Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Silenced AirTags with disabled speakers are popping up for sale online

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 404 posts

Re: Silenced AirTags with disabled speakers are popping up for sale online

#381

Post by TameAntelope »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #334
TameAntelope wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's actually horrible is committing acts of extrajudicial violence.

That's up to the thief to decide. It's pretty easy to avoid such "extrajudicial violence," simply by respecting the property rights of others.

What you're doing now is victim blaming.

There are a million things that can and often do go wrong already with our criminal justice system, but it does function, more or less, as a way of arriving at a just conclusion; your suggestion that we throw all of that out is, literally, barbaric.

I can't believe I have to say this, but society is worse off without laws and a just mechanism by which to enforce them.

Re: Silenced AirTags with disabled speakers are popping up for sale online

#382

Post by smoldesu »

imwillofficial wrote: post #319
smoldesu wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're welcome to do whatever they please. Doesn't change the fact that they're the largest company in the world though, nor does it exempt them from a bit of criticism for being one of the most ruthless forces in capitalism today. I don't think it's wrong to expect them to set a good example for the thousands of organizations that choose to follow their path.

“Setting a good example” is completely and utterly subjective, and should not be left to a company to manage. If society deems something is in the best interests of society, it should be regulated by law. Asking companies to mind themselves in regards to what is best for society at large, while also mandating they maximize value for shareholders, is confusing at best.

That's a pretty fatalistic way to look at things, but I suppose you're entitled to your own opinion on the matter.

Re: Silenced AirTags with disabled speakers are popping up for sale online

#383

Post by jdminhbg »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #350
jdminhbg wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very convenient. So much so that there must be one story of someone actually being attacked rather than just finding an AirTag, right?

So you are claiming that nobody of the attacked females were stalked and found using AirTags? https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/17272409/how-stay-safe-apple-a... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/20/apple-air... How many stalking victims never found out they are tracked because they used Android phones? How many perpetrators just covertly removed the AirTag after the attack? This device allows very clandest…

Did you read those articles? Neither of them actually shows someone showing up in a location as a result of using AirTags to track someone. They show someone finding an AirTag that wasn't theirs.

I'm willing to grant that the number of people caught would be lower than the number of people who were actually successful -- we don't catch every murderer, for example. But isn't there one, just one, example of someone actually showing up? Nobody ever gets caught? Like I said, this is classic urban legend material.

Re: Silenced AirTags with disabled speakers are popping up for sale online

#384

Post by pietrovismara »

thies226j wrote: post #369
pietrovismara wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tech existed already and it was cheaper. Airtags just ripped off existing technology without substantially improving it, while causing a privacy/security nightmare that none of the other devices ever caused. But hey if you want to spend 80$ for something that was already available 2 years ago for 40$ you go ahead.

Without improving it? The findmy-network is the improvement that makes these devices actually worth something, compared to the small number of devices in the tile network. How is this a privacy/security nightmare, when you literally get audible notifications and notifications on your phone when you are being tracked. And how do you come up with these random price estimates, AirTags are available for under 40 and not…

The price I found was for a 4 pack (100€), my bad.

> How is this a privacy/security nightmare, when you literally get

Did you even read the article?

I may be full of myself, but you seem to take personal offense over an apple product. That's basically shilling and frankly pathetic, unless you get paid for it.

No need to get all defensive for the poor airtag, just explain why you think I'm wrong. Like the fruit company needs your protection anyway.

Re: Silenced AirTags with disabled speakers are popping up for sale online

#385

Post by dheera »

orhmeh09 wrote: post #161
dheera wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same, I had $4K of camera equipment stolen in the Bay Area and police just closed the case. I wouldn't be surprised if the next 10 car smashings were the same crooks because the police department won't do its job. They keep letting the crooks go, and we wonder why there are so many thefts in SF these days. Well maybe don't let the crooks go! That said though I wonder if AirPods are having success in other countries w…

Be careful with creating traps — booby traps are illegal in most jurisdictions.

