[HN Gopher] An update on AirTag and unwanted tracking ___________________________________________________________________ An update on AirTag and unwanted tracking Author : todsacerdoti Score : 60 points Date : 2022-02-10 18:00 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.apple.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.apple.com) | Syonyk wrote: | > _...and we condemn in the strongest possible terms any | malicious use of our products._ | | Then subject them to malicious users _before_ releasing them to | see what sort of ideas they can come up with in a few days, and | mitigate those before general release. | | Go schedule a room at Defcon, give people AirTags, and see what | they do. If they neutralized your mitigations in an hour, well... | other people can figure that out too. That the speakers are so | easy to disable... well, yeah, you should have figured that out | _before_ release. | | I'm a bit concerned about Apple's internal ability to reason | about malicious actors. This is the second time in recent history | they've released a shiny something, only to discover it torn to | shreds in very short order by people. The whole CSAM hashing | algorithm being as weak as it was to manipulation _should not | have been a surprise to them_ - but it sure seems like the system | was designed without considering that the first hashing algorithm | was trivial to intentionally collide. | | "Buy an iPhone to prevent people from tracking you, and if you | want to see where the tracker is, buy a really new one!" is some | sort of sales pitch, certainly, though this new set of things | sounds so prone to false positives and annoyance that I'm not | sure how long it will be until people just turn the whole thing | off (if that's an option). | | It's a neat concept, but doesn't seem to have survived contact | with reality and humans very well. | nomel wrote: | I've said this in other threads, but I'm probably done buying | AirTags, because the anti-stalking features, that I assume | you're aware of, are so annoying, that I don't want to add any | more to my life. | | When I get in my car with my wife, we both get a notification | that an AirTag is following us, because my wife is potentially | stalking me with her purse and keys. I can silence this | notification for only one day. I can't disable it, because | that's what a stalkers or abusive boyfriend would do. They | randomly beep and boop to notify me that they exist, and I'm | being stalked, and to put my phone near the offending AirTag so | I can see the serial and last four digits of the owners phone | number. | | If someone were actually stalking me, I probably wouldn't | notice. | | I think the whole concept is almost doomed, if you're to be | satisfied. The purpose of an AirTag is to track a thing. The | desire of a stalker is to track a thing. I don't think these | two identical problem spaces can exist together, in some | harmonious way, that would satisfy people with your concerns, | without constant annoyance. Just imagine if these were more | popular and you did something crazy like, got on a bus, or went | on a plane, walked any reasonable distance down a street with | someone in your proximity. | | I would love to hear a solutions that doesn't result in | constant notifications. I also think it's completely silly to | say "We'll we just have to restrict location track of anything, | because there are bad people out there. Period." If the metric | is to stop all the bad, then technology needs a huge lobotomy! | varenc wrote: | Apple just needs to add shared AirTags to iClould family | sharing. I think that'd solve your issue and ~90% of other | unwanted stalking alerts. They already allow shared "Find My | iDevice" and just need to add AirTags to the mix. | nomel wrote: | I agree, but from previous HN threads, people have said | that this would enable people in abusive relationships to | be stalked. Also, it appears that some distance is required | to trigger the notification, so I imagine stalkers could | use the AirTags within this distance. For example, to find | which apartment someone lives in, within a building. | | I think there will always be headlines about stalking and | abuse, and people claiming Apple didn't do enough (even | though it's so annoying as is), regardless. | varenc wrote: | > would enable people in abusive relationships to be | stalked | | I can see that concern, but family sharing ALREADY lets | you share iDevice locations at all time. That's a | superior form of stalking compared to AirTags... So I | just don't get this concern. It might just be perception | though. From a PR perspective this is a bad time to | release any feature that could be perceived as reducing | AirTag stalking alerts. | Syonyk wrote: | > _then technology needs a huge lobotomy!