[HN Gopher] Track your devices via Apple FindMy network in Go/Ti...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Track your devices via Apple FindMy network in Go/TinyGo
        
       Author : deadprogram
       Score  : 345 points
       Date   : 2025-01-11 12:14 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (github.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
        
       | a12k wrote:
       | Incredibly cool. I am constantly amazed by these efforts and the
       | find my network is a really impressive thing. What's stopped me
       | from using anything like this ever is the fact that I'm confident
       | that at some point Apple will either embrace this sort of
       | piggybacking on the network and open it up more officially, or it
       | will ban any Apple ID that has ever been associated with such
       | things. Right now they know about this and are not commenting
       | either way.
       | 
       | Hope in the future either Apple supports this more officially, or
       | there is a way to use it with no direct link to my Apple ID or
       | account. Until then, I am a spectator in these things.
        
         | jcutrell wrote:
         | I think there is some positive effect potential for Apple to
         | let this slide. The broader this network is, the more adoption
         | it receives. P2P as a super-structure has always been a bigger
         | than vendor problem; adoption by any means is likely an
         | allowable tradeoff, especially since Apple doesn't have to do
         | the work here.
         | 
         | Eventually they will capitalize more on the mesh density,
         | rather than crushing the adoption now.
        
           | malmeloo wrote:
           | Except that custom tags like these do not require an Apple
           | device in order to use them, so the size of the network is
           | not increased. They only increase the load on the network.
           | FindMy is not a P2P/mesh network; all these tags do is
           | broadcast keys which are picked up by iDevices, which then
           | upload those reports to Apple.
        
             | koolba wrote:
             | Are the keys not tied to known apple products? Or do you
             | make them up when you first register a device?
             | 
             | Trying to understand why apple doesn't (or can't?) already
             | reject broadcast data from keys that are not apple
             | products.
        
               | prepend wrote:
               | I would guess because they don't care. The marginal cost
               | is zero and I think they would only bother if someone
               | ddoses or it becomes an issue.
               | 
               | Until then, more devices are probably positive for
               | reducing potential pitchforking.
        
               | malmeloo wrote:
               | Two master secrets are randomly generated when pairing
               | the AirTag for the first time, which are then saved to
               | the iCloud keychain. Those secrets are then used to
               | generate a new keypair every 15 minutes (at most), and
               | the public key is broadcasted by the tag. Not only does
               | Apple not know what the master secrets are in the first
               | place (because they're stored in the keychain), but
               | that's also an insane number of keys to compare against,
               | with no real possibility to precompute them. And that's a
               | big win in terms of privacy.
        
         | malmeloo wrote:
         | The process of requesting locations for a certain tag is not
         | tied to any Apple Account. In the instructions in the README,
         | when logging into macless haystack, you can just use a burner
         | account.
        
           | mmooss wrote:
           | How is privacy protected? I wouldn't want everyone tracking
           | my airtags.
        
             | menzoic wrote:
             | >I wouldn't want everyone tracking my airtags.
             | 
             | That's kind of how the whole system works.
        
               | mmooss wrote:
               | I thought it was designed to prevent unwanted people from
               | tracking you. If I bought an airtag, you could track it?
               | Without authentication or authorization?
        
               | malmeloo wrote:
               | Only if you have the private key belonging to the AirTag
               | at the time of location capture. Anyone can download
               | encrypted location reports for any AirTag found in the
               | wild, but only the owner can decrypt them with the
               | private key.
        
               | hattmall wrote:
               | So how does one get the private key for an airtag without
               | associating it to their account?
        
               | malmeloo wrote:
               | By dumping it from a Mac. But that's not what this
               | project does, it uses diy AirTags without rotating keys
               | so you don't need to do all that.
        
             | jki275 wrote:
             | The data passes through any devices in the vicinity -- but
             | they can't read the data unless they've got the private key
             | to that tag.
        
