A poor workaround to a problem created by unnecessary restrictions. Stalking is already illegal, so why are the tags crippled in the first place? This "feature" severely limits the usefulness of tags for tracking stolen items. Why not just sell some tags that don't alert everyone to their presence? Police and intelligence agencies have those already, so who are we protecting?
> Stalking is already illegal, so why are the tags crippled in the first place?
I assume because it's a network that relies on its reputation among participating nodes to trust it will not be used to track them involuntarily, else they would opt out and collapse the network.
On a related topic, I've opted out of Google's BLE tracking/repeating feature. Apple provides no way to do this. The extra battery drain is significant and measurable, and I did not sign up for this when I purchased my devices.
Turning this off doesn't necessarily stop your phone from participating in the "Find My" network, it just prevents your items from being seen. Your phone will continue to relay BLE/UWB traffic for others, and run down your battery more quickly.
Turning off Bluetooth seems to disable the traffic, but then you can no longer access your local Bluetooth devices.
This is wild, but it seems correct, none of the documentation I can find mentions opting out as a sensor that will pass data to Apple. On the other hand, on my Mac no apps are granted access to Location Services, which includes Find My. I don't have an iOS device but it seems like maybe you'd have similarly granular control?
If they are forcing you to transmit data, then it might make even more sense that Apple would steer clear of usage that could create liability for their users.
>Turning this off doesn't necessarily stop your phone from participating in the "Find My" network, it just prevents your items from being seen. Your phone will continue to relay BLE/UWB traffic for others, [...]
yeah, but they do nothing to stop a locksmith in a fugue state from rekeying all the bolts to match the neighboring property and vice-versa, and then the realtor can walk right in, and you're locked out!
You’re proving the other persons point - the reason why the a thief doesn’t trivially pick locks isn’t because of the lock, it’s because it’s illegal and there’s a consequence.
The point of a lock is that it's something to break. That takes skill and visible equipment. The more skill yoo require the more likely the smart guy would do better things to earn money than crime. the more visible equipment the easier it is to track.
EDIT: Like in the hotels, you got a key for your room, but the hotel management has a "passpartout" key (for back in the day when we had physical keys). The phrase "<thing> must accept interference, but not cause any". So you/we must be able to receive the 'punch' and not resist.
you ask great questions about power! and yes. though you'll generally find the lock isn't the interesting bit, reinforcing the door frame and door and putting pins at the top/bottom and side is how its done.
otherwise 25 dollars at TSC for a fence post driver will make 95% of residential entryways irrelevant.
That video makes no suggestion that the locks have been deliberately sabotaged. The theory in the video is nothing more than that the company is incompetent at making locks.
