California AirTag Lawsuit Widened to Include Dozens More Stalking Cases

[1129846]

Having some hipster bartender try to take my keys is going to be hilarious

Trying to make everyone at fault for everything sounds like a ambulance chasers wet dream, we really need to reset all our laws by like half a century or so

Bars are not supposed to serve people over the limit. Said bartender would have to cut the person off sooner or require the person to give up their keys for more drinks.

Not a hard concept. Drunk driving is a real issue and to deal with it you need to go after multiple routes. Hold bars accountable to what they already are supposed to do is a big way. Cut off the source and let the bars be liable as well. The drunk driver can not sue the bar but the person the injured or killed can.

 

[1129846]

What's the betting that the hardware and software engineers of the air tag voiced their concerns on how easy it could be used for tracking people and thus protocols need to put in place to stop that from happening but someone higher up the chain of command said 'not to worry, that sort of thing wont happen, just carry on with what you are doing'.

More often than you think. Someone voiced it and got over ridden

 

[I7guy]

What's the betting that the hardware and software engineers of the air tag voiced their concerns on how easy it could be used for tracking people and thus protocols need to put in place to stop that from happening but someone higher up the chain of command said 'not to worry, that sort of thing wont happen, just carry on with what you are doing'.

No, this conversation or similar did not happen. The convo probably was ; “how can we protect our customers “ of course ne’er do-wells will try to defeat the system and staying ahead of them is a cat and mouse game.

 

[Razorpit]

It still amazes me how Big Alcohol gets away with “drink responsibly” and gambling gets away with a little “bet responsibly” when so many similar industries are outright illegal or under much heavier scrutiny.

“Shoot safely!” 😉

None of holding the bar more accountable is letting the person who drove drunk off the hook.

It basically casting a wider net and saying that drunk who killed someone is not the only party to blame in it. I would hold the bar accountable as well. They can also sue the same drunk to recover their losses as well but by threatening the bars as responsible they will shape up.

So in terms of the say the wrongful deaths the bars should pay up as well.

The bars can let the person get drunk as they want but they can also require said person to hand over their keys either to the bar or DD that or make sure at the very least they are taking a Uber home.

It about accountability

Every bar in the country would have to close. There is no possible way a bar can take the personal responsibility of every customer. Add venues such as NHL stadiums, NFL stadiums, MLB ballparks, NBA arenas, the courts wou,d be backlogged for centuries.

I agree. I never said it was illegal to use a weapon.

I was under the impression you were wondering why gun manufacturers aren’t held liable.

If only the majority of times a gun was used on another human being was to defend your life...sadly, that is not the case.

Most times they are actually, here’s a good read; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bias_Against_Guns.

 

[ikramerica]

I notice Apple doesn’t mention Airtags anymore. The product category hasn’t taken off like they expected and it seems like a dead end gadget so my guess is it will be discontinued at some point.

 

[iBreatheApple]

Is it odd to think that Apple shouldn’t be responsible for criminal behavior carried out by people not in any way affiliated with them? It’s like suing Smith and Wesson when someone gets shot. Or suing a binocular manufacturer over a peeping Tom. I know zilch about law but I’m guessing this holds no merit. Especially since Apple took steps early on to try and prevent some of this from happening as a good-faith measure.

Edit: didn’t read any comments before posting. Glad to see others agree.

 

[I7guy]

I notice Apple doesn’t mention Airtags anymore. The product category hasn’t taken off like they expected and it seems like a dead end gadget so my guess is it will be discontinued at some point.

AirTag

Attach AirTag to everyday items, like your keys or a backpack, to easily keep track of them in the Find My app.

www.apple.com

 

[iBreatheApple]

I notice Apple doesn’t mention Airtags anymore. The product category hasn’t taken off like they expected and it seems like a dead end gadget so my guess is it will be discontinued at some point.

They use them at the hospitals I work at to track different medical devices. I think they are used more than you realize.

 

[InvertedGoldfish]

Bars are not supposed to serve people over the limit. Said bartender would have to cut the person off sooner or require the person to give up their keys for more drinks.

Not a hard concept. Drunk driving is a real issue and to deal with it you need to go after multiple routes. Hold bars accountable to what they already are supposed to do is a big way. Cut off the source and let the bars be liable as well. The drunk driver can not sue the bar but the person the injured or killed can.

Actually it’s much more politics than danger

There have been tests where a tired driver did far worse than a drunk driver, but I have yet to see tired drivers stigmatized and turned into a political campaign talking point


Obviously not saying ether is good, but the duality shows the thinking most is about “safety” thing is a joke

 

[McTaste]

It seems a very slippery slope to blame manufacturers for how people misuse their products...