             | dwaite wrote:
             | It is a cryptography heavy, privacy-oriented protocol
             | somewhat specific to the behavior apple wants, which is
             | tied to social behavior. E.g. it is meant to track lost
             | items, not stolen items and not people.
             | 
             | My understanding of how it is all supposed to work:
             | 
             | You get a key-generating-key at provisioning time. The tag
             | itself has three modes depending on whether it is in
             | contact with one of your devices, and further whether it
             | has been out of contact more than a certain period of time.
             | 
             | When not in contact, it will advertise itself with a
             | rotating public key based partially on a rotating Mac
             | address. An Apple device which sees it will encrypt
             | location data based on that key and send it to apple to
             | store under that public key as a mailbox. A device which
             | continues to see it while moving will start to alert the
             | person holding that device that there may be an AirTag
             | tracking them.
             | 
             | The tag itself has NFC functionality which provides
             | information for helping find the owner, and on Apple's side
             | this is meant to be tied to a real identity to aid LE if
             | there's an abuse scenario.
             | 
             | After a certain amount of time not seeing another device,
             | an AirTag will start to make sounds to alert people where
             | it is when an Apple device comes into range.
             | 
             | When you want to find your item, you anonymously query it
             | under its rotating key information, and use your knowledge
             | of the private key generation to get location information.
             | Since there's nothing Apple uses to correlate these
             | entries, there may be multiple records over time although
             | Apple's UI only shows the newest entry found.
             | 
             | So yes, there's anonymity in being near devices but limited
             | so that someone can know they are being tracked. There's
             | anonymity in querying location. However, there's not meant
             | to be anonymity with physical access.
        
           | yardstick wrote:
           | What about the Apple account of the tag itself?
        
             | malmeloo wrote:
             | These custom tags are not tied to any account; Apple can't
             | tell whether a tag found in the wild is "legit" or not, so
             | registering it is not necessary. You can use your main
             | account if you want, but if you request too many location
             | reports too often, they _will_ ban your account.
        
           | ustad wrote:
           | Where does it say about burner account?
           | 
           | "You will be asked for your Apple-ID, password and your 2FA"
           | 
           | You mean get another apple device and setup another account?
        
             | malmeloo wrote:
             | It doesn't mention a burner account anywhere, but as the
             | author of FindMy.py, I happen to know how this stuff works
             | :-). But yes, create a new account (either through an Apple
             | device or the website or w/e), attach it to an Apple device
             | or hackintosh at least once, then log out again.
        
               | tossit444 wrote:
               | Doesn't Apple force SMS 2FA on accounts? I remember
               | trying to use Apple Music some years back and it needed
               | me to give a phone number.
        
               | ValentineC wrote:
               | Yes, but phone numbers can be used across multiple Apple
               | accounts.
        
               | DanAtC wrote:
               | What if they shitlist all accounts using the same phone
               | number?
        
       | nobunaga wrote:
       | Is it just me or this whole find my network capability is a
       | security nightmare? I mean I understand its usefulness but can
       | the [insert authority here] just request apple to tell them where
       | this person is even without cellular coverage? Ive decided to
       | move away from the apple ecosystem either way because of this but
       | it just seems to me to be a surveillance nightmare.
        
         | rgovostes wrote:
         | https://support.apple.com/guide/security/find-my-security-se...
        
           | nobunaga wrote:
           | Interesting thanks. I understand that its designed to be
           | anonymous, but I guess it requires faith in Apple not
           | complying to any forceful request from a security authority
           | in the US to not modify it in secret.
        
             | CubsFan1060 wrote:
             | Of course that can be said for nearly anything you own.
             | iPhone, android, tablet, anything that is Bluetooth (for
             | instance, your car), etc.
        
             | givinguflac wrote:
             | Given apples outright refusal to help the FBI previously I
             | have more faith than other companies that they'll do the
             | right thing. But nothing's perfect.
        
             | rgovostes wrote:
             | Cryptographers who design these systems do consider the
             | threat of a malicious future iteration of the company and
             | thus try to reduce the trust in a centralized authority.
             | 
             | Apple did fight in court to not have to crack the San
             | Bernardino shooter's phone, which probably didn't garner
             | much sympathy with the general public, specifically against
             | government power to compel them to make changes to subvert
             | security.
             | 
             | They also publish a Transparency Report about government
             | requests they've received and how many they've responded
             | to.
        
