of range of the person who owns the phone, but you're within range of that same luggage. It depends how the range feature is implemented. There will be many scenarios like this which will create so many false alarms the feature will just be turned off by users.
Ok? Most people don't have much of a concern with being stalked anyway.
it would only take one or two high-profile kidnapping or murder cases where an Airtag helped make it possible for it to suddenly become a major issue. I'd be certain Apple has realized that too and may be working with Google on Android compatibility.
My whole point is that most people (not me) have a very low tolerance for unwanted messages, so they would turn off the feature, and then end up being stalked/killed/etc. So Apple will say "it wasn't our fault, we allowed people to enable stalking detection" but nobody is going to use that feature because it might be very annoying. And if nobody uses the feature, it won't actually work or save anyone from being stalked.
My relatives whom I support will likely demand that the feature be turned off if they get false alarms. And if they keep the feature enabled, they won't have the wherewithal to realize when there's a threat.
It's hard to tell if you're making these bad faith arguments intentionally or if you are simply unable to see the multiple logical fallacies you're presenting. You honestly think Apple hasn't considered how this product/service presents itself in real world use? Please.
My iPhone and Mac often create popups for security related messages. Just today I got a popup saying that the clock app on my Apple Watch wanted to access my location, and do I want to approve that? Why should it ask me that even though I've been using my clock app for years without changing it? This is exactly the kind of unwanted message that I'm worried about with AirTags. And don't state that "I honestly think that Apple has considered how this product/service works." Don't tell me what I think. Of course I have considered it, I'm just saying that it's a difficult problem to solve and that many average people will be annoyed by false positives and will turn off the feature. Are you denying that this is going to happen?
And if you think I have created "multiple logical fallacies" why not actually point out what one of them is so we can have a productive conversation? You accuse me of "fallacies" and "bad faith arguments" without actually explaining what you think they are. I'm glad you think I'm able to read your mind, but I confess that I cannot. At least my points were explained, you offered no explanations at all. How does that contribute anything to these forums?
I have not followed all the “what ifs” in this conversation but I am thinking Lojack for my little camper! No fees, easy to hide..... Waiting...…🙂
Yes, but it would also be easy to locate on your camper. There are only 2 options (as far as I know) of phones that support UWB, which this device will reportedly have, but it won't take long to have a program written that looks for these devices.
Now, that isn't to say that this simple Linux app could read the encrypted data—it won't—but it doesn't have to. Of course, crimes of opportunity usually aren't going to have people scanning for devices so this will certainly help.
Ah, this thread reminds me of the “Hey You!” days when people dropped in to share their bizarre mental contortions concerning stealing your phone from your pocket, calling out “Hey You!” and unlocking your device when you “Huh? Wussat?” to see who shouted. Then you stand there blinking while the criminal mastermind disappears into the crowd with your unlocked iPhone.
As @Happy_Noodle_Boy pointed out, Apple has a myriad set of data points which they can use to decide if you’re being followed.
How close is the unknown tag? Are you in a car? You’re in the train. Are all the tags around you linked to devices close by? You’ve left the train. Are there any tags without an owner device in close proximity still travelling a foot from your body?
And in any of these situations, has this tag been reported as stolen or missing? If so then send its location to the network.
This is going to be a real PAIN. Suppose I get on a train for a couple of hours and ten people are in the train with their own AirTags. Am I going to get notifications from that? How would iOS know when I'm being tracked and when I'm not? Is it just based on time? What's the time minimum that triggers the warning? An hour? A day? A week?
If the owner is nearby the tag, I guess that would suppress that kind of message.
As I said above, that might solve the problem. Except that some people turn off their phones, (which is what some people do on airplanes, to save energy when they can't call) and when that happens, the alarms will have to start triggering again. Or in another case, if the luggage is just out of range of the person who owns the phone, but you're within range of that same luggage. It depends how the range feature is implemented. There will be many scenarios like this which will create so many false alarms the feature will just be turned off by users.
Ok? Most people don't have much of a concern with being stalked anyway.
it would only take one or two high-profile kidnapping or murder cases where an Airtag helped make it possible for it to suddenly become a major issue. I'd be certain Apple has realized that too and may be working with Google on Android compatibility.
My whole point is that most people (not me) have a very low tolerance for unwanted messages, so they would turn off the feature, and then end up being stalked/killed/etc. So Apple will say "it wasn't our fault, we allowed people to enable stalking detection" but nobody is going to use that feature because it might be very annoying. And if nobody uses the feature, it won't actually work or save anyone from being stalked.
