[HN Gopher] Someone attached an AirTag to my car while I was in ...
___________________________________________________________________
Someone attached an AirTag to my car while I was in a bar
Author : kaycebasques
Score : 260 points
Date : 2021-12-19 16:34 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| hatenberg wrote:
| I'd suspect the person who eagerly discarded the evidende
| emeraldd wrote:
| Reading that, it sounds like a situation to call/drive to/or
| otherwise get the attention of the police. Attaching a tracking
| device to your vehicle is a significant indication of malicious
| intent. It's a potentially life threatening situation and should
| be treated as such.
| rasz wrote:
| "Of sexual abuse cases reported to law enforcement, 93% of
| juvenile victims knew the perpetrator: 59% were acquaintances.
| 34% were family members. 7% were strangers to the victim.
|
| also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquaintance_rape
|
| >this morning while I was asleep I had someone close to me check
| my car and they found it stuck on the underside of my front
| passenger wheel well. I wish he took pics before he threw it away
|
| throw away individually identifiable piece of evidence instead of
| calling the police, ok
| q1w2 wrote:
| Victims make poor decisions all the time. It doesn't really
| imply the story is false - although I happen to find this story
| unconvincing also.
| vanusa wrote:
| _Throw away individually identifiable piece of evidence instead
| of calling the police, ok_
|
| I wouldn't consider it particularly wise to assume the police
| will automatically be your friend, in this situation. Ask
| yourself who may have planted the device, after all.
|
| (I don't think law enforcement would use AirTags, actually. But
| I'm just saying -- on general principle).
| goblin89 wrote:
| While the point on abuse statistics is sadly fair, and the
| trusted figure who throws out evidence of a plot against you
| while you sleep (and possibly nudges you to not call the
| police, who knows!) sounds like a villain right out of a
| detective story, it would be a very silly move to not clear in
| advance how AirTags work and whether the victim uses an iPhone
| (which can be easy even if they are not that close).
|
| My suspicion is on car theft attempt being more likely:
| https://www.yrp.ca/en/Modules/News/index.aspx?newsId=167fa5b...
| newhotelowner wrote:
| Apple AirTag Linked to Increasing Number of Car Thefts, Canadian
| Police Report - https://nypost.com/2021/12/07/carjackers-are-
| using-this-new-...
| rootusrootus wrote:
| That was the article where buried in the text it admits that
| there were 5 cases that police knew about. Just 5. Looks more
| like clickbait to me. For the price of an airtag I could just
| use a GPS tracker with LTE uplink, and not worry about Apple
| being able to tell the police who the tag was activated for.
| bittercynic wrote:
| Why does the thief bother to track your car back to your house
| to steal later? Why not just drive around the residential areas
| where the cars are parked and just choose one at the time you
| want to do the theft?
| contidrift wrote:
| In Amsterdam I once met an Eastern European career criminal
| who followed people driving home after work hours and waited
| for them to get into the shower. Then he'd pick their front
| door lock and take the keys.
|
| Unrelated, he also had a room in his apartment set up to grow
| weed, with some serious climate control and artificial
| lighting. He was dealing this pot. He had no papers or permit
| to stay... what crazy folk.
| bittercynic wrote:
| Pretty bold. I don't know much about Amsterdam, but I've
| heard burglars in the USA are usually very careful not to
| break into a house when people are home, as the
| consequences are much more severe compared to burglarizing
| an unoccupied house.
| luafox wrote:
| So that the thief can learn your schedule and when you're
| home or using the car and can plan in advance to avoid being
| caught. Among other things, information about the exact
| location of an expensive vehicle over multiple days is very
| valuable information when you're trying to steal said
| vehicle.
| largbae wrote:
| Not a car thief but it's an interesting question. Maybe given
| the VIN and a few hours/days you can lookup and make a
| correct key for that type of car. So the tag is placed when
| the VIN is collected and the theft is smooth with a valid
| key.
| [deleted]
| raldi wrote:
| The worst part of this is, if you don't have an iPhone, you'll
| never know if you're being tracked.
|
| Edit: Yes, I know there's an app. Do you think more than 1% of
| victims will have it installed?
| 2-718-281-828 wrote:
| how do I see airtags around me with my iphone? on "find my" I
| just see my own apple stuff.
| after_care wrote:
| iPhone will send an alert to you if unknown AirTag is
| following you around.
| 2-718-281-828 wrote:
| then I don't see how this is a problem having someone
| else's airtag on the car. the owner of the car is the only
| person being "followed" by it.
| schmorptron wrote:
| Because the owner of the car would need to have an
| iPhone?
| celsoazevedo wrote:
| The owner of the tag knows, in real time, where the tag
| is and only iPhones receive the tracking notifications.
| raldi wrote:
| You can't. You only get an alert after one's been following
| you around.
| sschueller wrote:
| There is, it's open source and works. I have have this running
| on my phone in the background and it has alerted me a few times
| like when my phone was in the locker at the gym and someones
| airtags was in a locker close to mine.
|
| https://github.com/seemoo-lab/AirGuard
| [deleted]
| edot wrote:
| Apple made an Android app for this.
| wnevets wrote:
| which currently has a rating of 2/5 because of how terrible
| it is.
| hulitu wrote:
| Did you read the reviews ? Maybe because the bad guys do
| not want you to use it. You need to underestand that there
| are a lot of people paid to have an opinion on the
| internet.
| wnevets wrote:
| If that was the case why don't the non-Apple apps have
| the same problem then?
| celsoazevedo wrote:
| Some of the (dumb) reviews don't change the fact that
| Apple's app requires you to perform manual scans and
| doesn't alert you if you're being tracked. Only iPhones
| do that.
| [deleted]
| jeroenhd wrote:
| Apple's app requires you to scan manually, it doesn't warn
| you if you're being stalked. You'll need something like Air
| Guard to get similar notifications.
| gnabgib wrote:
| The app is stop gap at best - it has to be run manually, the
| screen has to be on, and it chews batteries (due to phone
| architectural designs)
| timeon wrote:
| That is good that they made it, but the fact that you need to
| install some app for something that you do not use, seems to
| me like opt-out tracking?
| educaysean wrote:
| If you already knew that there was an app out there, maybe
| don't use absolutist sounding phrases like "they'll never know"
| just to come back and make defensive edits about how nobody out
| there knows about its existence when you yourself obviously
| knew about it.
| mortenjorck wrote:
| The flip side of this is that if you don't have an iPhone, you
| don't have anything participating in the mesh network that's
| required for the AirTag to operate. Of course, someone else's
| iPhone could still pick it up and relay the position, but this
| becomes considerably less likely in a scenario where the
| adversary is attempting to track a vehicle.
| pmlamotte wrote:
| If tracking the vehicle to the destination is the goal it's
| fairly likely someone with an iPhone will pass by the vehicle
| at some point. Especially in an apartment complex or public
| shared parking.
| xwdv wrote:
| Slip it into a young child's backpack, they rarely have
| iPhones. Wait for them to get out of school...
|
| Do you see the danger
| rocqua wrote:
| I see the creepy potential. I don't see the danger.
| mdoms wrote:
| You don't see how creepy + children = danger?
| seadan83 wrote:
| I think they do. It's more, which should you fear more:
| your bath tub or someone rampaging in the street with a
| knife? The statistics say you should be _far_ more afraid
| of your bath tub, there is a decent chance it will be
| your cause of death. The 'stranger' in the street is
| about as likely as lottery odds.
|
| So when it comes to children, abuse at home is several
| (if not many) magnitudes more likely than a stranger
| trying to track and abduct your children.
| 323 wrote:
| Depends on the street. If you are in downtown San
| Francisco for example, all bets are off...
| seadan83 wrote:
| At the risk of being offensive, it does not matter if you
| are in downtown SF - stop being afraid of the homeless
| and black people and assuming that they are more likely
| to harm you than someone you know. That statistics are
| not with you there.
|
| But let's look at some statistics:
|
| https://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm Bathtub: 341
| Assault by sharp object: 1,805
|
| From that, assuming their data is correct, for every one
| person that falls in a bathtub and then drowns, there are
| 5 that are killed via assault with sharp object. The
| latter includes premediated and not, the number of those
| from a 'rampage' would be a fraction.
|
| So, if you change the side of street you are walking on
| to avoid walking near someone homeless out of fear they
| would go on a random stabbing rampage, and if you do not
| also have traction stickers attached to your bathtub,
| then you are exhibiting rational irrational fear.
| 323 wrote:
| > _stop being afraid of the homeless and black people_
|
| I'm not afraid of homeless and black people, I'm afraid
| of clinically insane people. The kind which are not
| legally responsible for their actions.
|
| And why did you pick "Assault by sharp object: 1,805"
| instead of "Assault by firearm: 10,801" or just "Assault:
| 16,765"? Maybe because that changes the odds from 1 vs 5
| to 1 vs 50.
| seadan83 wrote:
| Sorry, that was overly provocative and arguably
| unjustifiably personal. I apologize. The point is that
| the statistics do not back up many fears.
|
| > And why did you pick "Assault by sharp object: 1,805"
| instead of "Assault by firearm: 10,801" or just "Assault:
| 16,765"?