               | oefrha wrote:
               | > Cryptographers who design these systems do consider the
               | threat of a malicious future iteration of the company and
               | thus try to reduce the trust in a centralized authority.
               | 
               | It's no use. All the opaqueness to Apple relies on
               | 
               | > This private key pair and the secret are never sent to
               | Apple and are synced only among the user's other devices
               | in an end-to-end encrypted manner using iCloud Keychain.
               | 
               | Which is trivial to compromise from Apple. They do their
               | best to minimize trackability from third parties though.
        
               | Terretta wrote:
               | > _Which is trivial to compromise from Apple._
               | 
               | Explain this? Since both Apple and security researchers
               | have worked on provable trust.
        
               | oefrha wrote:
               | Provable how? iOS software is closed source and
               | unverifiable. New code can be added to send any data
               | anywhere at any point. Explain to me how you prove closed
               | source software won't send data under its control ever.
               | 
               | And we don't even need to go as far as key exchanges, and
               | forget about Find My. Maybe those are better protected
               | and it's harder for them to pull a sneaky without someone
               | noticing. The location data of your phone isn't in Secure
               | Enclave and the OS can do whatever the hell it likes with
               | it, good luck verifying a huge closed source OS which
               | phones home all the time isn't sending your location
               | home. At the end of the day you're trusting them (or just
               | don't care because you probably aren't pissing off TLA,
               | which is certainly true in my case), provable security is
               | extremely limited.
        
               | snuxoll wrote:
               | iCloud Keychain escrow data is encrypted by HSM clusters
               | that have administrator keys destroyed; if Apple tried to
               | compromise a keychain by installing malicious HSMs users
               | would first get notified that their data had been lost
               | due to failed/destroyed HSMs.
        
               | oefrha wrote:
               | See my response to sibling. Explain to me how you prove
               | iOS software can't be malicious.
        
               | jsjohnst wrote:
               | Explain to me how you can prove...
               | 
               | 1. You aren't a troll posing as a human
               | 
               | 2. That if you are a human, that you won't die in the
               | next hour.
               | 
               | 3. That if you don't die today, that the Earth won't be
               | impacted by an asteroid this year.
        
               | lern_too_spel wrote:
               | It didn't garner sympathy with the public because they
               | had previously lied to the public that they were
               | technically incapable of complying with those data
               | requests. After the government explained how Apple could
               | comply, Apple shamefully removed the erroneous claim from
               | its website without informing its customers who had
               | believed that claim.
               | 
               | All the big tech companies that have user data publish
               | government data request transparency reports.
        
               | jki275 wrote:
               | That statement simply isn't true.
               | 
               | The government attempted to force them to write a new
               | operating system for them that would allow them to get
               | the data on the phone. This was never about the San
               | Bernardino phone, everyone knew there was nothing of any
               | use on it and everyone involved was dead. It was about
               | getting precedent on record that they could force a
               | company to backdoor their OS on a court order. They
               | eventually dropped their request when it became obvious
               | Apple wasn't going to roll over for them.
               | 
               | Your post reeks of some personal vendetta against Apple,
               | and has no factual basis.
        
               | oefrha wrote:
               | > The government attempted to force them to write a new
               | operating system
               | 
               | Which they are absolutely capable of, but refused to that
               | time. People in this thread keep talking about provable
               | trust when the software is fully under Apple's control,
               | which is just puzzling. It's still a "trust me bro".
               | Whether you trust them due to past track record is
               | something else. In fact, that you even need to bring up
               | their refusal as evidence means you don't believe they're
               | technically incapable of complying.
        
               | jki275 wrote:
               | You're not understanding the issue here.
               | 
               | The government wanted Apple to backdoor iOS at their
               | command.
               | 
               | Apple told the government to go fuck themselves.
               | 
               | None of that addresses whether it was technically
               | possible or not. You've made up a theory in your head
               | about how it was possible based on what some dumbfuck
               | government lawyer made up to file with a court, but that
               | doesn't make any of it true.
               | 
               | And again, none of this had anything to do with that
               | phone. The government wanted to establish precedent that
               | they could order Apple to create a backdoored iOS for
               | them, so that they could use that to spy on people. They
               | gave up when it became obvious Apple wasn't going to roll
               | over for them and rewrite iOS so they could use it the
               | way they wanted to.
               | 
               | Your beliefs about some theory about Apple claiming
               | something about "provable trust" or whatever are really
               | probably unfounded and don't even make any sense.
        
