Apple's AirTag safety features credited for arrest of stalker

AppleInsider

A woman was able to discover an AirTag in her vehicle's trailer hitch thanks to Apple's anti-stalking features, leading to a man's arrest.

AirTag found hidden in a trailer hitch used for stalking

The Apollo, Pennsylvania woman received an alert on her iPhone that an AirTag was tracking her location. She notified the police after discovering the device in her vehicle's trailer hitch.

According to WXPI News, the anti-stalking features implemented by Apple are what led to Ronald Roessler's arrest. Apple will provide law enforcement information about a discovered AirTag when used for stalking.

Roessler already had a history with the victim, who had a protection-from-abuse order against him. He denied involvement in placing the AirTag and deleted the device from his iPhone in front of a police officer. It's not clear how Roessler pitched to police how his AirTag ended up inside the woman's trailer hitch by accident.

The AirTag is meant for tracking down lost objects, but some abusers try to use them for nefarious purposes. Apple has implemented a series of features to prevent stalking and harassment via AirTag, but they aren't foolproof.

AirTag is an effective tracking device because of the size of the Find My network. Every iPhone, iPad, and Mac acts as a relay that will help an AirTag report its location.

Apple says it is committed to AirTag privacy and security. The company recently announced a series of new features that will bolster anti-stalking and inform user's that the device can be traced back to them.

Some lawmakers have taken the matter into their own hands. Legislation has already been proposed in Pennsylvania that would criminalize abuse of devices like AirTag.

Roessler was charged with stalking and violation of a protection-from-abuse order. He was released on bond.

Read on AppleInsider

ihatescreennames

AppleInsider said:

Roessler already had a history with the victim, who had a protection-from-abuse order against him. He denied involvement in placing the AirTag and deleted the device from his iPhone in front of a police officer. It's not clear how Roessler pitched to police how his AirTag ended up inside the woman's trailer hitch by accident.

So, it was his AirTag, since he was able to delete it from his phone (presumably from Find My) but he denies any involvement. Suuuure. I suppose  it’s just a coincidence he had prior activity with this woman, too. 

I’m reminded of those shows where cops would plant a car in a high theft area. The car would be stolen, the cops would disable it with the thief locked inside and then approach the their who immediately said, “Officer, I had nothing to do with it.”

hammeroftruth

ihatescreennames said:

AppleInsider said:

Roessler already had a history with the victim, who had a protection-from-abuse order against him. He denied involvement in placing the AirTag and deleted the device from his iPhone in front of a police officer. It's not clear how Roessler pitched to police how his AirTag ended up inside the woman's trailer hitch by accident.

So, it was his AirTag, since he was able to delete it from his phone (presumably from Find My) but he denies any involvement. Suuuure. I suppose  it’s just a coincidence he had prior activity with this woman, too. 

I’m reminded of those shows where cops would plant a car in a high theft area. The car would be stolen, the cops would disable it with the thief locked inside and then approach the their who immediately said, “Officer, I had nothing to do with it.”

I sure miss the show “Bait Car”. The smarter thieves knew after getting shut down, that they just stole a bait car. 

I wonder if crazy stalkers will invest in “burner iPhones” and fake AppleIDs to stalk their victims. 

bakerzdosen

hammeroftruth said:

I wonder if crazy stalkers will invest in “burner iPhones” and fake AppleIDs to stalk their victims.

Unless I'm missing something, it sure seems like that would be relatively easy to do:
• pay cash a cheap used iOS device from CL/FB Marketplace
• create new appleid with fake info
• pay cash for new airtag
• pay cash for new VPN access account - maybe not 100% necessary
• stalk using public wifi

That would only prevent you from getting caught and not the "stalkee" from learning there is an Airtag following them - unless one of the bullet points is to pick someone with Android...

stompy

bakerzdosen said:

hammeroftruth said:

I wonder if crazy stalkers will invest in “burner iPhones” and fake AppleIDs to stalk their victims.

Unless I'm missing something, it sure seems like that would be relatively easy to do:
• pay cash a cheap used iOS device from CL/FB Marketplace
• create new appleid with fake info
• pay cash for new airtag
• pay cash for new VPN access account - maybe not 100% necessary
• stalk using public wifi

That would only prevent you from getting caught and not the "stalkee" from learning there is an Airtag following them - unless one of the bullet points is to pick someone with Android...

Why would a stalker choose your listed expenses / effort over a GPS tracker? Because they're an Apple fanboy?

igorsky

bakerzdosen said:

hammeroftruth said:

I wonder if crazy stalkers will invest in “burner iPhones” and fake AppleIDs to stalk their victims.