|
| The example was a 'stabbing rampage', that was
| specifically to try and find the number of knife attacks
| in the US resulting in fatality, and out of those number
| where someone is randomly attacking people in public.
|
| Overall, we are still dealing with pretty small numbers
| whether it's 1 vs 5 or 1 vs 50 (50x improved chance of
| winning the lottery is still nearly negligible odds). In
| the case of knife attack, based on these numbers, it
| would be at most 1 in 5.
|
| The ultimate point is the statistics do not back up many
| of these fears. For example in response to an actual
| knife rampage I observed a lot of chatter about getting a
| concealed carry permit etc.
|
| These same statistics show that assault by firearm is way
| more likely than by knife, and having more guns around is
| more likely to have examples where they are used. Hence,
| the irrational fear of a knife rampage is prompting
| people to carry a gun, which then dramatically increases
| the chance of an accidental shooting in their own
| household, suicide, and/or assault where that person gets
| into a confrontation they could have walked away from but
| instead had road rage and shot someone else.
|
| Household, accidental shootings are relatively common,
| and suicide is exceptionally common, yet all that seems
| like less risks for firearm possession compared to
| needing the firearm to actually protect yourself from a
| knife attack, which is at most 5 times more likely than
| slipping and drowning in your own bathtub.
|
| In the case of a bathtub, it's common and does not have
| the same confirmation bias we get from headlines of
| rampages, yet it poses a fairly similar danger to you as
| someone going on a knife rampage.
| 323 wrote:
| > _The point is that the statistics do not back up many
| fears_
|
| There is a saying, Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics. Or
| "tell me what you want the conclusion to be and I'll tell
| you what statistical method to apply to the data". Also
| known as "torturing the data".
|
| In the case of bathtub fatality, the majority of them are
| either very young or very old (kind of like covid):
|
| > _Drowning occurred most often in a bath tub for persons
| under 1 year of age and for adults aged 85 and over_
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db149.htm
|
| If you adjust for age, that will make the bathtub/knife
| odds even worse.
|
| But on a more meta level, how do you feel about Nassim
| Taleb. My sense is that you don't like him, because he
| talks a lot about so called "irrational logic of fearing
| terrorists more than bathtubs", and he calls this
| behaviour extremely rational.
|
| https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/832234355552559104
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| you can care about vectors of harm that are not highly
| ranked....
| beaconstudios wrote:
| The danger is that predators could track a child to a
| secluded area and abduct them.
| batshit_beaver wrote:
| Or you can just find a random kid in a secluded area and
| abduct them? Why bother tracking a specific one?
|
| And if someone wants your particular kid for some reason,
| then they'll probably get them without Apple's
| assistance.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| The vast majority of abductions of children are by
| family. Same with other crimes against children. People
| they know are far more dangerous than people they don't.
|
| The predators aren't hiding in the bushes, they are
| already in the house.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| That's true but I don't see how it negates my point.
| lazide wrote:
| Do you go around telling people they should be worried
| about shark attacks, because someone could put a shark in
| their pool without telling them?
| spinach wrote:
| Human trafficking is a huge problem even in America. This
| includes many children sold for sex. They often find and
| groom victims online now though, so yes, perhaps they
| aren't hiding in the bushes.
| xwdv wrote:
| This is some kind of bias, the reason this is true is
| because it's far easier for those people to abduct a
| child whose habits they know well. Now that the
| technology to track anyone is far easier to come by,
| maybe that will change.
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| No, that is not the reason. Most children are abducted in
| some kind of custody dispute, by someone who believes
| that they already have some kind of rights over the
| child.
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| my kids are more likely to die choking on a hotdog than
| shooting themselves with an AR15, which is why I
| encourage them to play with guns
| lazide wrote:
| Stranger danger is ridiculous and harmful.
|
| Most abuse, abductions, and harm to kids comes from those
| close to them who already have access to them, not some
| rando somewhere.
|
| Putting everyone into 'oh my god, some rando is going to
| kidnap and kill your kid' just amps up the already insane
| anxiety overload everyone is in.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Couldn't someone just slip a phone in a bag to do the
| same thing?
| tshaddox wrote:
| Yes, but that's probably a larger and more expensive
| device.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I can buy a battery powered GPS tracker with 4G LTE
| uplink on Amazon for $30. A bit larger than an airtag,
| considerably smaller than a smartphone.
| solveit wrote:
| I don't think the limiting factor in child abductions is
| a few hundred dollars in the kidnapper's possession.
| tshaddox wrote:
| No, but factors other than limiting factors can also
| affect the number of child abductions.
| phkahler wrote:
| There is at least one android app to list nearby airtags. The
| one I found requires you to manually start a scan though so it
| doesn't alert to issues like this one. OTOH your own phone
| won't be used to track the air tag. OTOH half the people around
| you have an iPhone that will do it for them.
| lucb1e wrote:
| Care to link the one you found? Going through the play store
| these days is a nightmare of privacy problems and adware so
| if you already found a good one, that would be nice to
| mention.
| gotorazor wrote:
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/13/22832731/apple-
| android-a...
|
| https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apple.tra
| c...
|
| This one is first-party from Apple.
| frakkingcylons wrote:
| Not true, no app is necessary. The AirTag will start beeping
| once it's been separated from its owner for longer than 8-24
| hours.
| jeidz wrote:
| I'm sure it's easy to open the AirTag and pierce the speaker.
| dijit wrote:
| It is not very easy to do so, no. ifixit has a tear down.
|
| https://www.ifixit.com/News/50145/airtag-teardown-part-
| one-y...
| wnevets wrote:
| It used to be after 3 days. It was only changed to hours
| because of cases like this.
| mrweasel wrote:
| That's going to be hard to hear when driving on the highway,
| also, the seems like a long time if someone is following you
| home from a bar.
|
| I don't think there's any good way for Apple to fix this. On
| the other hand, it's been possible to do something similar
| for a long time, just not this easy, and at this price point.
| You could suggest that the AirTag disable tracking if it move
| along with the same phone for more than 15mins, but that's
| would mean you could steal anything with an AirTag and just
| keep moving for that period of time.
|
| The Android app also isn't helpful, because many don't know
| that they need to install it, nor should they have to. Nor
| does it help say elderly people with no smartphone.
|
| It's a product where Apple really didn't consider the real
| world implications. It's a neat device, and I'm sure it's
| well intended, but it's not fit for the world we're currently
| living in.
| AdamJacobMuller wrote:
| > just not this easy
|
| You're correct, it's been easier.
|
| > at this price point
|
| You're right, it's been cheaper.
|
| > do something similar for a long time,
|
| You're right, it's been similar except that the other
| methods were far harder for the victim to detect.
| tshaddox wrote:
| The only significant differences between AirTags and other
| devices are the fact that the victim's phone might be used
| to transmit their own location and the widespread
| availability and marketing of AirPods compared to other
| devices. Apple can't really do much about the latter (other
| than discontinuing them), but it seems like they could
| partially address the former by having each phone only
| transmit the location of non-owned AirTags a single time.
| This might not work if the victim's car if in heavy traffic
| where phones in other cars can transmit the location, but
| it could at least help in cases where a single car is
| driving home alone.
| warning26 wrote:
| _> It 's a product where Apple really didn't consider the
| real world implications. It's a neat device, and I'm sure
| it's well intended, but it's not fit for the world we're
| currently living in._
|
| Exactly; it's unfortunate, but this sort of product should
| really be made illegal, just due to the many ways it can be
| misused.
| derefr wrote:
| This is incredibly inane. The components that make up a
| GPS tracker are both extremely cheap to produce, too
| general-purpose to be made illegal themselves, and can be
| put together to make a GPS tracker with zero technical
| skill, just by following any of a thousand YouTube
| videos. (I have one explaining how to make a GPS tracker
| out of an Arduino on my YouTube home page right now!)
|
| All that making GPS tracking devices illegal would do is
| to eliminate all the positive-sum uses of the technology,
| while creating literally no additional barrier for people
| already willing to break the law.
|
| It's the "then only criminals will have guns" thing, but
| much more clear-cut, because while making your own gun
| from general-purpose input components requires a machine
| shop and an unethical person with machining skills to run
| it (and so making guns illegal really does make guns
| _harder_ to acquire -- though not impossible), making a
| GPS tracker from general-purpose input components can be
| done in your own living room without even a soldering
| iron.
| ahepp wrote:
| I think there's some merit to the argument that making
| tracking products widely available has risks and
| downsides.
|
| For one, there are some important differences between
| AirTags and a GPS tracker. AirTags don't use GPS (at
| least, on the tag itself). They're tracked by all the
| Apple devices around them, and they can use lower power
| (perhaps even passive) methods. A GPS tracker requires
| some kind of uplink. A tracker using GPS would need to be
| larger, and have a shorter battery life for a given size.
| AirTags are also innocuous to buy and not immediately
| alarming to see in someone's possession.
|
| The argument that anyone is capable of building a GPS
| tracker in their living room seems unlikely to me. I
| think this is far beyond the capabilities of 99.9% of
| people (although it's a fairly straightforward and very
| fun project for people interested in Arduino).