If someone runs around throwing Listerine in everyones eyes, does the maker of Listerine get sued?

 

[I7guy]

It seems a very slippery slope to blame manufacturers for how people misuse their products...

If someone runs around throwing Listerine in everyones eyes, does the maker of Listerine get sued?

There’s a lot of good sentiment in not blaming manufacturers for evil ways people come up to use products. But maybe all it takes is one lawsuit for apple to win and put this one to rest.

 

[Smith288]

All these people going after the stalker, not the manufacturers.... Sounds pretty familiar as a gun rights advocate. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[1129846]

AirTag

Attach AirTag to everyday items, like your keys or a backpack, to easily keep track of them in the Find My app.

www.apple.com

That is not saying protecting against thief. The key words thief, stolen and so on are missing. Instead just says lost which is the same as saying you accidently left something elsewhere. Like if you dropped your car keys making it easier to find. Or accidently living your backpack behind somewhere to back trace it.
Things like luggage being lost by an airline, it allows you to track that but that is not stolen or thief.

The words matter. Apple has never advertise it that it was design for security.

 

[I7guy]

That is not saying protecting against thief. The key words thief, stolen and so on are missing. Instead just says lost which is the same as saying you accidently left something elsewhere. Like if you dropped your car keys making it easier to find. Or accidently living your backpack behind somewhere to back trace it.
Things like luggage being lost by an airline, it allows you to track that but that is not stolen or thief.

The words matter. Apple has never advertise it that it was design for security.

I don’t disagree. But apple is an easy target for a lawsuit.

 

[1129846]

I don’t disagree. But apple is an easy target for a lawsuit.

They are a target but I feel like targeting Apple with the law suit is not so much about hitting Apple but also forcing broader long over due changes to these bluetooth trackers. Apple system in many ways I believe was just way to good at tracking lost devices. It made some of the bigger concerns about the trackers come to light.

I do believe it is on Apple to try to fix those flaws and try to improve them. Beside just alerting the person being track they should be able to disable that tracker where it no longer sends any updates. It says disabled until the owner reactivates it by being close to it.

Also have a way on the phone to scan for any trackers near bye at the very least. They are not for protecting against thief but helping you find your lost stuff.

 

[I7guy]

They are a target but I feel like targeting Apple with the law suit is not so much about hitting Apple but also forcing broader long over due changes to these bluetooth trackers.

This might take a cue from the gun industry or any other industry that has products that can be used for lawful and unlawful purposes.

Apple system in many ways I believe was just way to good at tracking lost devices. It made some of the bigger concerns about the trackers come to light.

I do believe it is on Apple to try to fix those flaws and try to improve them. Beside just alerting the person being track they should be able to disable that tracker where it no longer sends any updates. It says disabled until the owner reactivates it by being close to it.

Sounds like it renders the functionality useless.

Also have a way on the phone to scan for any trackers near bye at the very least. They are not for protecting against thief but helping you find your lost stuff.

This is already there.

 

[1129846]

This might take a cue from the gun industry or any other industry that has products that can be used for lawful and unlawful purposes.

not a good argument point. The Gun industry is a mess and gets away with way to much. The actively lobby to reduce restriction and make it harder to clean things up.

Sounds like it renders the functionality useless.

No it does not. The item is not marked as anti thief therefor how does disabling a tracker following you render them useless. Plus they already make sound so a thief in theory could find them any how. The rendering the tracker completely disable threw apple means even in stalking cases where it is easy to physically disable the sound on the tracker useless.

This is only an issue for anti thief reasons their for not an issue.

This is already there.

Then ad in a way to disable the tracker. All it does is tell Apple's system to stop updating its location.

 

[I7guy]

not a good argument point. The Gun industry is a mess and gets away with way too much. The actively lobby to reduce restriction and make it harder to clean things up.

The point is the more you restrict trackers the more only the worst of the worst will be able to unlawfully use them.

No it does not. The item is not marked as anti thief therefor how does disabling a tracker following you render them useless. Plus they already make sound so a thief in theory could find them any how. The rendering the tracker completely disable threw apple means even in stalking cases where it is easy to physically disable the sound on the tracker useless.

This is only an issue for anti thief reasons their for not an issue.


Then ad in a way to disable the tracker. All it does is tell Apple's system to stop updating its location.

If anyone can disable a tracker it renders the device useless.

 

[1129846]

If anyone can disable a tracker it renders the device useless.

How? The device can get disable if is detected that it is following you. Much like the current system with the extra power to disable it at the exact same time.
You have yet to say how does that make the system useless if the disable part is added to any tracker following you.
Before you try anti thief The airtags ARE NOT anti thief devices so that argument is invalid. The only place the disabling the device comes into play is anti thief. Take away that argument and explain why being able to disable any device following you is a problem?