               | lern_too_spel wrote:
               | If the statement isn't true, then why did Apple stop
               | making that claim? It's because my statement is true.
               | Apple was capable of getting the data.
               | 
               | It is possible for Apple to build a device that Apple
               | wouldn't have been able to access the data on, as they
               | claimed. That isn't what they provided to their
               | customers.
               | 
               | You're using bad faith arguments to defend a multi-
               | trillion dollar company that pushes a restrictive model
               | of computing on its customers for its own benefit for
               | what purpose?
        
             | lathiat wrote:
             | If you want to learn more about how this all works in video
             | form, there was a talk at 38c3: https://www.youtube.com/wat
             | ch?v=nWQcgZfxkOM&pp=ygUMMzhjMyBma...
        
             | Terretta wrote:
             | Which mobile phone maker do you have more faith in? Which
             | telco?
             | 
             | Apple have done work, and published tools for researchers,
             | to make it so they can't "modify it in secret". The tools
             | for security research community help verify that and "keep
             | them honest". For instance, this is partly what the prompts
             | about new devices or log in on other devices are about,
             | there's a key exchange happening, and you get told. You can
             | also exchange keys with Messages contacts to verify you're
             | talking to them. You can turn on iCloud Advanced Security
             | and Apple don't get even your backup keys. Also see the new
             | Lockdown Mode.
             | 
             | Granted, Apple can change their minds and become anti-
             | privacy or pro data-brokers and ad-tech, but some of these
             | proofs would break so folks would know.
             | 
             | Anyway, if the government wants to know where you are, they
             | can just ask the Chinese who've been watching Americans'
             | cell phone identifiers move around.
             | 
             | In seriousness, the telcos already sell* this position data
             | to data-brokers and law enforcement have portals to just
             | watch you scurry around, even without a warrant.
             | 
             | * Sometimes telcos share your location data in ways that
             | aren't "selling" so they can say they don't sell it. But
             | the data goes and telcos derive value in exchange.
        
               | jeroenhd wrote:
               | Just because someone doesn't trust Apple to build a
               | worldwide live location tracking system doesn't mean they
               | don't want someone else to build a worldwide location
               | tracking system. There's an inherent risk to worldwide
               | location tracking systems and while I think the genie is
               | out of the bottle now, I would prefer there not to be a
               | worldwide location tracking network at all.
               | 
               | Airtags have become a commodity at this point and despite
               | attempts to prevent this, criminals are already using
               | them to follow potential victims to their homes. I know
               | GPS trackers and a bunch of different find-my style
               | networks existed long before Apple brought the airtag to
               | market, but those didn't turn up in purses and cars quite
               | as often as Airtags now do.
               | 
               | Apple tries their best to make this thing secure and
               | safe, but there's only so much safety they can add before
               | the devices become useless.
        
         | malmeloo wrote:
         | I think it's worth mentioning that FindMy consists of two
         | distinct "networks"; there's the one where other Apple devices
         | find your stuff, and another where your devices upload their
         | locations straight to Apple. The FindMy app combines these two
         | networks to show the most recent location. As far as I can tell
         | this project only uses the former network, which would require
         | an explicit backdoor due to the way it is designed. But if
         | you're trying to defend against government agencies, that
         | latter network is probably more of your concern.
        
         | tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
         | The system is designed specifically to make this impossible.
         | 
         | Your tag doesn't know its position, it simply broadcasts its
         | own, _rotating_ public key. Since the key changes randomly (in
         | a way that you as the legitimate owner can predict), a third
         | party can 't easily follow the tag.
         | 
         | Other devices see that key, and share their position,
         | _encrypted with your tag 's public key_.
         | 
         | That makes it relatively hard to get the data, essentially
         | impossible without forcing Apple to re-design the system and
         | push malicious updates, which is generally considered as
         | something that goes beyond what normal subpoenas can do.
        
           | nixpulvis wrote:
           | Apple could be subpoenaed to look at the account holder's
           | registered tags still, no?
        
             | crims0n wrote:
             | If the US government is subpoenaing Apple on your behalf,
             | you probably have bigger problems.
        