|
| All this said, I am mostly in agreement that the
| arguments against AirTags seem fairly weak. Especially
| because I assume Apple has a way to easily determine who
| placed the AirTag, and that they would face serious
| consequences.
| lazide wrote:
| Except they clearly did consider it? And made many
| countermeasures, from beeping loudly after separation, to
| releasing an open source first party app on _the dominant
| competing platform_ to show what is going on.
|
| If anyone provides a device? It's also traceable to the
| owner/person watching it.
|
| None of these things are possible/done for the myriad of
| GPS trackers out there. Apple has made it very risky and
| frankly dumb to use them for this purpose.
| antgiant wrote:
| Can't Apple just provide an option that lets you force
| "stalking" air tags to beep on command? Seems like doing that
| could essentially solve this whole class of it's tracking me
| but I can't find it stories.
| koziserek wrote:
| Is it me, or this AirTag did not have its battery connected? We
| see this thin paper/plastic separator on the photo.
|
| Moreover, don't these alarms start after some hours after being
| away from the owner?
| vmception wrote:
| Just you
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| The photo is an example.
| cfeduke wrote:
| The picture is provided as an example, since the removed AirTag
| was discarded.
| [deleted]
| awinter-py wrote:
| is this part right?
|
| > If a foreign AirTag is around ANY Apple device that's connected
| to a network, a nefarious AirTag owner will know its location!
|
| the airtag is phoning home over all apple hardware, whether or
| not it belongs to the owner of the tag?
| olliej wrote:
| The find my network is designed to ensure that apple - or any
| malicious actor will complete access to apple's internal
| networks - cannot track any device
| kshacker wrote:
| Basically that is as advertised.
|
| The feature set definition of airtag = "tracking the airtag"
| and this requires a phone home which is done by using any
| iPhone (or is is any apple) device.
| brendoelfrendo wrote:
| Correct, this is how Apple's "find my" network works. Devices
| that don't have their own GPS can still be on the network
| because they piggy-back off of nearby Apple devices.
|
| Apple devices do notify users if there's an unknown AirTag
| following them around.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| It works like Tile and other previous Bluetooth trackers - it
| relies on a network of devices that can pick up the signal from
| the tracker and phone it back to the owner/Apple to know the
| location.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| With the major difference that taking part in the Tile
| network is opt-in (you have to install an app) while taking
| part in Apple's Find My network is forced on iOS users (there
| is a way to opt-out, but 99.9% of iOS users are unaware of
| it).
| awinter-py wrote:
| fun antitrust case when tile decides they want their plugin
| to ship with the OS too
| toss1 wrote:
| Between reports of AirTags being used to enable auto theft and
| stalk targets, it is pretty obviously a very handy criminal tool.
| Apple definitely needs to do something about this for both
| ethical and reputational reasons.
|
| the beeping if separated from owner after 8-24hrs is a bit
| helpful, but likely not noticeable if attached to the outside of
| a car. This is also a pretty big window in which to pull off your
| crime.
|
| I'd suggest that all tracking come with logging of the original
| owner's Apple device and it's location. The handy general use
| case would be to find your phone with an airtag (e.g., on your
| keys) and another phone (e.g., friend in the group). The obvious
| deterrent to criminals is that their target and the police will
| have their device ID and location. They might still get away with
| it, but would need effectively a burner Apple phone & location
| history separate from their real device.
|
| Other ideas?
| throwaway39203 wrote:
| I think this reverse tracking would also raise concerns
|
| - keys with airtag attached are lost, thief (perhaps
| opportunist) can find the home/car they belong to
|
| - stalker types can steal an airtag from a water bottle,
| handbag, or whatever, and find the owner's home
|
| Not an iPhone user but AFAIK the lost phone scenario was
| already covered with even pre-airtag "Find my..." since you
| could log into iCloud web interface on any other device and use
| that
| pengaru wrote:
| Can someone just put any random AirTag on someone's car and have
| it trigger alerts on nearby iphones? Does one have to do
| something to activate it first?
|
| Curious if all one needs to do is get one and stick it on a
| randos car to cause psychological distress without even pairing
| with a phone or otherwise registering/activating the thing.
| ghaff wrote:
| I'm pretty sure it needs to be activated to an Apple account.
|
| But seriously, people here way overthink things. If a random
| sicko wants to cause someone psychological distress there are a
| million ways that they can unfortunately do so that don't
| involve elaborate technology.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| And if they want to track, that ability was already
| available, for the same price as an AirTag, and without the
| annoying habit beeping loudly or notifying the victim that
| they are being tracked.
| pengaru wrote:
| > If a random sicko wants to cause someone psychological
| distress there are a million ways that they can unfortunately
| do so that don't involve elaborate technology
|
| This doesn't strike me as elaborate at all.
|
| The fact is the largest generation living today is more
| engaged with the world via their smartphones than their
| physical surroundings. AirTags seem uniquely well suited to
| that reality, with Apple delivering notifications on the
| attackers' behalf and all.
| ghaff wrote:
| It strikes me as dependent on the person being griefed
| being in the Apple ecosystem and the person doing the
| griefing using a device that is at least potentially tied
| to their IRL identity. Not saying it's not possible but
| seems at least an edge case.
| ahepp wrote:
| Surely Apple can use information from their Find My account to
| figure out who the AirTag was registered to. Even if the tag has
| been destroyed. That should be trivially easy, right?
| tinus_hn wrote:
| AirTags are registered to an Apple account, not a person. It's
| not necessarily possible to trace it back.
| somehowadev wrote:
| I believe that's where the advice to hand an AirTag to the
| authorities come from?
|
| From here: https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT212227
| topochico3 wrote:
| I'm not convinced this is a priority for police. Air tags
| seem to be a net negative for all.
| otterley wrote:
| Please don't discourage people from seeking assistance from
| law enforcement when their personal safety is at risk.
| gutitout wrote:
| You may not live in a large American city. It's a bad
| place to rely on the cops in my experience.
| daenz wrote:
| So what is your suggestion, just let bad situations
| happen to you? Regardless of if the police actually do
| anything, it's important to have a paper trail of things
| so that you point to them if you ever have to end up in
| court.
| pstuart wrote:
| Not the OP and not advocating to not go to the police,
| but I'd be shocked if they were of _any_ use at all.
| daenz wrote:
| The paper trail is useful.
| otterley wrote:
| I do, and this is an appropriate situation to call them
| about, regardless of your race. There are problems with
| the police, to be sure, but this is not a situation where
| someone is getting beaten up (or worse) over a traffic
| stop or misidentification during the commission of a
| crime.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Cops have been known to push stalking, domestic violence,
| rape and similar cases under the carpet or, even worse,
| abuse the contact information from the criminal complaint
| to stalk the victims _themselves_ (see [1], [2] or
| whatever turns up at Google for "police officers
| stalking women"). Not to mention the organized denials of
| service that regularly crop up as "backlog of rape kits
| discovered" headlines.
|
| Women have all kinds of valid reasons to stay as far away
| from cops as they can, women of color, queer/nb/trans
| women even more.
|
| Some PDs have changed procedures and established special,
| often female-led, teams to deal with cases involving such
| sensitive scenarios... but they're not many to begin
| with.
|
| [1]: https://psmag.com/news/stalker-cop-police-
| protection-danger-...
|
| [2]:
| https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/oct/20/my-
| frie...
| otterley wrote:
| Is this the rule or the exception? No doubt there are
| reported failures, but is that the average experience for
| a reporter (even accounting for race, gender, etc.) of a
| stalking or other similar personal security concern?
| Stories such as these are useful for motivating the
| public and our government to fix the problems, but they
| have a side effect of discouraging people from taking
| useful action where it would not be harmful.
|
| We should be giving our most helpful advice here; let's
| not make people panic unnecessarily.
|
| The fact of the matter is that Apple will only provide
| the identities of AirTags owners to law enforcement
| officers in the course of legitimate investigation work;
| in the interest of privacy, they won't give them out to
| just anyone who asks. So if you want to get help, getting
| LE assistance is practically the only way to go.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > but is that the average experience for the typical
| reporter of a stalking or other similar personal security
| concern?
|
| In Germany, it is estimated that 300.000 (!) stalking
| cases happen each year, not even 20.000 get reported to
| the police - and only 1 % of these (!!!) ends up in a
| conviction.
|
| Unfortunately, as with all attempts at estimating why
| crimes are not reported, data is scarce - the general
| consensus seems to be a mistrust in police and the court
| system (either that the case gets ignored, that proof is
| insufficient or that personal data ends up at the
| offender - I personally was exposed by incompetent cops
| at court after filing a criminal complaint for racism
| against a local Nazi, fwiw), and a fear of attackers
| escalating their behavior.
|
| [1]: https://www.zeit.de/news/2020-12/25/stalking-grosse-
| dunkelzi...
| afarrell wrote:
| Yes, ~~but~~ and the fact that some police departments
| are broken doesn't mean we need to propagate learned
| helplessness about all police departments.
| otterley wrote:
| I think we are in agreement. Did you mean "and" instead
| of "but"?