Unless I'm missing something, it sure seems like that would be relatively easy to do:
• pay cash a cheap used iOS device from CL/FB Marketplace
• create new appleid with fake info
• pay cash for new airtag
• pay cash for new VPN access account - maybe not 100% necessary
• stalk using public wifi

That would only prevent you from getting caught and not the "stalkee" from learning there is an Airtag following them - unless one of the bullet points is to pick someone with Android...

This stalker sounds like a giant nerd.

MplsP

The article doesn’t say definitively whether Apple gave the information to the police or if he was the presumed suspect based on his history with her. Either way I’m glad he was caught and glad Apple works with police to help catch creeps like him. 

Xed

It's interesting to me that all the people that usually pop up in AirTag related articles to point out how bad AirTags are because they are trying to help prevent stalking are oddly absent now. I honestly have to wonder if they are simply pro-stalking.

GeorgeBMac

hammeroftruth said:

ihatescreennames said:

AppleInsider said:

Roessler already had a history with the victim, who had a protection-from-abuse order against him. He denied involvement in placing the AirTag and deleted the device from his iPhone in front of a police officer. It's not clear how Roessler pitched to police how his AirTag ended up inside the woman's trailer hitch by accident.

So, it was his AirTag, since he was able to delete it from his phone (presumably from Find My) but he denies any involvement. Suuuure. I suppose  it’s just a coincidence he had prior activity with this woman, too. 

I’m reminded of those shows where cops would plant a car in a high theft area. The car would be stolen, the cops would disable it with the thief locked inside and then approach the their who immediately said, “Officer, I had nothing to do with it.”

...

I wonder if crazy stalkers will invest in “burner iPhones” and fake AppleIDs to stalk their victims. 

Or, the flip side of that:   An angry, revengeful "victim" buys a "burner iPhone", sets it up under the "Stalkers" name, plants an AirTag -- then complains she is being stalked.

These days, instead having to be proven guilty, he would have to prove his innocence -- while he sat in a jail cell.

Xed

GeorgeBMac said:

hammeroftruth said:

ihatescreennames said:

AppleInsider said:

Roessler already had a history with the victim, who had a protection-from-abuse order against him. He denied involvement in placing the AirTag and deleted the device from his iPhone in front of a police officer. It's not clear how Roessler pitched to police how his AirTag ended up inside the woman's trailer hitch by accident.

So, it was his AirTag, since he was able to delete it from his phone (presumably from Find My) but he denies any involvement. Suuuure. I suppose  it’s just a coincidence he had prior activity with this woman, too. 

I’m reminded of those shows where cops would plant a car in a high theft area. The car would be stolen, the cops would disable it with the thief locked inside and then approach the their who immediately said, “Officer, I had nothing to do with it.”

...

I wonder if crazy stalkers will invest in “burner iPhones” and fake AppleIDs to stalk their victims. 

Or, the flip side of that:   An angry, revengeful "victim" buys a "burner iPhone", sets it up under the "Stalkers" name, plants an AirTag -- then complains she is being stalked.

These days, instead having to be proven guilty, he would have to prove his innocence -- while he sat in a jail cell.

That's not how the law works. Even buying a "burner iPhone" that is activated would have a trail. It would likely be easy enough to see that the iPhone and AirTags were both purchased by and activated by the so-called victim and that the so-called stalker was no where near these places when it happened.

dewme

I think we’ll just have to live with the inherent trade offs between theft detection and stalking prevention. I can’t easily envision how Apple could eliminate all nefarious applications of these devices. A hammer can be used as both a tool and a weapon. We can’t ban hammers.

GeorgeBMac

Xed said:

GeorgeBMac said:

hammeroftruth said:

ihatescreennames said:

AppleInsider said:

Roessler already had a history with the victim, who had a protection-from-abuse order against him. He denied involvement in placing the AirTag and deleted the device from his iPhone in front of a police officer. It's not clear how Roessler pitched to police how his AirTag ended up inside the woman's trailer hitch by accident.

So, it was his AirTag, since he was able to delete it from his phone (presumably from Find My) but he denies any involvement. Suuuure. I suppose  it’s just a coincidence he had prior activity with this woman, too. 

I’m reminded of those shows where cops would plant a car in a high theft area. The car would be stolen, the cops would disable it with the thief locked inside and then approach the their who immediately said, “Officer, I had nothing to do with it.”

...

I wonder if crazy stalkers will invest in “burner iPhones” and fake AppleIDs to stalk their victims. 

Or, the flip side of that:   An angry, revengeful "victim" buys a "burner iPhone", sets it up under the "Stalkers" name, plants an AirTag -- then complains she is being stalked.