               | jeroenhd wrote:
               | The US government has told Google to query its location
               | database for any device in the vicinity of certain crimes
               | before. There's no way they're not trying to get Apple to
               | do the same.
               | 
               | If Apple designed they'd crypto system as well as they
               | claim that's not viable at this moment in time, but the
               | government can certainly try.
        
             | HALtheWise wrote:
             | No, because Apple doesn't have the private key of the
             | account holder, and so can't see which rotating codes are
             | associated with that account holder since it's all
             | encrypted.
        
             | tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
             | This gives them a list of tags, but not their location. The
             | keys to decrypt your location are (AFAIK) held on your
             | iPhone.
        
             | jki275 wrote:
             | Anybody can write a subpoena, but Apple is on record as
             | having absolutely no problem telling anyone who does so to
             | go fuck themselves and then backing it up with litigation.
        
         | reaperducer wrote:
         | _Is it just me or this whole find my network capability is a
         | security nightmare?_
         | 
         | Settings - _your_name_ - Find My - _device_ - toggle off
         | 
         | If you don't trust that this will really disable the feature,
         | then you are going to have to think hard about every electronic
         | device you own.
         | 
         | Do you trust the firmware in your Android phone? What about the
         | non-open-source modem chip? What about the SIM card, which runs
         | Java? Are there microphones you haven't noticed built in to
         | your TV remote? (Many have them.) Your toaster likely has a
         | chip in it more powerful than a networked DOS-era computer.
         | (Mine does.) How do you know it's not joining a nearby wifi
         | network and sending out information?
         | 
         | Ever since the China/iCloud thing, I don't fully trust Apple.
         | But among big tech companies, it's certainly the one that I
         | trust the most.
        
         | wkat4242 wrote:
         | No they can't. Apple doesn't know who has which tag. It's built
         | with privacy in mind. I know Apple listen touts privacy while
         | having ulterior motives but I looked at the technical design
         | specs and this is pretty great
         | 
         | I doubt Samsung and Google have gone to such lengths with their
         | trackers.
        
           | andy_xor_andrew wrote:
           | Apple always seems to design services the way a privacy-
           | obsessed nerd would, (if you forced said privacy nerd to
           | design a P2P tracking network).
           | 
           | It's like, "oh, you want all your photos to be searchable,
           | like 'dogs' or 'Eiffel tower'? Fine, we'll create an on-
           | device embedding of each photo, use homomorphic encryption so
           | you can share it with us and we can match it to its contents
           | without even knowing what they are, then we'll send that back
           | to your device for storage. Oh, and we'll use a relay so we
           | don't even see your IP address while doing this, not that it
           | matters since we can't decrypt the content anyway." It's
           | pretty wild, like they could have easily skipped all this and
           | only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of users would
           | even know or care.
           | 
           | In fact, I was pretty annoyed that the news story from the
           | above example was "Apple is looking at all your photos and
           | violating your privacy", since they spent so much effort
           | doing it the right way, in a way that _respects_ your
           | privacy, it makes it less likely they will bother going
           | through the effort again
           | 
           | https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/03/apple_enhanced_visual.
           | ..
        
             | lern_too_spel wrote:
             | You misunderstood the point of the news story. Apple
             | automatically opted in everybody's iPhones to sending data
             | to Apple, unlike every other company that requires explicit
             | opt in.
        
               | averageRoyalty wrote:
               | > unlike every other company that requires explicit opt
               | in.
               | 
               | Not defending Apple here, but that's silly. User
               | hostility and auto gobbling up data without consent is
               | perfectly normal for most companies out there.
        
               | lern_too_spel wrote:
               | No other company automatically sends data about pictures
               | users take on their phones off the phone. Not a single
               | one. All required explicit opt-in except for Apple.
               | Hence, the news story.
        
               | andy_xor_andrew wrote:
               | I guess it's a matter of informing the public that
               | homomorphic encryption means no information is visible to
               | Apple, so Apple never receives any information about your
               | pictures at all.
               | 
               | I guess you could make the argument "well what if one day
               | they stop using homomorphic encryption", but that
               | argument doesn't make much sense since 1) why would they
               | and 2) you could already ask the same question today
               | "what if they just started sending info anyway"
        
               | wkat4242 wrote:
               | Still. Asking the user is important. Even when there
               | isn't anything you can see.
        