| afarrell wrote:
| yep
| topochico3 wrote:
| You're making a big assumption about me. I simply said
| I'm not convinced this is a priority for police. Prove me
| wrong!
| otterley wrote:
| I'm not making an assumption about you. I am saying that
| that is how statements such as yours can be (and often
| are) interpreted.
| ctoth wrote:
| A ... a net negative? Okay, like maybe I get that some
| people abuse this thing and maybe that's bad and maybe ten
| extra people got their car stolen this year or something
| although even that is questionable given that Tile already
| existed. But net negative? All the utility from all the
| people that found all the things they found this year with
| AirTags is counteracted, is wiped away by... what?
| topochico3 wrote:
| You can always buy more stuff. Lowering the bar for
| stalking seems like a bad trade off, doesn't it?
| jeidz wrote:
| Not for the people who own stuff.
| ctoth wrote:
| Well, I'm blind and I use an AirTag to find my cat. I
| would rather not just buy another cat. I get a lot of
| utility from knowing if he's inside or outside when I go
| to bed. This is one trivial example of millions of people
| every day using millions of AirTags to do small but
| useful things. That utility aggregates.
|
| Using your logic we should also ban cars because cars
| create the novel attack vector of being able to transport
| someone against their will discretely in the trunk, which
| clearly will increase kidnappings. After all, lowering
| the bar for kidnapping seems like a bad tradeoff, doesn't
| it?
| katbyte wrote:
| The bar is already really low. GPS trackers are just as
| cheap, more "real time", and have no way for anyone to
| detect them unlike AirTags.
| lukeschlather wrote:
| I would attempt to file a restraining order against the
| owner of the tag, that would force the police to act.
| daenz wrote:
| According to the tweet thread:
|
| >this morning while I was asleep I had someone close to me
| check my car and they found it stuck on the underside of my
| front passenger wheel well. I wish he took pics before he
| threw it away
|
| If I found a tracking device on the car of someone close to
| me, I certainly wouldn't throw it away without showing them
| and insisting that they go to the police. Why would they just
| throw it away?
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Because it never happened.
| rasz wrote:
| or
|
| "Of sexual abuse cases reported to law enforcement, 93%
| of juvenile victims knew the perpetrator: 59% were
| acquaintances. 34% were family members. 7% were strangers
| to the victim."
| daenz wrote:
| I'm trying really hard not to come to this conclusion,
| but the tweet thread doesn't make any sense.
|
| >I didn't wanna go home, so I spent the night somewhere
| and just said I'd figure it out in the morning.
|
| So they stayed somewhere and said they would figure it
| out in the morning. Ok, that's reasonable.
|
| >this morning while I was asleep I had someone close to
| me check my car
|
| How did they tell someone to search the car while they
| were asleep? They said they would figure it out "in the
| morning" when they were awake. Some time between deciding
| to figure it out in the morning and waking up, they told
| someone to search their car?
|
| If it didn't happen, being asleep while someone searched
| your car would be the reason why they threw the device
| away without your permission. If you were awake when they
| threw it away, that would be a lot more difficult to
| believe.
| stingrae wrote:
| it also appears like the battery tab was never pulled in
| the picture.
|
| edit: my mistake, missed the part where they threw away
| the original air tag.
| csilverman wrote:
| It's a photo of a generic AirTag, not the actual tag that
| was found--that one was apparently thrown away, which a
| few folks here (including me) find a little strange.
| y4mi wrote:
| its quite easy to imagine in my opinion.
|
| she drives home and gets these notifications, which
| clearly spook her, which is why she made extra turns etc.
|
| she sends a few messages to friends and/or family,
| because she's freaking out about it, but goes to sleep
| because she doesn't know what to do
|
| one of these friends or family comes by in the morning,
| sees her car and checks it out before ringing her door
| bell
|
| the given facts are quite believeable, though i doubt
| there is a human trafficing relation which she seems to
| think. its more likely a potential stalker, upset
| boyfriend or similar.
| luckylion wrote:
| What friend would check the car, find a tracker and then
| immediately get rid of it and not even take pictures of
| it instead of showing her or just calling the police
| themselves though?
|
| What's somewhat plausible is that "the person close to
| her" put the tag there in the first place. They'd have a
| good reason to "get rid of it" in that case.
| daenz wrote:
| That's believable, but it contradicts "this morning while
| I was asleep I had someone". Her asking someone to search
| her car before she went to sleep to "figure it out in the
| morning" is more believable.
| nabeards wrote:
| Perhaps they are the ones who put it there in the first
| place?
| tinus_hn wrote:
| The AirTag was conveniently discarded by an unnamed third
| party.
| olliej wrote:
| No, AirTags/the find my network are designed to make it
| impossible for apple to track anything about a device on the
| network. If you actually provide the AirTag to police, then
| they can get the serial number, from which they can get the
| associated account.
|
| Assuming that whomever put the AirTags their used their own
| actual account.
| higginsc wrote:
| Number of times I've had a true positive alert from Apple's new
| device tracking notifications: 0 Number of times I've had false
| positives due to intermittent connectivity issues with my airpods
| or from my partner using mine: over a dozen. I'm this close to
| disabling all of these features
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| AirTags seem to work reliably.
|
| Everything else? I had my iPad in the backpack I was wearing
| get left behind. Same with my AirPods. I've turned those things
| off and just put an AirTag in my backpack.
|
| That said, I already had two extra air tags since I got a four-
| pack instead of buying two separately.
| ghaff wrote:
| This is a general problem with proactive alerts related to rare
| events. How many "OMG, you're separated from $X" alerts am I
| willing to put up with for the one legitimate "You just left $X
| in the restaurant!" alert.
| hankman86 wrote:
| While it's theoretically possible that this happened, I think
| this particular story was made up. For a number of reasons: 1)
| How did the stalker know that that's her car? She said she was on
| a night out. Unless she went back to her car all the time, he
| must have seen her arrive in it. 2) Sticking an AirTag to the
| inside of the front wheel well isn't easy. There is dirt and
| grime there and the surfaces aren't flat. The stalker would have
| had to use a very strong adhesive to make the AirTag stick while
| the car was moving. 3) While it'd be a smart idea to not drive
| home while a foreign AirTag tracks you, who is alert enough after
| a night out AND happens to have friends in the vicinity that you
| can wake up at what must have been a very late hour? 4) Her
| friend who found and removed the AirTag took no photo. Really?
| rexreed wrote:
| While it is possible you could use an Apple AirTag in this way,
| there are a number of facts that don't add up in the story.
| Supposedly the AirTag in question was "thrown away" so there
| would be no hints as to how it was attached. Also, if you are
| being unknowingly tracked by another person's AirTag you can
| disable the tracking and notification if you are worried about
| it: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212227 and additional
| steps at https://www.macworld.com/article/345863/how-to-find-
| block-di...
|
| If you are worried enough to drive to someone else's home, why
| would you go to sleep with the tracker still on the car without
| disabling the tracker first?
|
| No doubt that this sort of tracking is possible, but there's
| much here that needs some questions answered. If it was a ploy
| to get people to be aware of the possibilities of AirTag
| tracking, then I suppose that should be disclosed.
| [deleted]
| dpeck wrote:
| Not to disagree with your overall point, but on #2 magnets work
| well for this and there are a lot of "hide-a-key" type things
| on the market that are often used in wheel wells by people who
| have a history of locking their keys in their car.
| hankman86 wrote:
| Good point, but may I add 5) AirTags are a very expensive way
| of stalking someone. Surely, there may be some creeps willing
| to put up this sort of money. But some random guy who sees
| her on a night out and who happens to have an AirTag with
| attached magnet with him? And if that was indeed the case,
| wouldn't there be some pretext to this, like someone hitting
| on her that night and she turned him away? She doesn't
| mention anything in this regard.
|
| So no, this story doesn't line up and looks more like cheap
| attention grabbing at the expensive of a real problem with
| Apple's AirTags.
| kordlessagain wrote:
| I think the problem with saying something was made up is that
| it becomes blaming. I would hope people don't vote you down
| because I think that blame is justified, because I questioned
| how it was presented, on Twitter. I think if it was something
| related by a friend or close acquaintance to me, then I'd
| believe it. That it is being disseminated on Twitter in the way
| it was, I have a tendency to suspect there is more to the
| story, given I have no idea if I can trust the individual
| making the claim.
|
| This seems pretty obvious that this will happen and not
| necessarily something that is surprising or adds to the story,
| other than them claiming it happened to them and horrible that
| is...and maybe an indication everyone should make a big deal
| out of it.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
| viktorcode wrote:
| Read on the news that this kind of tracking with AirTags is
| used to steal cars. A car thief attaches it to the target
| vehicle, and then simply arrives to the place where it is
| parked overnight. The thief removes AirTag and then waits for
| an opportunity to steal the car.
| tomerv wrote:
| How is that better that just stealing a car without the
| airtag?
| avianlyric wrote:
| You can steal the car in a quiet area at night when the
| odds of being caught are much lower. It allows the criminal
| to pick the time and place of the crime, rather than it
| being dictated by luck and coincidence.
| brynjolf wrote:
| It is not attached to average cars, they attach them to
| cars that are hot in the market
| blkhp19 wrote:
| Lmao exactly. This argument seems absurd - just steal the
| car it's not like she was driving a lambo
| jonpurdy wrote:
| So I and my wife both have AirTags. Every time we take a walk
| together, we both get notifications that there's an unknown
| AirTag with us (each others'). You can pause these notifications
| for just one day, which means we get notified every single day.
|
| Does anyone know how to disable this for specific known AirTags?