These days, instead having to be proven guilty, he would have to prove his innocence -- while he sat in a jail cell.

That's not how the law works. Even buying a "burner iPhone" that is activated would have a trail. It would likely be easy enough to see that the iPhone and AirTags were both purchased by and activated by the so-called victim and that the so-called stalker was no where near these places when it happened.

Perhaps.  But in today's "I believe the victim" (without evidence) mentality, the investigation you speak of may never happen.

ronn

GeorgeBMac said:

Xed said:That's not how the law works. Even buying a "burner iPhone" that is activated would have a trail. It would likely be easy enough to see that the iPhone and AirTags were both purchased by and activated by the so-called victim and that the so-called stalker was no where near these places when it happened.

Perhaps.  But in today's "I believe the victim" (without evidence) mentality, the investigation you speak of may never happen.

That's supposition on your part. In the article the creep already had a protective order against him and he deleted the AirTag in front of a responding police officer.

Xed

GeorgeBMac said:

Xed said:

GeorgeBMac said:

hammeroftruth said:

ihatescreennames said:

AppleInsider said:

Roessler already had a history with the victim, who had a protection-from-abuse order against him. He denied involvement in placing the AirTag and deleted the device from his iPhone in front of a police officer. It's not clear how Roessler pitched to police how his AirTag ended up inside the woman's trailer hitch by accident.

So, it was his AirTag, since he was able to delete it from his phone (presumably from Find My) but he denies any involvement. Suuuure. I suppose  it’s just a coincidence he had prior activity with this woman, too. 

I’m reminded of those shows where cops would plant a car in a high theft area. The car would be stolen, the cops would disable it with the thief locked inside and then approach the their who immediately said, “Officer, I had nothing to do with it.”

...

I wonder if crazy stalkers will invest in “burner iPhones” and fake AppleIDs to stalk their victims. 

Or, the flip side of that:   An angry, revengeful "victim" buys a "burner iPhone", sets it up under the "Stalkers" name, plants an AirTag -- then complains she is being stalked.

These days, instead having to be proven guilty, he would have to prove his innocence -- while he sat in a jail cell.

That's not how the law works. Even buying a "burner iPhone" that is activated would have a trail. It would likely be easy enough to see that the iPhone and AirTags were both purchased by and activated by the so-called victim and that the so-called stalker was no where near these places when it happened.

Perhaps.  But in today's "I believe the victim" (without evidence) mentality, the investigation you speak of may never happen.

Is because of the Me Too movement where women were finally being heard by a larger majority regarding their harassment (or worse)? If so, that's very far-right wing of you.

As for the reality, there's a very long and dark history of believing the so-called victim without evidence. Emmett Till comes readily to mind. Even the movie 12 Angry Men shows that people form assumptions based on evidence that may not be complete or even solid.

The bottom line is that all potential victims should be heard, but that doesn't mean you should decide on an outcome simply because of the type of assumed crime, who potentially perpetrated the crime, and who potentially is the victim. We still need to use reason to determine is such a crime has been committed, but emotions and past personal trauma—which are not at all a new thing—lead us to rationed decisions without proof all the time.

GeorgeBMac

Xed said:

GeorgeBMac said:

Xed said:

GeorgeBMac said:

hammeroftruth said:

ihatescreennames said:

AppleInsider said:

Roessler already had a history with the victim, who had a protection-from-abuse order against him. He denied involvement in placing the AirTag and deleted the device from his iPhone in front of a police officer. It's not clear how Roessler pitched to police how his AirTag ended up inside the woman's trailer hitch by accident.

So, it was his AirTag, since he was able to delete it from his phone (presumably from Find My) but he denies any involvement. Suuuure. I suppose  it’s just a coincidence he had prior activity with this woman, too. 

I’m reminded of those shows where cops would plant a car in a high theft area. The car would be stolen, the cops would disable it with the thief locked inside and then approach the their who immediately said, “Officer, I had nothing to do with it.”

...

I wonder if crazy stalkers will invest in “burner iPhones” and fake AppleIDs to stalk their victims. 

Or, the flip side of that:   An angry, revengeful "victim" buys a "burner iPhone", sets it up under the "Stalkers" name, plants an AirTag -- then complains she is being stalked.

These days, instead having to be proven guilty, he would have to prove his innocence -- while he sat in a jail cell.

That's not how the law works. Even buying a "burner iPhone" that is activated would have a trail. It would likely be easy enough to see that the iPhone and AirTags were both purchased by and activated by the so-called victim and that the so-called stalker was no where near these places when it happened.