           | izacus wrote:
           | > I doubt Samsung and Google have gone to such lengths with
           | their trackers.
           | 
           | You are wrong and it's trivially verifiable. You can watch
           | this years 38c3 video comparing them or read the nicely
           | public specification.
        
             | wkat4242 wrote:
             | I was mainly thinking of Samsung's SmartTag, not Google's
             | recent venture. I have looked for info on the SmartTags in
             | the past and couldn't find it. I have some Samsung ones
             | myself.
             | 
             | I didn't look at the Google ones because I don't use a
             | Google account. So I couldn't use them anyway.
             | 
             | But good to hear that they did design it well, I'll check
             | that video.
        
           | lern_too_spel wrote:
           | Google's trackers are more private than Apple's to the point
           | of stupidity. https://www.androidpolice.com/google-find-my-
           | device-privacy-...
           | 
           | The PMs don't understand that they should be catering to the
           | people purchasing the devices.
        
             | wkat4242 wrote:
             | Yeah I gather now. That's pretty cool for a company like
             | Google. I still think they're evil though. But in this case
             | it appears they did a good job.
        
               | lern_too_spel wrote:
               | All companies are evil. Google tends to provide more
               | control to the user than Apple, so from a consumer's
               | perspective, it is less evil than Apple.
        
           | bitpush wrote:
           | I was without until you made that swipe about Samsung and
           | Google. Don't be a fanboy. No company is your friend.
        
             | wkat4242 wrote:
             | I'm absolutely not an Apple fanboy actually. I use Samsung
             | phones. And FOSS on my computers. I moved away from iOS and
             | Mac years ago because I found them too locked in.
             | 
             | I don't trust Samsung and Google as far as I can throw them
             | but apparently in this case they did an ok job. And
             | unfortunately there's no meaningful alternative to the
             | duopoly of iOS and Android. So I was left with two bad
             | choices.
             | 
             | But I don't trust any big tech no. It's just really hard to
             | do without them, sadly.
        
       | bloopernova wrote:
       | I hope in the future we can determine the position of beacons to
       | within a cubic metre or less.
       | 
       | My wife has ADD and she loses items often. Tiles aren't very loud
       | and are flaky, we don't have an iPhone to use Airtags. I'm too
       | exhausted to try to master the math needed to locate Bluetooth
       | beacons, but I wish I could. I'd love for there to be a "just add
       | 4 small Bluetooth boards" kind of software project, but it
       | doesn't seem to scratch that itch for most open source devs.
        
         | lolinder wrote:
         | I also have ADHD, am also constantly losing things, and I've
         | had success with the Pebblebee tags. I have a tag on my keys
         | and a card in my wallet. The noise is loud enough that I can
         | hear it on a different floor in an old home with thick brick
         | walls.
        
         | stackskipton wrote:
         | That's AirTags with modernish iPhone now.
        
         | tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
         | If you know that the item is inside your apartment, you _only_
         | need the UWB part, which is quite orthogonal to this project.
        
           | namibj wrote:
           | I'm looking at setting up a trial system for 39c3 to allow
           | hunting down tools given out from the logistics department
           | (pallet jacks, ladders, if cheap enough pallets that get left
           | unattended). Timeline for that is 10-11 months from now for
           | when hardware has to exist and work.
           | 
           | I'd think of 2 or 3 AA batteries stuck to a small UWB PCB and
           | stuck with tape of suitable type to the tool.
           | 
           | Are 10$ each doable? I don't see why not, but can't find any
           | board akin to a Bluepill or ESP32-VROOM or PiPico containing
           | the HF part.
           | 
           | The idea would be with base stations that can see each other
           | well enough to synchronize and perform role-reversed
           | pseudoranging to the tracker.
        
             | franga2000 wrote:
             | While definitely not as cool, this might be achievable with
             | the same indoor positioning method the c3nav app uses,
             | which would probably be accurate enough to track larger
             | items at least to a few meters. After that, you can
             | hopefully spot them easily, or maybe even use Bluetooth
             | hot-or-cold to track them down further.
             | 
             | An ESP32 with a battery controller (wemos clone) + a little
             | pillow cell would be around 6EUR each (less if you buy in
             | bulk).
        