My relatives whom I support will likely demand that the feature be turned off if they get false alarms. And if they keep the feature enabled, they won't have the wherewithal to realize when there's a threat.
You seem very determined to find issues with a product and feature we know nothing about.
Let's start with this statement: "My whole point is that most people (not me) have a very low tolerance for unwanted messages, so they would turn off the feature, and then end up being stalked/killed/etc."
You are literally saying that most people will turn off this feature and will end up being stalked or killed*. Given that no one has this feature and the violent crime rate in the U.S. is really low, I don't know how you came to the conclusion that Apple introducing this feature and people disabling it will result in some sort of stalking and killing rampage. It just doesn't logically follow.
As for your concern about people getting unwanted messages goes, I doubt that will be an issue. As someone else mentioned I'm guessing Apple has put a lot of thought into this rather than adding it on a whim. And it isn't like Apple has have zero experience with spatial orientation of two devices. A Mac can tell where an Apple Watch is well enough to know if the wearer is trying to access their Mac or if someone hear the wearer is trying access their Mac. So, I'm guessing Apple's engineering team can figure out ways to tell when someone is on a train near other AirTags vs. there is an AirTag on their person and moving around with them. As for your car example, my phone pairs with my car via bluetooth. It knows when I am in my car so it isn't a big stretch for it to know that I am in my car, my car is moving and there is an AirTag in the car that isn't mine. You seem to think the only data points that Apple would use are the location of the phone and the AirTag and not the mountain of contextual data that phone can use to figure out the scenario and if there should be a concern about an unregistered AirTag near it.
* For context of just how ridiculous this claim is. 5 people per 100K are murdered and 1400 in every 100k experience some level of stalking. So 1.405% of the population is impacted by the two combined. There are 115-ish million iPhone users in the U.S and the U.S population is 328 million. If we define most iPhone users as 51% of the user base then you are suggesting that 16% of the U.S population is going to be stalked or killed due to turning off this feature. That would be a stunning rise in both crimes and all because Apple introduced a feature and people turned it off.
If you really think that I said "most people would end up getting killed" then you really have a good imagination. The word "most" was only meant to apply to "have a low tolerance for unwanted messages." Do you disagree that most people have a low tolerance for unwanted messages? Obviously I was not saying that "most iPhone users who turn off this feature would be stalked or killed." That's an obvious misinterpretation by you. I don't need to defend myself. Obviously I was not saying "16% of the US population is going to get stalked or killed due to turning off this feature" as you said I was saying. I don't think I've ever used the words "straw man argument" before, but this post really deserves that. A perfect example.
But since this is your first post against me in months, I won't chalk this up to anything but an honest mistake. If it was Crawley, I would assume the error was intentional. Although by tomorrow I might have forgotten everything Crawley said.
"My whole point is that most people (not me) have a very low tolerance for unwanted messages, so they would turn off the feature, and then end up being stalked/killed/etc."
In that sentence most people will turn off the feature and the end up getting harmed. It may not have been what you meant to say but it is what you said. Your poor grammar and communication isn’t a misunderstanding on my part.
This is going to be a real PAIN. Suppose I get on a train for a couple of hours and ten people are in the train with their own AirTags. Am I going to get notifications from that? How would iOS know when I'm being tracked and when I'm not? Is it just based on time? What's the time minimum that triggers the warning? An hour? A
Do you really think Apple didn't consider that use case? I would wait and see.
For it to effectively work without being used to stalk someone Airtags would need to be discoverable by non-Apple devices too. Requiring an iPhone in order to be notified covers far less than a third of the US population so chances are high you would not be aware of the stalker without a companion Android notification. Even then millions of Americans would lack any notice at all.
Good point!
But doesn't that work the other way too? A tracking device that notifies an Android device but is invisible to Apple devices?
The newly-renamed "AirTags" privacy feature (source: Benjamin Mayo)
Anybody else think this message is confusing as he11 - what am I disabling - the owner of the unknown item's ability to see my location or my notification of unknown items?
Not confusing... You are disabling the notifications for unknown items.
Even if it’s “stalking” you or Apple won’t have the ability to disable an item register to someone else with just a finger tap.
Now if you go to police then it gets to a judge and he/she orders Apple to disable the item then Apple will disable it. That’s why they are advising going to local authorities with the SN.
Easier to find the item in your backpack or car and smash it on to the ground...problem solved.