Perhaps.  But in today's "I believe the victim" (without evidence) mentality, the investigation you speak of may never happen.

Is because of the Me Too movement where women were finally being heard by a larger majority regarding their harassment (or worse)? If so, that's very far-right wing of you.

As for the reality, there's a very long and dark history of believing the so-called victim without evidence. Emmett Till comes readily to mind. Even the movie 12 Angry Men shows that people form assumptions based on evidence that may not be complete or even solid.

The bottom line is that all potential victims should be heard, but that doesn't mean you should decide on an outcome simply because of the type of assumed crime, who potentially perpetrated the crime, and who potentially is the victim. We still need to use reason to determine is such a crime has been committed, but emotions and past personal trauma—which are not at all a new thing—lead us to rationed decisions without proof all the time.

Our legal system is supposed to be based on laws and evidence -- not emotion, sociological biases and allegations.   But, as you point out, it has often failed at that.   But that doesn't justify those miscarriages of justice.

Xed

GeorgeBMac said:

Xed said:

GeorgeBMac said:

Xed said:

GeorgeBMac said:

hammeroftruth said:

ihatescreennames said:

AppleInsider said:

Roessler already had a history with the victim, who had a protection-from-abuse order against him. He denied involvement in placing the AirTag and deleted the device from his iPhone in front of a police officer. It's not clear how Roessler pitched to police how his AirTag ended up inside the woman's trailer hitch by accident.

So, it was his AirTag, since he was able to delete it from his phone (presumably from Find My) but he denies any involvement. Suuuure. I suppose  it’s just a coincidence he had prior activity with this woman, too. 

I’m reminded of those shows where cops would plant a car in a high theft area. The car would be stolen, the cops would disable it with the thief locked inside and then approach the their who immediately said, “Officer, I had nothing to do with it.”

...

I wonder if crazy stalkers will invest in “burner iPhones” and fake AppleIDs to stalk their victims. 

Or, the flip side of that:   An angry, revengeful "victim" buys a "burner iPhone", sets it up under the "Stalkers" name, plants an AirTag -- then complains she is being stalked.

These days, instead having to be proven guilty, he would have to prove his innocence -- while he sat in a jail cell.

That's not how the law works. Even buying a "burner iPhone" that is activated would have a trail. It would likely be easy enough to see that the iPhone and AirTags were both purchased by and activated by the so-called victim and that the so-called stalker was no where near these places when it happened.

Perhaps.  But in today's "I believe the victim" (without evidence) mentality, the investigation you speak of may never happen.

Is because of the Me Too movement where women were finally being heard by a larger majority regarding their harassment (or worse)? If so, that's very far-right wing of you.

As for the reality, there's a very long and dark history of believing the so-called victim without evidence. Emmett Till comes readily to mind. Even the movie 12 Angry Men shows that people form assumptions based on evidence that may not be complete or even solid.

The bottom line is that all potential victims should be heard, but that doesn't mean you should decide on an outcome simply because of the type of assumed crime, who potentially perpetrated the crime, and who potentially is the victim. We still need to use reason to determine is such a crime has been committed, but emotions and past personal trauma—which are not at all a new thing—lead us to rationed decisions without proof all the time.

Our legal system is supposed to be based on laws and evidence -- not emotion, sociological biases and allegations.   But, as you point out, it has often failed at that.   But that doesn't justify those miscarriages of justice.

I don't think it did justify it, but you seem to be suggesting that this is a new thing. We used to kill people for being witches or in league with the devil. 

Society and laws can have the greatest of intention, but they are still made by and run by corporal beings who are, at best, flawed and very limited in their ability to comprehend the universe. Again, not a new problem, but hopefully we keep learning from our mistakes and most in a generally forward direction. This current rise of conspiracy nut jobs and worship of a wannabe dictator feels like we're heading into the Dark Ages, but that's another topic.

GeorgeBMac

Xed said:

GeorgeBMac said:

Xed said:

GeorgeBMac said:

Xed said:

GeorgeBMac said:

hammeroftruth said:

ihatescreennames said:

AppleInsider said:

Roessler already had a history with the victim, who had a protection-from-abuse order against him. He denied involvement in placing the AirTag and deleted the device from his iPhone in front of a police officer. It's not clear how Roessler pitched to police how his AirTag ended up inside the woman's trailer hitch by accident.

So, it was his AirTag, since he was able to delete it from his phone (presumably from Find My) but he denies any involvement. Suuuure. I suppose  it’s just a coincidence he had prior activity with this woman, too. 