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| Yeah, it feels to me that Apple went too far with their anti-
| stalker provisions. I believe much of the problem could be
| eliminated if there was some sort of central filter to the
| alerts. Phone says to the filter "I see an unknown air tag ID#
| xxxxx". So long as there is another phone that says "I see a
| known air tag ID# xxxxx" no alert is triggered. Only when no
| device claims the tag as known would the phone speak up.
|
| So long as somebody nearby knows the tag it's almost certainly
| either someone with you or someone simply moving in the same
| direction and nearby. If it has been planted you'll find out
| when the planter moves away from you.
| nostromo wrote:
| I keep getting these notifications for my own AirTags.
|
| I know they're mine because the notification shows the last
| four digits of my own phone number.
| noja wrote:
| I am given the choice what I want to do, and chose the "always
| ignore this AirTag" option.
| sangnoir wrote:
| This opens up a new "evil maid" attack: secretly tracking
| anyone whose phone you have access to.
| [deleted]
| throwDec19 wrote:
| You can track each other with your phone and Google tracking or
| a bunch of other apps. Maybe that is simpler alternative to
| tags?
| tshaddox wrote:
| Are your Apple accounts in a Family Sharing group? I have no
| idea if that would affect this feature, but my wife and I also
| have AirTags on our keys and we travel together plenty and have
| never received this notification.
| ericcholis wrote:
| Same. I just wish you could transfer ownership of a tag
| between family members.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| You can. Disconnect it from one person's iCloud, connect it
| to the other. We did it with our cat's AirTag when I got a
| newer iPhone, so we could use the more accurate location.
|
| I do wish there was a _share_ feature, though.
| simondotau wrote:
| The lack of integration with family sharing has made
| AirTags mostly useless for me.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| It's a genuinely baffling omission.
| terhechte wrote:
| When an AirTag is assigned to an iCloud account, and a device
| (say an iPhone) is with you, then you shouldn't get these
| messages. But if one of you didn't bring their phone but, for
| example, the keys, you will get these messages, yeah.
| MarkSweep wrote:
| On the Apple help site, it says you can disable an AirTag that is
| following you:
|
| > To disable the AirTag and stop sharing your location, tap
| Instructions to Disable AirTag and follow the onscreen steps.
|
| If I'm understanding this correctly, this means you can defeat
| this type of stalking easily. On the other hand, this makes
| AirTags less useful for tracking stolen items, as presumably the
| thief will disable it.
|
| https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT212227
| evgen wrote:
| Or if the thief has an iPhone they will be notified that the
| AirTag is tracking them. This is not an anti-theft device and
| anyone who thinks so will be disappointed. It is a device for
| finding your own stuff that you have misplaced or forgotten
| about.
| kemayo wrote:
| This is news just because it's an Apple device being used for
| something that was already trivially possible.
|
| GPS trackers designed to be magnet-attached to a car which report
| their location via cell signal cost ~$20 on Amazon. You then tend
| to need to pay for either a SIM card or a subscription to the
| device maker's service -- bringing you up to about the cost of an
| AirTag. These are _much_ harder to detect, as you might imagine.
|
| The Apple device does _try_ to make itself less useful for
| abusive purposes. Nearby iPhones will notify you if there 's an
| AirTag following you. Apple released an Android app to scan for
| them (manually -- it'd probably be nice if they released
| something that did the same passive scanning as iPhones get, but
| there's battery trade-offs there, and obviously most people won't
| _have_ that app). AirTags will also beep if they 're separated
| from their owner.
|
| In fact, this is news we're hearing about _because_ of the steps
| Apple took to make it harder to use these devices for bad
| purposes. The tweet author got a warning about the device
| following them.
|
| It's tricky to make something that lets you find where you
| dropped your keys while walking the dog that can't also be used
| for nefarious purposes.
| raydev wrote:
| > This is news just because it's an Apple device being used for
| something that was already trivially possible.
|
| > GPS trackers designed to be magnet-attached to a car which
| report their location via cell signal cost ~$20 on Amazon. You
| then tend to need to pay for either a SIM card or a
| subscription to the device maker's service -- bringing you up
| to about the cost of an AirTag.
|
| So you're saying Apple made it even more trivially possible.
| Not only does it cost the same, it now requires less effort.
| kemayo wrote:
| I'm saying anyone who wanted to do this already could, and
| Apple's version is _worse_ at being abusive than what they
| could already do.
|
| Sticking trackers onto the cars of people parked near bars
| isn't really a thing you do on a whim.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| In one way. In another way, the only way the tweet author
| knew was because Apple alerted them to the fact that they
| were being tracked.
|
| Other trackers would not do that. It seems Apple actively put
| effort into thwarting this kind of use.
| kadoban wrote:
| They did the bare minimum so that once in a while creepy
| stalkers will get noticed. Should we give them an award?
| drekk wrote:
| Nah, just recognize that the tech already was out there,
| for a lower cost, in a form factor that won't notify you
| you're being tailed
|
| This isn't a new thing and Apple takes steps that, for
| example, Tile doesn't to prevent their products from
| being used for nefarious purposes
| kadoban wrote:
| I do recongnize that. Does only the first person selling
| a dangerous product deserve scorn? "X did it first!" is
| the excuse of a toddler.
|
| They've also made it easier than gps trackers (no sim
| card needed), probably safer for stalkers (does Apple
| have a way to report AirTags used for crime and/or find
| out who owns it?) and it's more effective than Tile.
|
| It also favors their own ecosystem, because only iphone
| owners get warned. (no I don't consider beeping enough,
| finding something that beeps intermittently is
| notoriously difficult).
| lazide wrote:
| Beating up on Apple for making something LESS able to be
| abused and more transparent/understandable just seems
| disingenuous though?
|
| The difference in level of abuse for something that will
| actively draw attention to itself after some period of
| time vs something of the same cost that was previously
| widely available and was more subtle and would not, is
| pretty big. And it is in the favor of Apple not being
| abusive or favoring abuse.
| kadoban wrote:
| So if there exists anyone who does something slightly
| worse, everyone else gets a pass? Our prisons will be
| emptier at least.
| lazide wrote:
| So if someone makes something better and not a good idea
| to abuse, they're terrible?
| kadoban wrote:
| "better" does not mean good. This _is_ easy to abuse,
| which is my issue with it.
|
| The protections in the system feel more like PR shields
| than effective deterrents.
| ConcernedCoder wrote:
| meta irony! The device that informed you that another
| device was tracking you is, of course, already tracking
| your every move.
| briffle wrote:
| And both should be simple for the police to link to the owner,
| if they are reported. Maybe a bit less so for a SIM card, but
| that AirTag is registered with someone's phone
| jjallen wrote:
| Trivially possible? I wouldn't know how to use or where to buy
| a GPS tracker. I'm sure it's not super hard. But not as easy as
| an airtag.
|
| But now anyone with an iPhone can buy a $25 device and track
| anyone. I would guess that Airtags are also smaller than gps
| trackers.
| number6 wrote:
| I thought that too. Google GPS tracker and the first result
| are trackers for about $30. They come with a SIM Card and and
| a Online Service for $5 so you can track the tracker. Also
| comes with an alarm if someone removes the tracker. This is
| really trivial...
| jjallen wrote:
| But still not as trivial as an Airtag. You need an iPhone
| and an Airtag. That's it. No extra service. No waiting non-
| Prime or non-Apple shipping for a tracker to arrive.
|
| The first results in Google for me are $50 and are about
| 10-20x the size as an Airtag. Also multiple parts.
| 323 wrote:
| > _AirTags will also beep if they 're separated from their
| owner._
|
| Why didn't the AirTag beep in this situation? She said she went
| around the car trying to find it.
| matthew-wegner wrote:
| They begin beeping at a random time between 8 and 24 hours
| after separation, not immediately. Probably it was still too
| soon?
| kemayo wrote:
| It's a tricky timing to work out, I guess. You want to warn
| people about trackers near them, but you don't want someone
| e.g. leaving their tagged bag in their locker to cause loud
| beeping after 30 minutes.
| evan_ wrote:
| I'm sure it's trivial to physically disable the beep speaker.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Well, anything that involves precise drilling isn't really
| what I'd call "trivial". But it's definitely doable.
| concinds wrote:
| Indeed, a Google search is enough to find guides, and I
| assume most bad actors would be aware of this.