         | crazysim wrote:
         | My partner and I are also Android only and honestly, I'm
         | thinking about simply picking up a smashed up iPhone 11 or 12
         | mini and exclusively relegating it for precision finding needs
         | with AirTags.
         | 
         | I don't think there will be equivalent alternatives, at least
         | not ones with ultra wideband precision location functionality,
         | availability, acceptable price, and robustness.
         | 
         | On the other hand there does seem to be some UWB support in
         | some Android that might work with Tile's UWB:
         | https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-enable-uwb-on-android-a...
        
           | mook wrote:
           | My understanding is that the Motorola trackers have UWB but
           | phone support isn't widespread yet. I haven't looked deep
           | enough to see if that satisfied your other criteria though.
        
             | namibj wrote:
             | https://developer.android.com/develop/connectivity/uwb#uwb-
             | e...
        
           | izacus wrote:
           | > I don't think there will be equivalent alternatives, at
           | least not ones with ultra wideband precision location
           | functionality, availability, acceptable price, and
           | robustness.
           | 
           | Why are you so confidently spreading misinformation? Samsung
           | SmartTag+ exists for years now with this precision and
           | capability for Samsung Android phones.
        
             | pests wrote:
             | Sometimes people are just incorrect and no ill intent.
        
               | izacus wrote:
               | I just don't get why I see so many of people on this very
               | site (surprisingly usually Apple or Tesla fans) that so
               | confidently spread misinformation about things they don't
               | have knowledge of and didn't even attempt to check.
               | 
               | Where does this wish to spread baseless misinformation
               | come from?
        
               | pests wrote:
               | Sometimes people are just wrong. There doesn't have to be
               | an ill intent behind it. Educate and move on. What else
               | can you do?
        
               | izacus wrote:
               | Which is exactly what I did. And it made people here
               | angry.
        
               | mulmen wrote:
               | You made an assumption of intent.
               | 
               | You could have just pointed out the Samsung product.
        
               | baxtr wrote:
               | How come the first thing you assume is ill intent?
               | 
               | How come you are so certain what the person was trying to
               | say without asking a clarification question first?
        
             | Kirby64 wrote:
             | I wouldn't call Samsung smart tags equivalent. They're
             | locked to Samsung phones, require other Samsung phones
             | (that have accepted the terms of service for broadcasting
             | location) to be nearby, and also seem to have limitations
             | around finding if you're in an area with no network
             | connectivity.
             | 
             | It's got ultra wide band finding which is nice, but you
             | really need every single android device to have a truly
             | comparable network.
        
               | raffraffraff wrote:
               | They're also unreliable in my experience. My mother has a
               | galaxy phone and new galaxy tab, so I got her the Tag 2.
               | I set this up for her and around 2 weeks later she said
               | she couldn't find her keys. The "ring" option disappeared
               | from the app. In order to get it back she has to find the
               | keys, and re-pair the tag. Yep, find them by yourself to
               | fix the ring function. Also I found the directional
               | finding to be dreadful. And overall the device has a less
               | than desirable delay. My tile pro is much better in every
               | regard. I thought that the Samsung would have a better
               | coverage but it turns out that the software must be
               | installed for it to work! So it's restricted to Samsung
               | devices that have that software installed.
        
         | shermantanktop wrote:
         | I'm also a misplacer-of-items. I hot glued an AirTag to the
         | inside of my glasses cases but was frustrated at the poor
         | signal. Turns out most cases are made of thin metal. Switched
         | to a case with a cardboard core and it works great now.
        
         | willseth wrote:
         | AirTags are generally loud enough to solve that problem. I wish
         | they put the same speaker in the ATV remote.
        
           | CharlesW wrote:
           | Not the same, but there are a few options for remote cases
           | which support AirTags:
           | https://www.elago.com/products/2021-apple-tv-siri-
           | remote-r5-...
        
           | varenc wrote:
           | The new ATV remotes support semi-precise location finding.
           | Not as precise as AirTag and UWB, but the Find My app will
           | tell you as your get closer to your ATV remote. I'm assuming
           | it just makes use of Bluetooth connection strength. Sadly
           | only the most recent remotes seem to support this.
        
         | kbaker wrote:
         | Hopefully the next few years will see Bluetooth Channel
         | Sounding take off more. Promises to give every BLE device a
         | similar (but less accurate than UWB) distance estimation
         | feature.
         | 
         | https://www.bluetooth.com/learn-about-bluetooth/feature-enha...
        