I’m reminded of those shows where cops would plant a car in a high theft area. The car would be stolen, the cops would disable it with the thief locked inside and then approach the their who immediately said, “Officer, I had nothing to do with it.”

...

I wonder if crazy stalkers will invest in “burner iPhones” and fake AppleIDs to stalk their victims. 

Or, the flip side of that:   An angry, revengeful "victim" buys a "burner iPhone", sets it up under the "Stalkers" name, plants an AirTag -- then complains she is being stalked.

These days, instead having to be proven guilty, he would have to prove his innocence -- while he sat in a jail cell.

That's not how the law works. Even buying a "burner iPhone" that is activated would have a trail. It would likely be easy enough to see that the iPhone and AirTags were both purchased by and activated by the so-called victim and that the so-called stalker was no where near these places when it happened.

Perhaps.  But in today's "I believe the victim" (without evidence) mentality, the investigation you speak of may never happen.

Is because of the Me Too movement where women were finally being heard by a larger majority regarding their harassment (or worse)? If so, that's very far-right wing of you.

As for the reality, there's a very long and dark history of believing the so-called victim without evidence. Emmett Till comes readily to mind. Even the movie 12 Angry Men shows that people form assumptions based on evidence that may not be complete or even solid.

The bottom line is that all potential victims should be heard, but that doesn't mean you should decide on an outcome simply because of the type of assumed crime, who potentially perpetrated the crime, and who potentially is the victim. We still need to use reason to determine is such a crime has been committed, but emotions and past personal trauma—which are not at all a new thing—lead us to rationed decisions without proof all the time.

Our legal system is supposed to be based on laws and evidence -- not emotion, sociological biases and allegations.   But, as you point out, it has often failed at that.   But that doesn't justify those miscarriages of justice.

I don't think it did justify it, but you seem to be suggesting that this is a new thing. We used to kill people for being witches or in league with the devil. 

Society and laws can have the greatest of intention, but they are still made by and run by corporal beings who are, at best, flawed and very limited in their ability to comprehend the universe. Again, not a new problem, but hopefully we keep learning from our mistakes and most in a generally forward direction. This current rise of conspiracy nut jobs and worship of a wannabe dictator feels like we're heading into the Dark Ages, but that's another topic.

No, I admitted that it is not a new thing.  Just another iteration of past mistakes -- witch burnings.

And, like you, I am hopeful and optimistic that we will "keep learning from our mistakes and move in a generally forward direction".

But that will require sane people to not only push ahead but to push back against those who want us to keep making those past mistakes.

crowley

Good lord, a thread about what seems an obvious case of stalking and a positive spin when the police catch the perp red handed with Apple's aid, and some men still manage to turn the conversation around to women being evil jezebels who shouldn't be trusted.

Please ignore such human waste.

GeorgeBMac

crowley said:

Good lord, a thread about what seems an obvious case of stalking and a positive spin when the police catch the perp red handed with Apple's aid, and some men still manage to turn the conversation around to women being evil jezebels who shouldn't be trusted.

Please ignore such human waste.

Good Lord!  Another angry post by Crowley.  What a surprise!

Shiggy

The "so Called Victim" Jennifer Mazur met Ronald Roessler at Walmart where they were both working. One day during the 2020 pandemic, Mrs. Mazur had expressed that she was in an alleged abusive relationship with her husband Marcus, and she needed a place to stay. Roessler being the “Kind Guy” as Jen used to call him opened his home up to her and her 2 children so that she could get away from the husband. Jen lived in Roessler’s home for many months and at this point there was no relationship just a friendship as well as helping a co worker out. The story gets even deeper and obviously both being drunk in a bar on St Patrick’s day did not help the escalation of feelings that Mazur had for Roessler, and thus an argument ensued. Jen moved out of the house; however, magically moved back in not long after. Remember, there is always 2 sides to every story.

crowley

Shiggy said:

The "so Called Victim" Jennifer Mazur met Ronald Roessler at Walmart where they were both working. One day during the 2020 pandemic, Mrs. Mazur had expressed that she was in an alleged abusive relationship with her husband Marcus, and she needed a place to stay. Roessler being the “Kind Guy” as Jen used to call him opened his home up to her and her 2 children so that she could get away from the husband. Jen lived in Roessler’s home for many months and at this point there was no relationship just a friendship as well as helping a co worker out. The story gets even deeper and obviously both being drunk in a bar on St Patrick’s day did not help the escalation of feelings that Mazur had for Roessler, and thus an argument ensued. Jen moved out of the house; however, magically moved back in not long after. Remember, there is always 2 sides to every story.

If the other side of the story is that the guy is stalking the girl then it doesn't matter how nice the guy was in the past.