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| > In fact, this is news we're hearing about because of the
| steps Apple took to make it harder to use these devices for bad
| purposes.
|
| I've got Android. Where do i see a warning?
|
| Ps. No, people with Android will not have a Apple app
| installed. It's the wrong solution for that problem.
| nomel wrote:
| How is it the wrong solution? An app is required for any of
| this to work/be detected. Either everyone jumps on the same
| bandwagon (Google joins Apple or something), or you install
| the app for the bandwagon that exists.
| kuon wrote:
| I am wondering:
|
| - Would a GPS tracker placed at this position be able to catch
| the GPS signal? If I understand it correctly, an airtag
| communicate via bluetooth and would get the location from a
| phone in range?
|
| - An airtag do not require a SIM card. Are they easily
| traceable or is it hard to get to the owner?
| [deleted]
| myself248 wrote:
| A GPS tracker in the wheel well would have no problem getting
| signal, GPS receivers have gotten spookily sensitive in
| recent years. And that's a genie that won't go back in the
| bottle.
| danesparza wrote:
| "GPS trackers designed to be magnet-attached to a car which
| report their location via cell signal cost ~$20 on Amazon. You
| then tend to need to pay for either a SIM card or a
| subscription to the device maker's service -- bringing you up
| to about the cost of an AirTag. These are much harder to
| detect, as you might imagine."
|
| Yes ... but Apple has built a mesh network to report the
| position of people who don't want to be tracked ... and clearly
| are being tracked. And it's very possible my own iphone is
| being used in the service of an evil actor. That feels ...
| different. Ethically -- if not technically.
|
| "It's tricky to make something that lets you find where you
| dropped your keys while walking the dog that can't also be used
| for nefarious purposes." This seems awfully blithe. I suspect
| you aren't a woman. Or that you don't have daughters old enough
| to live on their own.
| kemayo wrote:
| > Yes ... but Apple has built a mesh network to report the
| position of people who don't want to be tracked ... and
| clearly are being tracked.
|
| Sure, but you could say the same thing about the cell
| network. Same argument applies to the cell GPS trackers I
| mentioned.
|
| > And it's very possible my own iphone is being used in the
| service of an evil actor.
|
| You can turn if off if you want. `Settings > Apple ID > Find
| My > Find My iPhone` and uncheck `Find My network`. I do
| appreciate that the power of defaults means that you
| personally disabling it doesn't really do much to the overall
| situation, though.
| godelski wrote:
| While you're correct, I think there is something to be said
| about the popularization of the technology. Most people aren't
| aware of GPS trackers other than movies and think they are much
| harder to come by. AirTags are also less nefarious by nature.
| If you get caught with a GPS tracker on your person that's
| pretty suspicious. If you're caught placing an AirTag on
| someone's car it's easier to pretend you dropped it and are
| looking for it. I'd also say that the popularization increases
| the chance of use in the moment. You already have the AirTag
| and can decide do that tracking. With the GPS you have to do
| forward planning. I do think there's a difference here that
| could lead to more people being tracked. Crimes of opportunity
| are different than planned crimes, and I assume much more
| common.
|
| It is good that Apple is notifying users when being followed.
| But it seems that too many false positives are getting people
| to ignore the messages. Though this is a hard thing to combat.
| yawaramin wrote:
| > If you're caught placing an AirTag on someone's car it's
| easier to pretend you dropped it and are looking for it.
|
| That doesn't make any sense. If someone catches me placing an
| AirTag in the undercarriage of a car, it's pretty difficult
| to pretend that I _dropped_ it there.
| godelski wrote:
| Depends how you were caught. On your back reaching up? No.
| On your knees? Yeah. Consider that this tag was placed in
| the wheel well, which doesn't require getting on your back
| and would only take a few seconds. It isn't like someone is
| there for a significant period of time. Especially since
| you can then produce said AirTag after inquiry and people
| will generally believe the claim even if suspicious. All
| you have to do is create _reasonable_ doubt. That's
| different than _certain_ doubt. This is because weird stuff
| like that is much more common than nefarious acts (though
| we remember nefarious acts more easily). I think you are
| likely overly estimating yours and the average person's
| awareness. Scam artists and magicians exploit these kinds
| of effects frequently and with an extremely high success
| rate.
| educaysean wrote:
| Your argument isn't very convincing. AirTags are one of
| the few location tracker that the public can recognize by
| sight and identify its use. This makes AirTags much less
| effective for use by malicious actors than other generic
| black-plastic case electronics.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| My friend just had someone jack up his car and hack off a
| catalytic converter with a hacksaw in broad daylight, to
| steal it. How long does it take to place an airtag, 3
| seconds? I think the chances of you being caught placing
| an airtag are slim to none.
| ineedasername wrote:
| It's only less effective if it's somewhere that can be
| seen. I think most people don't check the insides of
| their wheel wells more than, well, at all. In which case
| the device could be neon green and it wouldn't matter for
| the purposes of visual detection.
| musingsole wrote:
| You clearly have near 0 relationship with the public. The
| public can't identify an AirTag; most have hardly heard
| of the thing. And even if they did, someone's story of
| dropping a thing would convince 99% of people who want to
| be doing anything else than running BS detection on some
| weird person they've happened upon.
| yawaramin wrote:
| Well if you were caught squatting down, with your hand
| literally in the wheel well of the car, again, that makes
| it pretty hard to argue you _dropped_ something there.
| That 's what we're talking about here.
| [deleted]
| johnnymonster wrote:
| Security by obscurity is not security at all. Thinking you
| were safe because "people didn't know about it" is not safety
| at all! Bad people are going to be bad. They don't need
| AirTags for that. Knowing it can happen is far better for
| everyone to know about than living in a false sense of
| security.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| As someone who has been in this field professionally for
| almost 20 years, my thoughts on this have changed quite a
| bit. The idea of condemning security through obscurity
| traces back to cryptography, not security in general. In
| cryptography, you want the security of your protocol to not
| depend on the protocol being secret, but the cryptographic
| keys themselves being secret. There are a lot of good
| reasons for this, the main one being that the whole point
| of cryptography is to create protocols that can survive
| public scrutiny and thus are more easy to implement and
| more robust.
|
| So for example, without cryptography you'd need to secretly
| pass a message by courier who might take a secret route,
| constantly changing his route and delivery time. With
| cryptography, you can encrypt and sign the message, and
| then broadcast it over an insecure channel. The second
| option is much easier than the first. So the whole
| enterprise of cryptography is based on the principle of
| abandoning the confidentiality of the protocols themselves.
|
| But there are many situations that require security which
| are outside of cryptography, because the security of the
| overall system cannot be reduced to high entropy secrets,
| and in that case, there is some security benefit that is
| obtained from obscurity.
|
| For example, we are concerned about username enumeration
| because we understand users choose weak passwords that
| might be found in databases, so we do not publish usernames
| and consider it a vulnerability when usernames are leaked.
|
| As another example, we consider information disclosure
| consisting of stacktraces leaked to the user to be a
| vulnerability.
|
| Similarly, there are data centers that cannot just get up
| and move, and so locations and protocols of these
| installations are also kept secret.
|
| So while it's true that things which are hard to change
| should not rely on secrecy in order to maintain their
| security level, and we should constantly be improving and
| hardening our protocols so that they can resist public
| scrutiny, nevertheless it's not the case that all protocols
| have been or are able to be improved so that their security
| properties are reducible to high entropy bit strings - in
| fact most systems don't fall into this category and most
| will never fall into this category - and for these systems,
| part of the security will continue to rely on obscurity,
| even though we are painfully aware of the drawbacks of this
| approach.
| [deleted]
| ineedasername wrote:
| Obscurity is not a good primary line of defense. But
| there's no reason why-- all else being equal-- it can't be
| part of a more robust setup. The more obstacles the better:
| like simply not using standard port #s for services so that
| it takes more than a quick scan of common ports to find
| something. Simple, and sure easy to defeat, but it takes
| you off the list for the lowest having fruit of targets.
| pengaru wrote:
| > This is news just because it's an Apple device being used for
| something that was already trivially possible.
|
| Or it's news because unlike GPS trackers, AirTags create the
| ability to be psychologically abusive to victims by attaching
| them to cars or dropping them in purses at little cost, risk,
| or effort.
|
| Wanna take a guess as to how many assholes out there just want
| to make a mouthy cunt from the bar lose sleep vs. actually
| steal a car or abduct someone? My personal guess is there's
| many orders of magnitude more of the former, and AirTags appear
| to be a _perfect_ tool for that.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| Why exactly is it lower effort than a cellular GPS tracker
| from Amazon? They're around the same size, and roughly the
| same cost.
| WaxProlix wrote:
| How is a common consumer-grade device _not_ less effort
| than intentionally purchasing, setting up, and deploying a
| custom spy gadget? They 're totally different levels of
| effort and investment (dollar-'cost' being a small part of
| it). With an airtag you can even get plausible deniability
| in a lot of cases.
| pmontra wrote:
| When you open a GPS tracker you find a SIM and that's
| enough to identify the owner in any country that requires
| an ID to get a SIM. AirTags are anonymous by design AFAIK.
| Furthermore the owner is spared with the burden of getting
| a SIM (time and cost), ID or not.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| While I'm sure there are countries that require that, you
| don't have to provide an ID to get a SIM in the United
| States. You can go buy one off the shelf (with service
| included) at Walmart for around $10, in cash.
| nomel wrote:
| AirTag also has an account linked to it. It's required to
| function. In fact, if you find an air tag, you can scan
| it and it shows the serial and the last four digits of
| the owners phone number. I'm sure Apple will give the
| full details to the authorities, if requested.