_ | | Yes, it does. It really, really does. The absolutely human- | toxic nature of most modern consumer tech ("You buy me, I | feed you ads, and collect absolutely as much data as I can to | improve the ads other people pay me to deliver to you!" model | being the core complaint here) has done a huge amount of | damage to humanity. | | There are upsides, but we culturally seem horrible at | actually evaluating things fairly. Always-on devices, | constantly sending notifications, are just horrible to every | aspect of humans - and the more we learn about just how | horrible the are, the better the companies involved refine | their ability to "drive their users nuts" for more eyeball- | time to view ads, desired or not. | | So, yes, if what you get out of my writings are that we | should radically pull back on what consumer tech is and can | do, you're evaluating my position quite accurately. | varenc wrote: | Have any of the AirTag stalking mitigations actually been | defeated by hackers? Besides physically removing the speaker. | | The "an AirTag is traveling with you" alerts haven't been | defeated as far as I can tell. Apple tweaked some of the time | periods after launch but the core technical mitigations are the | same. | | I agree the current situation is non-ideal, but it's not clear | to me this is from a lack of sufficient pre-release pentesting. | Syonyk wrote: | > _The "an AirTag is traveling with you" alerts haven't been | defeated as far as I can tell._ | | Perhaps not, but they're meaningless to the >50% of the | population that doesn't have a modern enough iPhone as their | daily carry phone. | | Having moved back to a flip phone, I _literally_ have no way | to identify if such a tag is being used against me. | olliej wrote: | AirTags shipped with anti-abuse features on day one, no other | product provides any anti-abuse features whatsoever. | | The speaker could be defeated, but the anti tracking stuff | cannot be stopped without breaking the basic functionality. | | If you're demanding that companies must go to great length to | avoid abuse of their products why aren't you demanding the same | from tile? Why not the myriad gps trackers on Amazon? It's not | unreasonable to demand that Amazon ensures every such tracker | they sell has speakers and anti abuse features. | Syonyk wrote: | > _It's not unreasonable to demand that Amazon ensures every | such tracker they sell has speakers and anti abuse features._ | | I agree, however, this thread is about Apple's AirTag | devices, and complaining about Amazon's incredibly vile sales | practices seems at least somewhat off topic for it. | throwntoday wrote: | To what extent is any hardware manufacturer responsible for | malicious usage of their product in your opinion? Surely you | don't believe that all bases can be covered no matter how | simple the product prior to launch. I credit Apple for making a | best effort at launch and continuing security and support for | much longer than the industry standard in their products. But | realistically there is no way to launch something flawless as | you seem to be suggesting. | Syonyk wrote: | I don't think all bases can be covered, certainly. But | neither do I think Apple has been doing a good job of even | _trying_ to do a good job of it, at least recently. | | Apple clearly put some thought into how the product would be | misused, and added some features for that - but then appears | to have not bothered having actual (simulated malicious) | users test those features to see how they'd bypass them. | Things like "removing the speaker" seem oddly trivial, yet | there's no indication Apple even thought through that | situation. It wouldn't be too difficult to design something | in which the deliberate disabling of the speaker rendered the | device useless after a few days, yet would be unlikely to | trip in normal use. They're pretty well sealed. | | "Red teaming" something like this in the early design phases | is often useful to be able to figure out how to mitigate | these sorts of attacks, and Apple, far too often lately, | seems to be in a "...they did _what_? No, they can 't have... | we didn't think they'd... ugh, OK, let's add something to | support that..." mode. | | And if they don't have family sharing support, as seems to be | the case from the other comments here, it clearly means they | weren't tested with any sort of realistic use case, because | "Oh, yeah, my wife's keys in her purse keep making my phone | go off when we're driving together" seems a common use case | to discover in testing. | | I don't think a company should be responsible for all | malicious uses, but when those uses seem utterly trivial to | manage (remove speaker, your tracking target uses Android and | like almost all Android users hasn't downloaded Apple's app | to check for AirTags following them), I think they've missed | something really important in the design phase. | 323 wrote: | Making AirTags safe is fundamentally impossible, a bit like | trying to make