         | UncleEntity wrote:
         | I'm guessing the 'math needed' is for using stationary beacons
         | to triangulate your location. Even Apple just sends the
         | location of the receiving phone which is why there are stories
         | of the cops showing up at some innocent person's house because
         | the neighbor kid found some headphones on the bus.
         | 
         | Anyhoo, back in the day I was messing around with beacons and
         | can tell you it's fairly easy to get them working. I wrote a
         | small program to get my laptop to act like a beacon and used
         | some random "bluetooth tracker" on my phone which would give
         | the approximate distance to said beacon. Then it's just a
         | matter of walking around watching the distance measurement.
        
         | varenc wrote:
         | AirTags and an iPhone 11 or newer should exactly solve this for
         | you. Lets you locate AirTags to within a foot.
         | 
         | Rather than using Bluetooth connection strength, it uses Ultra
         | Wideband for precision location. This works on time-flight
         | using the speed of light delay like GPS. When you open the Find
         | My app it very quickly knows the exact distance to the AirTag,
         | and then as you walk around it uses your observed change in
         | position to determine the exact direction the AirTag is from
         | you.
         | 
         | It's really cool tech! You need to use the "Find" feature in
         | the Find My app and not the "Play Sound" feature. And it
         | requires an iPhone 11+ with an H1 Ultra Wideband chip in it.
         | Cost is probably on-par with setting up various bluetooth
         | boards around the house, and way more accurate. Though not as
         | much hackery fun.
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-wideband#Real-time_locat...
        
       | 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
       | https://media.ccc.de/v/38c3-find-my-101
        
       | wkat4242 wrote:
       | Ooooh it looks like you can now use it without a Mac? That would
       | be amazing. Because Apple trackers cost only a few euro
       | (aftermarket ones of course)
        
         | tomr75 wrote:
         | Any recommendations?
        
           | wkat4242 wrote:
           | I just buy them in the shop. We have this shop called
           | "Action" that sells a brand called "Fresh 'n' Rebel". They
           | sell a pack of 3 tags for 16EUR. They work well. I have a
           | bunch of them and also put some in some of my more expensive
           | electronics so I can track them when they get stolen (with
           | the speaker disabled of course)
        
             | wielebny wrote:
             | They work well but don't have the UWB part and need to have
             | battery replaced every few months.
        
               | wkat4242 wrote:
               | Yeah true they don't last as long. I only have an iPad
               | anyway so i don't care about the UWB but that's true,
               | didn't think of that.
        
       | CPLX wrote:
       | Trying to parse this and can't tell. Can you use this with
       | Apple's AirTags or do you have to create your own tracking
       | devices?
        
         | iJohnDoe wrote:
         | I was wondering the same thing.
        
         | deadprogram wrote:
         | You do need to create your own tracking beacon using one of of
         | the devices supported by the TinyGo Bluetooth package:
         | 
         | https://github.com/hybridgroup/go-haystack?tab=readme-ov-fil...
        
       | _-_-__-_-_- wrote:
       | Story time. My wife and I were vacationing in Portugal last
       | summer. She left her purse in a uber car on the way to the
       | airport. The driver found the purse and dumped it after taking
       | 20$ and some costume jewellery. We tracked it to an abandoned
       | parking lot later that day using an AirTag and we ended up
       | finding it using the Location app. We have AirTags in every bag
       | now and we change the batteries on a schedule.
        
         | averageRoyalty wrote:
         | All my bags also now have airtags. I was at Sydney airport lost
         | baggage area a few years ago waiting for a bag I'd found was
         | there after hours of speaking to the airline and airport.
         | Another gentlemen there told them that his item was there.
         | They'd been evacuated from a plane in New Zealand a month
         | before and left his iPad in the seat pocket, and had tracked it
         | back using Find My to Sydney. He travels internationally
         | multiple times per month and said airtags were the best thing
         | he owned.
         | 
         | I've since added them into all my cars, bags and a few
         | honeypots embedded into high value items that might be stolen.
        
         | marci wrote:
         | How do you know it was the driver and not someone they picked
         | up after you?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-01-12 23:02 UTC)