You are too naive or know nothing about the police in the US. If you do so, the police would not have noticed your report when your car is stolen. The polices are too busy catching speedy drivers or shooting people on the streets, they have no time for catching thieves, ever.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Muscle Car Owner Targeted With Hidden AirTag Placed by Thieves
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And now it seems we get an article for each and every incident where an Apple tool is involved in a crime.
This meme needs proofreading.
See post #8.
On the other hand as the article shows it’s a no issue since the presence of an AirTag was easily reported to the victim and it was then located.
I wouldn’t say pretty much every technological advancement isn’t necessary. Many ended up solving actual issues that pre-existed the technology. However, it doesn’t mean that technology didn’t create its own issue.
Just think of medicine and its technologies. Those are easy and obvious examples.
I guess we're defining "necessary" in different ways then. What you seem to be describing as "necessary" I'd describe as "extremely useful" or "extremely advantageous." In any case, I don't think that the fact that a technology could be abused is a reason to not develop it. And of course safe-guards can often be put in place to combat abuse.
The misspellings are purposeful because it's supposed to be dogs talking and also sarcastic
might want to read the article where they explain that they did in fact already do just that....
Here we go again with this nonsense.
Somebody please explain how this makes stealing a car easier.
Somebody please explain how this makes stealing a car easier.
Increasing cases of people/vehicles being tracked. Very bad situation
The issue is when people try and claim I don't have a right to sell software I purchased. It doesn't matter if it was attached to an account or not. Telling me I can't sell it because it's assigned to me is ridiculous. I paid for it and should have the right to assign it to someone else. Software isn't magic, nor should it be excluded from having to compete with 'used' copies.
I didn't say they were property I said they are like property. If my child throws a brick through your window I am responsible. If my dog bites you then I am responsible. They are like property because they are owned by an adult or by the government, but they do not have the same individual rights as adults.
And I didn't say you can't use them to track children or pets, I said Apple claims it wasn't intended for that use. To bad, Apple shouldn't get a say in how I use it.
Stop turning right to resell into piracy. It's also illegal to buy something, figure out how it works, and then make my own identical copies and then resell it. That's not what this is about. This is about the right to resell units one purchased. If I buy 100 copies of Word I should be able to use them as long as I wish and then resell them for whatever price I wish. Microsoft should be competing against used copies of Word by either lowering prices or making new versions more attractive. Instead, they have tricked people into thinking they don't have a right to resell the copy they own. Calling it a license doesn't change the fact that people own it. That argument needs to stop because it's ridiculous. Being easy to copy software is a cost of doing business, but it shouldn't change consumer rights.
They’re not telling you how to use it, they’re telling you what they intended it to be used for. If you want to try to use it for something other than their intended use, you can, but Apple isn’t obligated to support that use.
US Patent Office and Copywrite Office.
Except they decided to say it can't be used for tracking pets or children until after they sold it. They said it was from tracking items you regularly lose. There was no list of exclusions.
Also, it's one thing to say it's not an intended use and another to intentionally make it so that it can't be used for a purpose. By notifying and making it possible to disable tracking they are preventing it from being used in the way I, the owner of the product, elect to use it.
There is no such thing.
If you mean the US Patent and Trademark Office, trademarks are irrelevant, so you must be talking about patents. But if you take something apart and copy it, and there are no patents on it, you can’t infringe anything. Nor is infringing patents “illegal.”
As for copyright (not copywrite), if you don’t actually copy code, but provide identical results, it’s not a problem. If it’s hardware that you are copying, it can’t be copyrighted. If you clean room design and end up with an identical solution, that’s a fascinating bar exam question, but I wouldn’t bet on it being copyright infringement.
1. You clearly said "children and pets are type [sic] of property"
2. You said Apple won't let you track your children or pets.
At this point, I feel further back and forth would be a waste of time, as you are not even accurately representing what you yourself said. So I'm going to end this conversation here. Thanks.
Correct. I said they are a type of property. They are. That remains true no matter how one spins it.
Apple: you can use this to track your property.
Me: This is my property.
Apple: Um, you know what... not that though...
Really?
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Home page of the United States Patent and Trademark Office's main web site.
Are these websites scams?
Then you know what? I didn't pirate the software I just made an absolutely identical version with the same logo.
Why are people so up in arms about piracy then, because according to cmaier it doesn't exist.
Really?
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Home page of the United States Patent and Trademark Office's main web site.www.uspto.gov
Are these websites scams?
Then you know what? I didn't pirate the software I just made an absolutely identical version with the same logo.
Why are people so up in arms about piracy then, because according to cmaier it doesn't exist.
Did you read my post? I said there was a United States Patent and Trademark Office. Not a patent and “copywrite” office. That was my point. (By the way, neither of these actually enforces anything. The patent office grants patents and federal trademarks. The copyright office simply records copyrights - it can’t grant them.)
As for “the same logo,” no you are infringing a trademark. Use your own logo, and duplicate the functionality without looking at or copying the actual code (and without violating any patents, which are rare in software in any case), and you haven’t infringed anything (See the Apple vs. Microsoft “look and feel” cases). Of course, if there IS a patent (either utility or design), you may infringe it by copying too closely.
Especially when it clearly did not. But at least another “news” article could be written about an Apple product.
Except they‘re still not preventing you from tracking a lost pet or child, but it may be more difficult to track a stolen one. As you said, Apple said it was for tracking items you regularly lose.
It only notifies them if your iOS device isn’t within range of the tracker and the tag and their device move together.