| pengaru wrote:
| > Why exactly is it lower effort than a cellular GPS
| tracker from Amazon? They're around the same size, and
| roughly the same cost.
|
| Apple is going out of its way to assist in making AirTags
| discoverable while physically hidden and anonymous.
|
| Some random cellular GPS tracker from Amazon gives the
| tracking capability, but how does one make it seem
| threatening while highly discoverable? You'd have to leave
| it out where physically visible, making the whole charade
| substantially less convincing.
| taylorfinley wrote:
| >Wanna take a guess as to how many assholes out there just
| want to make a mouthy cunt from the bar lose sleep
|
| Hey it might be easy to forget we're talking about a real
| person here, and I'm sure you mean this is how a hypothetical
| person could be perceived by another hypothetical person, but
| this kind of language directed at a victim of a stalking
| attempt feels really icky.
| pengaru wrote:
| Just emphasizing the reality of how assholes in bars can
| view and treat people, which is part of the point being
| made; it's icky, and there's plenty of that to go around.
| Now there's AirTags at their disposal, for better or worse.
|
| For the record I'm a mouthy cunt in a bar after a few
| drinks.
| smohare wrote:
| I suspect your estimate of the commonality of such behavior
| reflects more on you and your social group's predilections
| than anything
| pengaru wrote:
| > I suspect your estimate of the commonality of such
| behavior reflects more on you and your social group's
| predilections than anything
|
| I said nothing of the commonality, only the relative
| proportions. You're the one assuming things in absolute
| terms.
|
| Do you disagree that there's probably more people out there
| wishing to cause someone to lose sleep vs. steal cars and
| abduct people? If so, see above quoted text.
| notjustanymike wrote:
| I suspect this has a lot to do with apple raising awareness of
| tracking capabilities. I'd love to know if other forms of this
| attack increase as a result.
| Underphil wrote:
| When tweets or news articles like this get popular, I can't
| help thinking this has a Streisand effect. Crazy stalker people
| who didn't know they could do this now know they can.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| > this morning while I was asleep I had someone close to me check
| my car and they found it stuck on the underside of my front
| passenger wheel well. I wish he took pics before he threw it away
| but it looks like this:'
|
| Didn't take pictures?
|
| Didn't leave it where it was and call police?
|
| Didn't happen.
|
| Made up for attention.
|
| Here's more proof it was fake as hell:
|
| > thanks for all the support everyone. Pleading faceSunflower I'm
| fine and doing okay! Muting that thread, got super overwhelming
| really quickly and even more weird people in my DMs. Face with
| rolling eyes I have absolutely nothing to promote but if I have
| any updates I'll let you all know!
| endisneigh wrote:
| Are people against the idea of GPS trackers?
|
| Lightbug uses GPS and has a 6 year battery with a size smaller
| than a credit card. Ultimately there's no way to put the cat in
| the bag.
|
| I'd argue it's not possible for a tracker to exist that cannot be
| used for bad purposes.
| exhilaration wrote:
| Wow! This is a Hollywood-level tracker.
|
| _Smaller than a car keyfob_ _Absolutely tiny at just 56 x 37 x
| 12.9mm, it can fit almost anywhere_ _Plus it weighs almost
| nothing! (35g)_ And the battery lasts a month.
|
| https://thelightbug.com/
| ghaff wrote:
| Arguably AirTags raised the awareness that you can pretty
| trivially plant a tracker on someone's bag or car. But given
| that the technology exists, I'm not sure what everyone outraged
| expects to happen. Being able to track things and people (with
| their permission of course) is actually genuinely useful. So
| it's not reasonable (and of course ultimately unworkable with
| respect to nefarious purposes) to block this technology.
| bengale wrote:
| It's about the logo on the device. It drives clicks and ad
| impressions when you write about apple so people are
| influenced to feel more outrage about them.
| InTheArena wrote:
| The interesting thing is that I have seen multiple reports of
| this ( think this is is the third), but in every case, they have
| destroyed it, lost it, or thrown it away before hand - not given
| it to the police.
|
| Apple can't tell who the devices is from signals in the wild, but
| they can figure out who it is if someone gives them the physical
| device. (Apple tracks the serial number of the device, and from
| what I understand, can provide purchaser/activator information
| based on the serial number).
| unbanned wrote:
| Probably because it's a made up story.
| deell223 wrote:
| I will (probably) destroy it too immediately. I have no idea
| why someone put airtag on my car, maybe they want to know
| location of my house, or want to know where I live?
| hankman86 wrote:
| Maybe that's because none of these reports were actually true?
|
| Honestly, AirTags invading on people's privacy are the latest
| fad. And as with any story about the dangers of "Big Tech",
| they make for good headlines. Only that nobody bothers to do
| some basic due diligence on the truthfulness of these reports
| in the first place. This one is littered with nonsensical facts
| that makes me not believe in this story for a second.
|
| Which has nothing to do with the fact that there is indeed
| abuse potential with Apple's AirTags.
| mortenjorck wrote:
| I have a feeling the interaction with the police in a lot of
| jurisdictions would go something like:
|
| "This person at this address tried to track me without my
| consent! Here's the documentation from Apple!"
|
| "Ma'am, has the person at this address murdered you?"
|
| "No."
|
| "I'm afraid there's nothing we can do right now. If this person
| does murder you, please call 911 immediately."
| marci wrote:
| That is, if you're lucky and they understand what you're
| talking about.
|
| You'll probably have to spend some time explaining how it
| works, why it is a serious issue, and then probably be
| dismissed.
| xyst wrote:
| At the very least, a report should be made. If something does
| happen, at least there's a paper trail and they would be
| highest on the list of suspects. Could be used as evidence to
| get a restraining order as well.
|
| If the person does indeed get near to the victim, then the
| police can actually do something since they are in violation
| of a court order.
| questiondev wrote:
| it might have been law enforcement. they might be using this to
| track potential drunk drivers (i am not saying you were drunk
| driving or anything) but i do know there was a few articles on it
| this year, here is one i found
|
| https://www.macrumors.com/2021/07/19/police-find-unexpected-...
|
| or it could be worse and you could have a unhinged stalker on
| your hands. both are intrusive.
|
| but it's hard to say, is there a way to find out the owner or
| look at log files to see what op or which provider is accessing
| the location details of a tag? i know about these tags but i've
| never used one before so understanding is fairly fresh
| authed wrote:
| I just installed AirGuard to help prevent this attack... It is
| available on F-Droid:
| https://f-droid.org/en/packages/de.seemoo.at_tracking_detect....
| Hope it works as advertised... time will tell.
| coding123 wrote:
| This seems plausible:
|
| People at bars are single.
|
| Track their vehicle to their house / apt.
|
| Later, know when vehicle is not at house (hence no one is home -
| remember - single person).
|
| Rob house.
| weaksauce wrote:
| > Rob house
|
| that's not the only possible outcome here
| meepmorp wrote:
| it's not even the worst one i thought of
| rocqua wrote:
| It is a much more likely and sensible (for the bad guy)
| outcome though. There are so many more people out there that
| want to rob someone than want to rape someone. Especially
| when the target is a stranger.
| weaksauce wrote:
| > much more likely and sensible (for the bad guy) outcome
| though.
|
| I don't know. it could be but bad guys aren't exactly known
| for being sensible.
| newhotelowner wrote:
| https://www.macrumors.com/2021/12/03/airtag-linked-to-car-th...
| donkarma wrote:
| this is hardly a new attack when GPS trackers existed before
| jcims wrote:
| In the infosec space at least, commoditization of an attack
| tends to increase its prevalence.
| browningstreet wrote:
| Cost (very low) and ease of use make this different.
| Goz3rr wrote:
| How so? You can get GPS trackers for less than an airtag
| squarefoot wrote:
| Most GPS trackers however need a SIM card, which would be
| traceable.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| No - you buy a burner phone at any convenience store,
| using cash, pop the sim card out of the phone, and put it
| into the GPS tracker.
| squarefoot wrote:
| Good to know. We don't have burner phones over here, and
| can't verify, however I thought their SIM cards were
| locked so that they couldn't be used on other devices.
| Goz3rr wrote:
| Where I live (NL) you don't even need to buy a whole
| phone, anonymous prepaid sim cards don't require any ID
| to purchase.
| oneplane wrote:
| To what? A point of sale? AirTags can be tracked to where
| they were sold as well in the same way.
|
| Some countries might have some sort of construction where
| you need to provide some form of identification but that
| only applies to the most obvious avenues to buy a SIM-
| card for the public. It's not like the shady MFA-farms
| with the 100-modem appliances are fed by a person
| actually buying 100 SIM-cards without getting caught or
| something like that... (and then there is false
| identification which often is a crime by itself but
| misbehaving persons might not really care about that)
|
| AirTags in this case are just blamed because they are
| actually detectable by normal users, and that makes it an
| 'impression' problem, not a new problem.
| reed1234 wrote:
| And AirTags even alert those (iPhone users) being tracked so
| they are even less practical
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| Except for the folks who aren't iPhone users, which is the
| majority of people.