a knife impossible to hurt yourself with. | | For example: | | > _deliberate disabling of the speaker rendered the device | useless after a few days_ | | That only kicks the can. Now people will silence the | speaker from outside, for example by covering the whole | AirTags in superglue and foam to muffle all vibrations. | Syonyk wrote: | > _for example by covering the whole AirTags in superglue | and foam to muffle all vibrations._ | | Which makes it larger, harder to hide, and easier to | find. Go try - see how much foam it takes to reasonably | muffle the beeper. It'll take a lot more than you think. | 323 wrote: | If I put it in your bag or in your car, I can make it 10 | times bigger and you will still not notice it. | | Use your own thinking, how would a red team go about | silencing the device. | | Also, try covering your phone speaker holes with your | finger. See how effective that is. | drdaeman wrote: | I'd really want to ask weird and possibly insensitive, but | nonetheless (I believe) a legit question - shouldn't be it a | society that needs to somehow change (I've no idea how, | though), rather than technologies killed because it threats | existing societal stuff? I hate to say this but it really | feels that our assumptions of privacy are becoming outdated | and there's no going back. | | Unlike e.g. facial recognition, AirTags are not even some new | breakthrough, just some well-known existing technologies made | a bit more mainstream/commonly available (can't even say | "more affordable", the price point hadn't changed). Yet, it | causes an uproar. | | Technological genie just cannot be put back in the bottle and | it's only gonna get worse in the future, as tech will become | smaller, smarter and more magical. | Syonyk wrote: | > _...shouldn 't be it a society that needs to somehow | change (I've no idea how, though), rather than technologies | killed because it threats existing societal stuff?_ | | We've allowed, collectively, anything that falls in the | "tech" realm to deploy first, ask questions later, and more | or less force society to conform. I think it's been absurd, | we see more and more backlash against it, and rightly so. A | company shouldn't be able to just ignore the law and do | whatever they want because they use computer chips, but | we've seen more or less exactly that in a number of cases. | | - Uber/AirBnB can be seen as venture-capital funded, money | losing ways around existing taxi/hotel/rental laws, and | their tendency to expand into a market without permission | and then demand the right to stay there against the laws | that prohibit exactly such things, is an example of this | model. - The various "Dump tons of scooters in a city | without asking, profit, and make cleanup the city's | problem" is another example here. It's littering, really, | but somehow tech companies involved get a pass because it's | neat. - Literally every "We collect all the behavioral data | you don't realize we're collecting to improve our models of | you so we can sell better advertisements to our actual | customers" business model does the same thing - take first, | ask permission never (or, at least, try very hard to never | have the topic come up). | | I'm not OK with this, and I hope more and more people | aren't OK with it either. | | > _I hate to say this but it really feels that our | assumptions of privacy are becoming outdated and there 's | no going back._ | | Privacy shouldn't be something subject to the current state | of technological surveillance. We should, as a society, | decide what privacy ought to be, and then limit tech | companies accordingly. | | Europe seems to be making decent headway on this front, | with "No, you can't just keep doing that..." rulings | against tech companies. I hope that spreads. | CamperBob2 wrote: | You're both right; it's an interesting question. Something | that can't be used maliciously is probably not useful for | much of anything at all. OTOH, when the potential for harm is | far greater than the potential for good, as it arguably is | here, that calls for extra discretion on the part of the | developers. | phil21 wrote: | > as it arguably is here | | That may be understating it a bit. I honestly can't decide | which is greater. | | Airtags as-is are nerfed for non-technical reasons as to | make them more or less useless to me, despite their ability | to be incredibly useful. | | For example: | | Due to the nag/anti-stalking alerts I can't put them on dog | collars due to day-care visits. No way for others to | whitelist a tag on their phone, or any way to silence it. | | Same goes now for the car. It's annoying to just toss one | in each trunk in case of theft or whatnot, since the cars | are shared. | | The privacy concerns have more or less turned this product | into something of a very narrow usage band - aside from a | personal bookbag or whatnot I don't see many other | realistic