This is going to be a real PAIN. Suppose I get on a train for a couple of hours and ten people are in the train with their own AirTags. Am I going to get notifications from that? How would iOS know when I'm being tracked and when I'm not? Is it just based on time? What's the time minimum that triggers the warning? An hour? A
Do you really think Apple didn't consider that use case? I would wait and see.
For it to effectively work without being used to stalk someone Airtags would need to be discoverable by non-Apple devices too. Requiring an iPhone in order to be notified covers far less than a third of the US population so chances are high you would not be aware of the stalker without a companion Android notification. Even then millions of Americans would lack any notice at all.
Good point!
But doesn't that work the other way too? A tracking device that notifies an Android device but is invisible to Apple devices?
Absolutely true. Maybe two years ago, perhaps less, Google was said to be developing a similar tracker, even an application made to the FCC for a possible hardware device if I'm remembering correctly. Then nothing. They may have run up against the same unintended consequences of a tracker too, determining the privacy implications weren't going to make Google look better as they pivoted to being more privacy rights aware. There's the outside possibility too that Apple and Google might somehow partner on cross-platform useability, which IMO would be the right solution. Worst case Google somehow partners with Tile on something new if the privacy can be hardened. Dunno, just guessing.
In any event yes, I 100% believe that any tracking or monitoring devices widely available for use by the public should have enough safeguards to ensure they aren't easily used for evil intents. Bad people will always find a way to use good tech for potentially evil things, example Google Glass which IMO would have been immensely helpful had it not been for FUD projections of evil things. Apple or Google or MS etc going above and beyond to anticipate and mitigate is essential and instead of working alone big tech is going to have to cooperate with each other more often. That's why you find Apple and Google active in the same groups, joining on the same standards, and cooperating on more projects as time goes by.
This is going to be a real PAIN. Suppose I get on a train for a couple of hours and ten people are in the train with their own AirTags. Am I going to get notifications from that? How would iOS know when I'm being tracked and when I'm not? Is it just based on time? What's the time minimum that triggers the warning? An hour? A
Do you really think Apple didn't consider that use case? I would wait and see.
Fair enough, we can't know how it will work until we see it. But I can't figure out how to make it work safely and without a bunch of false alarms.
Logic and AI pattern recognition. Lots of location pings converge on train stations and then travel together, only to disperse at other stations. There’s already scads of cellphone data showing what that looks like. Tags trailing off in aberrant directions would trigger further AI review and, potentially, alerts. How to sort a stalking target from a thief? Could be something in probabilities and patterns.
One would imagine refining all this is why the tags haven’t been released yet. As with many other things, Apple isn’t first to market with tracker tags, but their implementation will be much better thought out, and therefore far more useful. Imagine that. A tech company actually trying to anticipate and diminish evil use cases before releasing something to an unsuspecting public.
I have not followed all the “what ifs” in this conversation but I am thinking Lojack for my little camper! No fees, easy to hide..... Waiting...…🙂
Yes, but it would also be easy to locate on your camper. There are only 2 options (as far as I know) of phones that support UWB, which this device will reportedly have, but it won't take long to have a program written that looks for these devices.
Now, that isn't to say that this simple Linux app could read the encrypted data—it won't—but it doesn't have to. Of course, crimes of opportunity usually aren't going to have people scanning for devices so this will certainly help.
I think that's his point. Bury a little AirTag somewhere in the camper and if it's stolen, it would be easy to track and find.
I have not followed all the “what ifs” in this conversation but I am thinking Lojack for my little camper! No fees, easy to hide..... Waiting...…🙂
Yes, but it would also be easy to locate on your camper. There are only 2 options (as far as I know) of phones that support UWB, which this device will reportedly have, but it won't take long to have a program written that looks for these devices.
Now, that isn't to say that this simple Linux app could read the encrypted data—it won't—but it doesn't have to. Of course, crimes of opportunity usually aren't going to have people scanning for devices so this will certainly help.
I think that's his point. Bury a little AirTag somewhere in the camper and if it's stolen, it would be easy to track and find.
Oh, I get his point. My point is that the AirTag would also be easy to "track and find" and then remove so that the camper would not be easy to "track and find". That was my point. In terms of cost, AirTags or Tile can't be beat.
Comments
My relatives whom I support will likely demand that the feature be turned off if they get false alarms. And if they keep the feature enabled, they won't have the wherewithal to realize when there's a threat.
Let's start with this statement:
"My whole point is that most people (not me) have a very low tolerance for unwanted messages, so they would turn off the feature, and then end up being stalked/killed/etc."