| kreeben wrote:
| I've been using AirGuard on my Android. It's FOSS.
| Available on Play.
|
| https://github.com/seemoo-lab/AirGuard
| muhehe wrote:
| Love this. I'm gonna modify this to scan all airtags
| around and make them play a sound.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Maybe some sort of audible alarm could be in order. Let say
| every 1-4h hours.
| watermelon0 wrote:
| > AirTags will beep if they are away from their owner's
| iPhone - at a random time between eight and 24 hours
|
| However, it's possible to damage the speaker, so it
| becomes silent, without damaging the AirTag itself.
| ZekeSulastin wrote:
| They actually do start an audible alarm after being
| separated from their owner, starting sometime between 8
| and 24h after separation. I don't know the interval
| though.
| oneplane wrote:
| That's not great if someone steals your backpack and
| finds out you're tracking it.
| alwillis wrote:
| Apple released an app for Android users to alert them if an
| AirTag is "following" them:
| https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/android-users-get-this-
| appl...
| darkstar999 wrote:
| It has to be run manually as far as I can tell.
| [deleted]
| nawgz wrote:
| Sure, but this is clearly better than the situation for
| other existing technologies which are cheaper and can be
| used to the same ends.
|
| I don't deny that this behavior is bad, but the anti-
| Apple sentiment here is a bit strange given they provide
| mitigations unlike traditional gps tracking companies
| jeroenhd wrote:
| That app requires you to click a button every time you
| think you're being followed. Then it'll scan and report
| any results.
|
| It won't warn you of an AirTag someone attached to your
| car, unless you make it a habit to constantly press
| "scan" all day.
|
| AirGuard (https://github.com/seemoo-lab/AirGuard) can do
| this for you, at the cost of battery life for having
| something scan for Bluetooth signals in the background
| all day. It's silly and honestly kind of sad that Apple's
| app doesn't provide this functionality.
|
| Perhaps Google should add this functionality to Play
| Services. They already have an API capable of running
| Bluetooth background scans constantly in the form of the
| COVID contact tracing API, so the technology is nearly
| there already.
| tzs wrote:
| > It won't warn you of an AirTag someone attached to your
| car, unless you make it a habit to constantly press
| "scan" all day.
|
| Wouldn't you only need to scan whenever you return to
| your car?
| derrasterpunkt wrote:
| There is now an app called ,,Tracker Detect" from Apple
| (for Android) to search for AirTags around you. It hasn't
| the ability to use AirTags like on the iPhone but at least
| you can find one that has been left around you.
| celsoazevedo wrote:
| That app, which isn't available everywhere (why?),
| requires users to perform manual scans. It doesn't warn
| users that they're being tracked like iPhones do.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| _> which is the majority of people._
|
| Depends on where you live. I live in a fairly affluent
| area, and _everyone_ has iPhones.
| tuxone wrote:
| Has anyone got the same kind of alerts with AirPods 3/Pro?
| This is a recurrent issue while hanging out with SO, friends
| and family and the only devices that we believe carrying are
| those AirPods.
| oneplane wrote:
| I think so, it depends on the firmware version and if you
| activated it as a 'thing' I think. I have one pair that
| does it and my significant other has one that doesn't but
| it's not being used as actively and not in Find My either.
| happytoexplain wrote:
| The impression most people have is that this is highly
| available, small, easy to use, cheap, and there is plausible
| deniability in the intention of purchasing one.
|
| Now, there may be other solutions with some or all of those
| qualities to varying degrees, but the simple fact that the
| _impression_ is popular necessarily means that it will see
| usage in cases where the perpetrator would otherwise not have
| committed the act.
|
| In other words, "this isn't new technology" is a true but not
| terribly relevant sentiment.
| oneplane wrote:
| It is indeed an impression problem. Doing this with LoRa for
| a lower price has been possible for a very long time and you
| don't even need a large network for that due to the
| significant range. Basic triangulation built in to friendly
| software using existing radios and then simply getting closer
| with a hand-held transceiver isn't exactly hardcore hacking
| either. And with the low entry cost and non-detectability by
| practically any target it's a way worse issue than AirTags or
| Tiles could ever be.
| RF_Savage wrote:
| AirTags are trivial to use and have an extensive tracking
| network in the form of every iDevice.
|
| Custom or semi-custom battery powered LoRa trackers have
| lesser batteryluve, are bulkier and much harder to get and
| deploy.
|
| Basic triangulation is easy-ish, but requires multiple
| sites or a moving site to work toany degree. And those
| sites need to hear the tracking beacon.
| oneplane wrote:
| What I was writing about isn't theory, but is used in the
| form of pet and wildlife trackers. Networks already
| exist. Most of the older ones are usable as well using
| UHF trackers. None of this is new, it's just that 'the
| bad guys' mostly get caught using bulky SMS-based GPS
| location transmitters and now AirTags.
| katbyte wrote:
| Go on Amazon and search for 4g gps tracker. Cheap, small,
| easy, cellular connected gps units with no way for anyone
| to detect them, unlike an AirTag.
| ghaff wrote:
| What is probably true, at least based on the few anecdotal
| stories that have made the rounds, is that the introduction
| of AirTags may well have planted the thought in some people
| that "Oh, it's pretty easy to track someone/something with
| this cheap device." One can also imagine people making up
| stories (not saying that's the case here though it's very
| possible) and people planting a tracker for the lulz to see
| what would happen.
| tomp wrote:
| This is a GPS tracker that can tap into a world-wide Wi-Fi mesh
| network supported by the richest company in the world.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| It's baffling how Apple on the one hand claims that user privacy
| is the most important thing to them, but on the other hand they
| built an anonymous tracking network that can be abused for many
| nefarious purposes, and everyone who has an iPhone was made a
| part of the network whether they like it or not.
|
| There are so many things that are questionable about Airtags.
| Another way to abuse it would be for example, you could place an
| Airtag somewhere on an iPhone users driveway, and use it to
| determine when they arrive home by checking for pings. The victim
| won't even see a notification, since the Airtag is stationary.
|
| Preventing attacks like this would require the victim to know
| where to opt-out of Apple's tracking network, a setting that
| Apple hid by giving it a confusing name ("Network & Wireless")
| and shows a warning that your phone won't work properly anymore
| if you try to turn it off.
|
| (Also, turning that setting off presumably also turns off the
| Airtag warning? So you are trading one risk against another?)
| solveit wrote:
| > Another way to abuse it would be for example, you could place
| an Airtag somewhere on an iPhone users driveway, and use it to
| determine when they arrive home by checking for pings. The
| victim won't even see a notification, since the Airtag is
| stationary.
|
| You can hide an arbitrary device near a victim's driveway and
| your choice of surveillance device is an Airtag? Come on.
| josho wrote:
| How is this is any way an anonymous tracker?
|
| The police could get a subpoena for Apple to divulge the iCloud
| account, credit card, and phone number of the owner of this
| AirTag. Using air tags to conduct illegal activity is stupid.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| Huh, right, with all the talk about the privacy preserving
| location sharing, I missed that Airtags have a serial number
| that Apple can look up.
|
| However, my main criticism (that Apple customers were not
| asked whether they want to participate in a network that may
| indirectly reveal their location) still stands.
| olliej wrote:
| The find my network is designed so that it does not
| directly or indirectly reveal location of the primary
| device or any intermediaries to apple
| giords wrote:
| It was a mistake to throw away the tag. They could've used it
| (together with police, perhaps) to track down the offender.
| [deleted]
| controlweather wrote:
| She faked it, in her twitter photo of the tag the plastic
| activation plastic is still in the device. She lied and posted a
| photo of an unactivated AirTag.
| everyone wrote:
| Well thank goodness blessed Apple are so virtuous and privacy
| focused, otherwise this would be a real shit-show.
| olliej wrote:
| ?
|
| By design AirTags don't provide any information that is useable
| by apple
| CPLX wrote:
| As someone who has been around message boards and forums since
| the late 90's one thing that has really surprised me is the
| degree to which people have started taking first person online
| stories seriously.
|
| Reddit of course is full of them, as is Twitter and lots of other
| places. Meanwhile the incentives to successfully tell a just-so
| story that goes viral have never been higher. Youtube money,
| GoFundme, influencer opportunities, etc.
|
| The post we are all responding to is super low effort, not even a
| photo, and not even a first person account. Her "friend" found an
| AirTag and threw it away.
|
| Meanwhile there's a GoFundme link right on the profile.
|
| Just saying.
| irthomasthomas wrote:
| I stopped when I read that. Terrified woman stays with friend
| after being alerted to a tracking device on her car. While she
| sleeps, the friend searches the car and discards a tracking
| device. Right. And everyone else here treating it like that is
| fine.
| ghaff wrote:
| While the story is of course possible, there are sufficient red
| flags I'm inclined to think it's not likely.
| kitcar wrote:
| In Canada Airtags are used for car theft
|
| https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/apple-tracking-devices-being-used...
| gorner wrote:
| Police are claiming they are, but have provided very limited
| evidence this is actually happening.
| https://twitter.com/neilcybart/status/1472634032827645962
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-19 23:01 UTC)