uses at this time. Not useful for hiding in my | power tools, etc. etc. | | I had pretty high hopes for these for some peace of mind | (dogs), and I live in a high crime area so being able to | track my expensive items has proven useful in the past. I | was excited about expanding on this use until they started | crippling them. | bitexploder wrote: | Meanwhile, you can get a cheap GPS tracker for the price of | an AirTag or two... | Syonyk wrote: | And if you want it to report out, it has to have an active | cell plan, and the power consumption is rather radically | higher than "years on a button cell," so the device is | bigger, it needs a clear enough view of the sky to get a | GPS signal, etc. They're an awful lot less useful and less | discreet. Again, not impossible by any means, but certainly | quite a bit less convenient than an AirTag with a removed | speaker. | badwolf wrote: | Or just get a Tile, that will ping any Amazon echo or | Ring doorbell it goes near. | olliej wrote: | I just checked and all the reports of misuse so far don't | seem to be "for months at a time". I can also get a | prepaid sim with very little identification and there's | no direct link from an arbitrary gps device to the person | who used it. | | I think there was a brief surge in people abusing them | because they _thought_ AirTags were untraceable, which | they very explicitly are not. As apple says in the | article they can directly go from an AirTag to the | account that owns it. | vineyardmike wrote: | > I just checked and all the reports of misuse so far | don't seem to be "for months at a time". | | Its also only like 6-8 months old at this point. | drdaeman wrote: | I don't think the typical issue is that someone can | maliciously track some other person specifically for | years. Longevity of the tracker is an added benefit, not | what makes it different. | | Honestly, in my personal opinion I feel that only thing | that's really different is the company's notoriety. It's | no fun to bash Tile (people just don't have any beef with | them), but kinda fun when it's Apple. And that they've | actually sent out a viral idea ahead of product release | focusing attention on this aspect (so, naturally, it | echoes back). | bitexploder wrote: | That was kind of my point. People can buy these GPS | trackers for the same price and have a stealthy | surreptitious tracker. What's new is Apple made so omg, | better freak out and write eleventy-one angsty articles | about them. In this case I can't even muster an eyeroll | at how silly it is. | throw10920 wrote: | I think that a key issue in this case isn't just that Apple | made a device that could be used for tracking - after all, | you could engineer or buy a different tracking device from a | number of vendors - but that its feasibility was massively | increased due to a unique Apple asset - its network of | iDevices. That is, Apple released a product that was | _uniquely good at tracking people due to an Apple-specific | asset_. | | Slightly less, but still very importantly, there's the fact | that by design you can't see if someone is tracking you | unless you buy _another_ Apple product, which wasn 't an | intrinsic engineering limitation, but just a choice that | Apple made for their own profit. | varenc wrote: | Apple released an Android app that lets you check for | AirTags separated from their owner near you: https://play.g | oogle.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apple.trac... | | Of course you have to know about it and it only provides | scanning when the app is open instead of constantly doing | it in the background like iOS. | jmull wrote: | I think you're completely misunderstanding the threat model | here. | | First the reality: Malicious actors interested in, e.g., | tracking other people or other people's things without their | knowledge or consent, have many other options. To defeat them, | an Apple product just needs to be somewhat less | convenient/useful/cost-effective than some of the many other | options. | | Second, the perception: Apple needs to convince their customers | and potential customers that _they care_ and they'll _do | something_ when there's an issue. | | As released, they pretty much had number one covered, though | improvements are always good. So they are mostly working on | number two... it's good when there are actual improvements, but | that's not the main point. | darkwizard42 wrote: | These feel like welcome changes. Don't think it addresses all the | past concerns. | tssva wrote: | It addresses none of the key past concerns. Specifically the | ability for the devices to operate with their speakers disabled | and no effective means for non-iPhone users to detect they are | being tracked. The Android app Apple released is basically | useless since it requires manual scanning. | dwaite wrote: | > The Android app Apple released is basically useless since | it requires manual scanning. | | It is better than nothing. The limitation on background | scanning is likely due to Android + diverse hardware not | providing a low-power way to do such a thing. | | The more effort Apple takes to bind an Apple ID to a real | world identity, the more consequence comes from abuse of a | tag. The alerting serves to make that consequence more | likely. | Gigachad wrote: | Mostly all seem ok. The only one that makes me a little sad is | the precision finding tool will make it easier for thieves to | spot tags on bikes. | writeslowly wrote: | > We hope this starts an industry trend for others to also | provide these sorts of proactive warnings in their products. | | I guess they're hoping Tile (or whoever else) will feel obligated | to create similar nerfs or annoyances on their trackers? I | thought this was interesting because this is one time vertical | integration (having a huge network of iPhones) is putting an | Apple product at a competitive disadvantage | eternityforest wrote: | This kind of scares me. Privacy first tech groups seem to be | getting more vocal about trying to change the whole industry. | | I hope someday we have a fully open global tracking network, | not affected by Apple an Mozilla and all the rest who seem to | want to destroy any technology that can be used to invade | privacy, regardless of how many legitimate uses it has. | olliej wrote: | Can you give examples? | eternityforest wrote: | Battery Status API, Ambient Light are the two big Mozilla | examples I know, but I suspect the list may be fairly long. | I believe they are also against web bluetooth and serial. | | Apple has some permission stuff that apparently degrades | Tile on their platforms IIRC. | vineyardmike wrote: | I really thought that Tile would release some sort of fixed | LoRa type antennae in popular areas (SF, LA, NYC) managed by | them that would act as supplements to their app tracking | which they knew was mediocre. I've never been able to | successfully use Tile's tracking, and AirTags work great. | | I think the Amazon Sidewalk has a lot of potential in this | space as a viable alternative to the iDevice network apple | has. Google should def release competition that can leverage | their device network too, considering their comparable | hardware penetration. | micromacrofoot wrote: | I'm not always a fan of Apple's decisions, but short of pulling | AirTags off the shelves and scrapping the product entirely, | they've gone far beyond any of their competition (Tile) with this | stuff. | | Ultimately, maybe we're better off just losing things sometimes. | unethical_ban wrote: | Exactly - this seems like the kind of thing where the only way | to really mitigate its abuse is to not have it at all. | | "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they | could, they didn't stop to think if they should." - Dr. Ian | Malcolm | quantified wrote: | Let's see how hard it is to neuter the sound generation within | the AirTag itself. If it's silent itself, an Android or no- | device trackee is vulnerable. | | There is not much tech that lacks unpreventable malicious use. | Needs to be expected for pretty much anything. | Syonyk wrote: | Trivial. | | https://mashtips.com/remove-airtag-speaker/ | | Or just buy a pre-modded one. | | https://uk.pcmag.com/mobile-phone- | accessories/138509/silent-... | Spivak wrote: | You don't have to actually do that. The devices aren't | directly authorized by Apple. So long as you broadcast the | right beacons over BT you can make any device findable by the | Find My network. | zingplex wrote: | Would it be possible to design the device to detect if the | speaker has been tampered with? Perhaps having some sort of | microphone on board to detect whether the speaker is | functional would work. | mperham wrote: | I get an alert every time I ride my wife's bicycle. It would be | nice to be able to mark her tags as ok to be near me. | closetohome wrote: | Being able to share AirTags via a family iCloud account seems | to be a pretty commonly requested feature. It does seem a | little silly that I can track every device attached to the | account but not AirTags. | dwaite wrote: | I suspect they are working on it, but the crypto is privacy- | preserving enough to make centralized authorization | management hard. | | Specifically, you get a cryptographic secret when you pair | the key, it broadcasts as a bluetooth beacon with encrypted | messages based on that secret and current time, that get | reported up to an Apple service. | | When you want to see your accessories, your device will | compute the encrypted messages at appropriate times and have | apple search for them. | | However, there's no network push to an AirTag available to | tell it to rotate keys. You could grant more people to see a | tag by sharing the secret - but you then could not remove | that permission without physically resetting