Stalking victims sue Tile and Amazon for negligence over tracking tech
theregister.com
theregister.com
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/dult/about/
At the recent meeting there was much debate over the charter but a lot of support for doing work in that areas. ( meeting minutes: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-117-dult-2023072716... ).
Related draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-detecting-unwanted-lo...
During the meeting I raised a scoping question: would proposals for protocols to suppress tracker reporting at locations be out of scope?
In cases where you want to protect a particular location from tracking it might be superior to have something beacon to disable reporting, particularly because the trackers are attacker controlled but the reporting devices aren't (if they are, you already lost) and because detection is too late: your opponent may have learned your location by the time you detect the tracker.
The primary use case for trackables _is_ recovering stolen property, despite Apple trying to say its "finding lost items". An incredibly small minority of people are using them as a stalking device, even though totally silent GPS trackers have been around for decades at this point.
Apple already has a law enforcement portal it maintains. I feel like they could encourage good behavior by police in this manner while also greatly reducing crime.
Citation needed? Stolen property has to be a rounding error compared to just misplaced things. Stolen property also has the problem that it's not very safe to recover and law enforcement doesn't care even if you know where it is.
In any case, sufficiently advanced thieves already get broad spectrum gps/bluetooth/lte/wifi jammers (few bucks on ali-express) or just find the trackers and toss them. Unsophisticated thieves mostly won't tend to find or stop trackers even if they're easily detectable.
Which could lead to stricter privacy laws.