 

[I7guy]

How? The device can get disable if is detected that it is following you. Much like the current system with the extra power to disable it at the exact same time.
You have yet to say how does that make the system useless if the disable part is added to any tracker following you.
Before you try anti thief The airtags ARE NOT anti thief devices so that argument is invalid. The only place the disabling the device comes into play is anti thief. Take away that argument and explain why being able to disable any device following you is a problem?

It’s my experience that solutions proposed to corporate issues on anonymous Internet forums fix one thing but break 10 others.

An AirTag should be trackable by its owner if an item is lost. Lost could mean anything and not your definition of anti theft.

 

[Verified Whiskey]

While I think this lawsuit is dumb, you can disable the speaker on them. They were selling them on eBay already disabled.

Sure, but that’s not what’s happening here. Seeing as she said it chimed at her every day letting her know it was there.

 

[Verified Whiskey]

It is hard to find something that only sometimes beeps at a high frequency like the air tag. Unless you can make it nonstop sound playing until found it does not help you find it.

But… you can. Your phone will tell you it’s near one and you can have it play you a sound.

 

[icanhazmac]

@wigby I asked you to provide citation for your statements and have given you plenty of time to do so. Could you please provide citation or edit your comments?

McDonalds was completely in the wrong on that one and have admitted such.

I have tried to find any information on your claim and so far cannot find any indication that McDonalds admitted guilt in the McNugget suit, would you be so kind as to link it?

I have found where they admit the McNugget in question caused the burn but that does not equate admitting guilt. Perhaps the parents should have supervised their 4 year old child eating hot, deep fried foods? They probably would have complained if they were cold.

It was about the temperature of the coffee and McDonald's coffee makers' malfunctioning.

About the temperature yes, please provide citation for the coffee makers malfunctioning. I cannot find any reference from this suit to a malfunction versus directives from McDonalds as to what the coffee temperature should be.

 

[wigby]

@wigby I asked you to provide citation for your statements and have given you plenty of time to do so. Could you please provide citation or edit your comments?

McDonalds Coffee Case Facts

www.ttla.com

McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail

"coffee makers'" as in, the employees that make the coffee. That's why I put an apostrophe at the end.

 

[icanhazmac]

McDonalds Coffee Case Facts

www.ttla.com

McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail

"coffee makers'" as in, the employees that make the coffee. That's why I put an apostrophe at the end.

Thank you for that, a different take from the reference(s) I found.

On the coffee topic:

• Customers want hot coffee yet stupid customers place the cup near their "junk" to add stuff. I hear people at Starbucks ask for "extra hot" all the time. How is a corporation to balance between customer requests, expectations and stupidity?
• I don't think anything at a company as large as McDs happens arbitrarily, someone at corporate sets the coffee temp based on some convoluted criteria based on customer demand versus product recommendations versus safety, etc. I can only imagine that the serving temp was set that high because of customer demand or complains about the coffee not being hot enough.
• How does McDs fix stupid? Placing a freshly hot cup of liquid between your knees in a car to add stuff is just plain stupid. I have spilled coffee on myself and in almost every instance I was doing either something stupid, ill-advised or just purely accidental, bottom line is no liability could or should be placed on whomever I got the coffee from, it was clearly my fault. That is the way I judge this case.
• The coffee makers' (either mechanical or human) were not malfunctioning as you claim, a directive was set at the corporate level and was being followed by those preparing it. My guess it is out of the hands of any humans at any given franchise and is hard set by the manufacturer of the hardware itself.
• How this woman was only found 20% liable is astonishing and speaks volumes about our inclination to hand out ridiculous settlements when a claim is made against a corporation. Did this person know she was handling a hot liquid? I can only assume so. Did this woman use a common best practice, like a cup holder, to add products to her coffee? No, she decided to use her crotch, not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

You failed to address the "McNugget" situation so I will treat it as above:

• Customers want hot food yet stupid customers hand hot, deep fried food to an autistic 4 year old and don't supervise.
• How does McDs fix stupid? Handing a child, let alone a special need child, hot deep fried food to eat unsupervised is stupid, simple as that. Almost anyone who has eaten hot, deep fried foods has burned themselves in one way or another so one could say they would be negligent in offering said food to a child.
• I did read that McDs acknowledged the McNugget caused the burn but again, that is not an admission of guilt on their part. Why was the child not supervised?

As you can tell I have little patience for our current "blame and sue" culture versus taking personal responsibility for ones own actions.

Again, thank you for at least following up on one of the claims in question.