the tag. | | I suspect the solution will eventually be having derived keys | from the secret and date, and date-based "leases" for | permissions - I share the current key to allowed peers. That | would mean revocation might be represented in the UX | immediately, and take a day (or some other time period) to | actually start to fail cryptographically. | dwaite wrote: | sorry I didn't mean the MAC address but rather an HMAC- | based key derivation. I suspect they rotate MAC addresses | every half hour or so, but the broadcast itself is | encrypted such that you can't tell two belong to the same | AirTag without knowing the secret. | | I might have a secret key for the AirTag, and the encrypted | messages derive a new key each day based on the current | date, then encrypt a check-in message based on the current | time. | | If I share the secret key, its permanent access until a | hardware reset of the AirTag. If I want to share "for a | while", I just share a bag of those derived keys for the | date range. The UX might represent it as not having a date | range, and my devices which know the secret just | periodically share out the derived keys when online to give | out keys, and effectively make it so that any revocation of | permission takes a week. | | The other option is for me to be able to share enough | information with Apple's servers that (on permission | change) it blocks the AirTag web service query itself. That | won't help you with any shared secrets allowing someone to | detect its the same tag even after MAC rotation. | olliej wrote: | I do think it should be possible to share encryption keys | (ignore this MAC alas doesn't work because the MACs and | randomized and rotate fairly frequently when in the | vicinity of an owner's devices) | ssully wrote: | Even outside of family. I would buy an airtag for my dog for | when my friend watches them. It'd be nice to drop off my dog | and "share airtag with this user" so they can have a resource | in case my dog got lost. | seltzered_ wrote: | "We plan to update our unwanted tracking alert system to notify | users earlier that an unknown AirTag or Find My network accessory | may be traveling with them." | | How does this work if one doesn't own an iPhone? | cyral wrote: | There is an Android app which allows Android users to see the | same notifications. | Gys wrote: | https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apple.trac. | .. | | With 100.000+ installs it seems only a very small percentage | of Android users is aware or cares | teruakohatu wrote: | Look at the reviews. It doesn't seem to work. It requires | manual scanning and does not work in the background. | bigmattystyles wrote: | Yea, but philosophically, you shouldn't have to opt in (to | opt out) - if I don't want to any part of apple's ecosystem, | this forces me to actively opt out. | Gigachad wrote: | What do you want them to do? Shoot brain waves in to your | skull to notify you without any device? | bigmattystyles wrote: | There's really nothing they can do short of not doing the | airtags at all. The spectrum does not belong to them, | it's leased to them and they are a user. We can ask for | oversight. | cyral wrote: | What about Tile and other AirTag competitors? None of them | even have an app to alert you to unwanted trackers at all. | bigmattystyles wrote: | No love for them either - but your retort is pure | whatabout-ism - it doesn't address my core complaint. | pantalaimon wrote: | Does it also conveniently increase the coverage of the | network? | olliej wrote: | Nope, that requires their magic low power networking chip | thing | ungoogled wrote: | I'm sure they're frustrated that people keep using AirTags as | tracking devices rather than local thing-finders, but I think | there are good reasons for that. | | Local trackers have been around for a long time. I had a "TV | remote finder" years ago that you'd stick to a TV remote (or | keys), and it would beep when activated by a second device. More | recently, Tiles work pretty well, assuming you don't need | direction finding. Personally I don't regularly lose anything | large enough to benefit from an AirTag. I need it for things like | individual AirPods. | | But a small device with a worldwide range and no subscription fee | that I can attach to a car or suitcase? _That 's_ a novel | capability. I have one in both cars and my electric skateboard. | badwolf wrote: | > "TV remote finder" | | I was sorely disappointed when they announced the new Apple TV | remote, and it didn't have airtag built into it. | karaterobot wrote: | > In an upcoming software update, every user setting up their | AirTag for the first time will see a message that clearly states | that AirTag is meant to track their own belongings, that using | AirTag to track people without consent is a crime in many regions | around the world | | That really should do it. I mean, in the unlikely