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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As was the risk of getting jail time if you use it to stalk someone. Something you don't really worry about with a generic GPS tracker. That handy, convenient AirTag will give the police your address.
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.
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.
Cool, that's a societal change - awareness.
I can't argue against your ridesharing datamining examples. I can't say the data they've hoarded is actually valuable - just based on the fact almost all their ads are complete misses. I've yet to see any personal data hoarder company to be able to actually pull off anything sensible, not that some ML model realizing nonsense in lines of "meatbag bought a sofa, meatbag must love sofas, let me show him all the sofa recommendations" (lol). Anyway, that's not the point. I don't fancy this data collection and sure agree it's not a bad thing to stop it. Just as I'm fed up with small prints, shrinkwrap licenses and other things we pretend people read and understand that they don't.
When I wrote my comment I thought about somewhat different things. Tracker devices or face recognition is different because it can be done in what marketing calls a "privacy-respecting" way, on device. Yet, it's a fact if someone can point a camera on you, they can match you with their previous data, and if someone can plant a device on you (and devices get smaller and smaller every few years) they can know your location. And it's not about companies producing something, it's about the technologies itself, when the technology can be used for both good and bad things. Like a knife or a laser pointer.
It doesn't make sense to me to tell companies to not produce such technologies. It's impossible to make technologies be usable for good things and not usable for bad things. A knife is always a weapon (or it's not a knife and you can't use it to make yourself a sandwich), a key tracker can always be used to stalk (or it won't be ever useful to find stolen things). But some people are so desperate for "safety" they do want to nerf anything that can be even theoretically abused to absolute uselessness.
Things like this is what bothers me.
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.
Its also only like 6-8 months old at this point.
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).
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.