> CA Codes (pen:12355) (c) For purposes of this section, "boobytrap" means any concealed or camouflaged device designed to cause great bodily injury when triggered by an action of any unsuspecting person coming across the device.

I don't think any of the substances I listed would match this description.

Re: Silenced AirTags with disabled speakers are popping up for sale online

#386

Post by dheera »

andrewmunsell wrote: post #178
OnlineGladiator wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For the US I really wish we could commercialize some kind of tracker that releases fart spray, honey, flour, ink, glue, and other annoying substances if stolen. I assume you've seen this already, but just in case you haven't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c584TGG7jQ

Mark Rober's videos are always entertaining, but I wonder the legality of audio/video recording in supposedly an unaware person's house. I assume he has this figured out, but it also makes me wonder whether the "thieves" are actually plants.

It's on them, they stole the device, if they didn't steal it, they wouldn't have been recorded. It's 100% their fault.

Re: Silenced AirTags with disabled speakers are popping up for sale online

#387

Post by blindmute »

TameAntelope wrote: post #380
blindmute wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

You need someone on the Internet to tell you why extrajudicial violence is among the worst things a person can do in a society? Ahmaud Arbery is a perfect example.

Killing someone because they kind of resemble someone else who had been doing burglaries in the area is a far cry from defending your own property while a theft occurs. If someone attempts to rob or burglarize me while I'm present, I can and will use force up to and including lethal force to stop them. This is legal in some circumstances, not extrajudicial. In the cases where it is extrajudicial, it can often be moral. Police are a great feature of society, but a citizen has personal responsibility over his own life and property foremost. The police aren't always with you; you are.

Re: Silenced AirTags with disabled speakers are popping up for sale online

#389

Post by TameAntelope »

blindmute wrote: post #387
TameAntelope wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need someone on the Internet to tell you why extrajudicial violence is among the worst things a person can do in a society? Ahmaud Arbery is a perfect example.

Killing someone because they kind of resemble someone else who had been doing burglaries in the area is a far cry from defending your own property while a theft occurs. If someone attempts to rob or burglarize me while I'm present, I can and will use force up to and including lethal force to stop them. This is legal in some circumstances, not extrajudicial. In the cases where it is extrajudicial, it can often be mora…

It is in no way different, and that's the whole problem. If you condone extrajudicial killings/violence, you condone all of them, because your position is that people should be able to take the law into their own hand, using their own judgement, even if it's flawed judgement (how can you know your own judgement is flawed)?

You can't both agree that violence without due process is acceptable, and then disagree with how someone applied their own set of morality to a situation that resulted in them using violence.

It's either/or, because the alternative is for you to have a say in their violence, at which point you're just re-creating a criminal justice system.

Re: Silenced AirTags with disabled speakers are popping up for sale online

#390

Post by blindmute »

TameAntelope wrote: post #389
blindmute wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Killing someone because they kind of resemble someone else who had been doing burglaries in the area is a far cry from defending your own property while a theft occurs. If someone attempts to rob or burglarize me while I'm present, I can and will use force up to and including lethal force to stop them. This is legal in some circumstances, not extrajudicial. In the cases where it is extrajudicial, it can often be mora…

It is in no way different, and that's the whole problem. If you condone extrajudicial killings/violence, you condone all of them, because your position is that people should be able to take the law into their own hand, using their own judgement , even if it's flawed judgement (how can you know your own judgement is flawed)? You can't both agree that violence without due process is acceptable, and then disagree with h…

> Your position is that people should be able to take the law into their own hand, using their own judgement, even if it's flawed judgement

Yes, and if the judgment turns out to be flawed, then punish them accordingly. There are many instances of laws where the legality depends on circumstances bounded by reasonable judgment, such as self defense. I am legally allowed to kill someone if I fear for my life in some circumstances. The judicial system then determines if my fear was justified. Likewise, defending your own property with violence is legal, depending on circumstances and judgments which are validated in court. The case you referenced was obviously poor judgment.

Your original point is that property cannot be morally defended through violence. This is neither the actual law, nor does it make sense from any real world perspective.

Post reply on HN