event that a | message to first time users doesn't solve the problem of people | being stalked using AirTags, go ahead and keep working on the | other updates. Belt and suspenders. But my guess is, it won't be | necessary. | | They should consider adding a message for iPhone users to tell | their friends with Android phones that they "should be really | careful not to get tracked by AirTags, because there's no way | they'd know about it". | | /s | theshrike79 wrote: | They can just install an app if they're worried about being | tracked by AirTags: | https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apple.trac... | | Just remember to add the Tile app too, it does the same thing. | alkonaut wrote: | 99% of the tracking notifications are given to my family members. | It's hilarious that you can't "join" a family members tag so it | can be shared within the family. | todd8 wrote: | I like the functionality of the AirTags so I don't want them | nerfed, but I can think of no way to fix their fundamental | problem of being such easy to use stalking devices. | | Chefs knives are great for cooking and are inexpensive and easy | to purchase; they can be very dangerous weapons in the wrong | hands so we make it against the law to use them in that manner. | Maybe that's the best we can do with AirTags. | post_break wrote: | Just keep nerfing it Apple. They made the beeps louder with this | new update too. So every time my wife borrows keys, my car, etc | it's gonna go nuts. I guess I'm going to have to rip the speaker | coils out of all of them at this point. | r00fus wrote: | TBH sharing keys is a nightmare even without airTags. Honestly | recommend each spouse gets their own key to each vehicle. Once | my wife had her keys stolen and we made do for a year sharing | my car key and it was hell (because both of us prefer the EV to | the minivan). | | I don't track keys but I track my wallet and my wife does not | need or ever ask for that. | 6sp wrote: | Luckily keys are on the way out. Between a August Smart Lock | and a Tesla I haven't carried keys in years and I don't miss | that nightmare. | pavel_lishin wrote: | How are fobs different in this scenario? | r00fus wrote: | You can drive your Tesla using your smartphone app or | other devices. | zht wrote: | unless if their servers go down, in which case you can't | unlock your car | wewtyflakes wrote: | I may be incorrect, but I believe once you are near the | car that it can connect via Bluetooth and operate over | that local network, rather than going through the public | internet and routing commands through Tesla's servers, | but again, I could be misunderstanding how those features | operate. | bloggie wrote: | Proximity unlocking does not rely on LTE, and still | works. Remote unlocking using the app would not work, | because it relies on LTE. So the car can still be | unlocked and used as normal in areas where there is no | cellular reception. This is not some egregious oversight. | KennyBlanken wrote: | Or the cellular network goes down, which happens about | once a year during a bad winter storm. | gnicholas wrote: | It's nuts that there's no family sharing ability, which would | moot this common issue. | FireBeyond wrote: | Or just buy them on eBay, pre-silenced. | | I'm really not exactly sure what happened here in this | "update", other than "FYI, we'll give out information after | being subpoenad" and "we'll also include a dialog to say "don't | track people with these"." | | "So, basically nothing, then?" | post_break wrote: | It will alert people that they are being tracked even sooner | than the threshold now, and it will now play an even louder | alert tone. | isoprophlex wrote: | Are airtags still useful for eg. tracking a stolen bike? Or will | it now alert the thief within minutes that the bike contains a | tracker? | mmastrac wrote: | I don't think you can simultaneously limit unwanted tracking | and still track thieves surreptitiously. Basically both are | "unwanted tracking" by the "victim". | dwaite wrote: | There are details not exposed outside of NDA, but my suspicion | is that there is a requirement that MAC rotation happen more | slowly, like every 15 minutes, and it is a bluetooth MAC and | the actual GPS/cell based 'movement' which together trigger an | alert. | | If a bike's Find My support randomized its MAC on every | broadcast, it may very well not be possible to tell that it is | not a new device each time. That might not be allowed per the | licensing agreement, and that might be something that Apple has | heuristics to detect and alert on. | varenc wrote: | I believe an AirTag stops randomizing some broadcast | identifier when it's separated from its owner. The AirTag by | itself has no location awareness. But when an iDevice sees | the same separated AirTag at multiple locations it fires the | alert. | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-02-10 23:00 UTC)