You are literally saying that most people will turn off this feature and will end up being stalked or killed*. Given that no one has this feature and the violent crime rate in the U.S. is really low, I don't know how you came to the conclusion that Apple introducing this feature and people disabling it will result in some sort of stalking and killing rampage. It just doesn't logically follow.
As for your concern about people getting unwanted messages goes, I doubt that will be an issue. As someone else mentioned I'm guessing Apple has put a lot of thought into this rather than adding it on a whim. And it isn't like Apple has have zero experience with spatial orientation of two devices. A Mac can tell where an Apple Watch is well enough to know if the wearer is trying to access their Mac or if someone hear the wearer is trying access their Mac. So, I'm guessing Apple's engineering team can figure out ways to tell when someone is on a train near other AirTags vs. there is an AirTag on their person and moving around with them. As for your car example, my phone pairs with my car via bluetooth. It knows when I am in my car so it isn't a big stretch for it to know that I am in my car, my car is moving and there is an AirTag in the car that isn't mine. You seem to think the only data points that Apple would use are the location of the phone and the AirTag and not the mountain of contextual data that phone can use to figure out the scenario and if there should be a concern about an unregistered AirTag near it.
* For context of just how ridiculous this claim is. 5 people per 100K are murdered and 1400 in every 100k experience some level of stalking. So 1.405% of the population is impacted by the two combined. There are 115-ish million iPhone users in the U.S and the U.S population is 328 million. If we define most iPhone users as 51% of the user base then you are suggesting that 16% of the U.S population is going to be stalked or killed due to turning off this feature. That would be a stunning rise in both crimes and all because Apple introduced a feature and people turned it off.
But since this is your first post against me in months, I won't chalk this up to anything but an honest mistake. If it was Crawley, I would assume the error was intentional. Although by tomorrow I might have forgotten everything Crawley said.
I'm not sure how that would work as there isn't and really can't be a universal and secure system in place for this. Apple has one, and it's already in use for items that are offline. This just takes it to another level with UWB in AirTags.
https://www.apple.com/icloud/find-my/
You can even find devices that are offline.
If your missing device can’t connect to the internet, the Find My app can still help you track it down using the Find My network — hundreds of millions of iPhone, iPad, and Mac devices around the world. Nearby devices securely send the location of your missing device to iCloud, then you can see where it is in the Find My app. It’s all anonymous and encrypted to protect everyone’s privacy.
My iPhone and Mac often create popups for security related messages. Just today I got a popup saying that the clock app on my Apple Watch wanted to access my location, and do I want to approve that? Why should it ask me that even though I've been using my clock app for years without changing it? This is exactly the kind of unwanted message that I'm worried about with AirTags. And don't state that "I honestly think that Apple has considered how this product/service works." Don't tell me what I think. Of course I have considered it, I'm just saying that it's a difficult problem to solve and that many average people will be annoyed by false positives and will turn off the feature. Are you denying that this is going to happen?
And if you think I have created "multiple logical fallacies" why not actually point out what one of them is so we can have a productive conversation? You accuse me of "fallacies" and "bad faith arguments" without actually explaining what you think they are. I'm glad you think I'm able to read your mind, but I confess that I cannot. At least my points were explained, you offered no explanations at all. How does that contribute anything to these forums?
Waiting......🙂
Now, that isn't to say that this simple Linux app could read the encrypted data—it won't—but it doesn't have to. Of course, crimes of opportunity usually aren't going to have people scanning for devices so this will certainly help.
Are you in a car?
You’re in the train. Are all the tags around you linked to devices close by?
You’ve left the train. Are there any tags without an owner device in close proximity still travelling a foot from your body?
You are disabling the notifications for unknown items.
just think inside a home with different Apple IDs
sibling/sibling tags
wife/kids tags
wife/husband tags
husband/kids tags
thats a lot of notifications of unknown items without leaving your home to WORK or SCHOOL.
In any event yes, I 100% believe that any tracking or monitoring devices widely available for use by the public should have enough safeguards to ensure they aren't easily used for evil intents. Bad people will always find a way to use good tech for potentially evil things, example Google Glass which IMO would have been immensely helpful had it not been for FUD projections of evil things. Apple or Google or MS etc going above and beyond to anticipate and mitigate is essential and instead of working alone big tech is going to have to cooperate with each other more often. That's why you find Apple and Google active in the same groups, joining on the same standards, and cooperating on more projects as time goes by.