Most active commenters
  • jorvi(3)

←back to thread

A 10-Year Battery for AirTag

(www.elevationlab.com)
673 points dmd | 17 comments | 18 Dec 24 18:17 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
jmull ◴[19 Dec 24 19:42 UTC] No.42465013[source]▶
I know this is useful (for something), but I'm stuck on the plot holes in the motivating story...

Why didn't they replace the battery when the app complained?

How long would a thief really keep the AirTag anyway?

If the thief did keep the AirTag and you tracked them down, then what? A confrontation has a fairly high chance to have a worse result than losing some equipment. You could try to get the police to do it, but that's going to take more time, during which the thief is even more likely to ditch the AirTag.

Anyway, you're really swimming upstream trying to think of aigtags as an antitheft device. They're really for something lost, not stolen. Generally, they are specifically designed to not work well in adversarial situations.

replies(28): >>42465128 #>>42465202 #>>42465292 #>>42465303 #>>42465460 #>>42465554 #>>42465750 #>>42465858 #>>42466486 #>>42466585 #>>42466656 #>>42466744 #>>42466798 #>>42466905 #>>42467422 #>>42467653 #>>42467777 #>>42468238 #>>42468266 #>>42469043 #>>42469231 #>>42469724 #>>42470989 #>>42471280 #>>42472799 #>>42472809 #>>42477976 #>>42481533 #
joshuahaglund ◴[19 Dec 24 20:46 UTC] No.42465554[source]▶
I've retrieved stolen bikes, one because of an airtag. Showed up with a couple friends standing by but not trying to be intimidating. It's mostly about staying calm and telling the person this is mine, I'm taking it. They always say "no it's my friend's, you're gonna piss him off" or "I just bought this" or something. Maybe you offer some fraction of a "reward" to smooth it along and cut your losses. Don't try to start a fight and it generally goes OK. Also, try not to accuse them of stealing, they'll just get defensive. "It's someone else who is screwing us both, but this is mine sorry."
replies(3): >>42466818 #>>42466821 #>>42469423 #
nostromo ◴[19 Dec 24 23:27 UTC] No.42466818[source]▶
If it’s left anywhere in the open at anytime, you can repossess it legally as well. This happens with auto repossessions all the time. You don’t owe anyone an explanation as it’s yours - just take it if you can do so safely.
replies(3): >>42466899 #>>42469332 #>>42480492 #
mikeortman ◴[19 Dec 24 23:38 UTC] No.42466899[source]▶
Just be careful! In SOME jurisdictions, you can get in trouble for 'stealing' if you take back something that was stolen. Possession vs Ownership are 2 different things. For instance, the thief may have stolen something, sold it to someone who bought it in good-faith, and you take it back from that person, it's technically theft!

File a police report, go through the right channels. If you know its yours, call the police department non-emergency and explain the situation

replies(10): >>42466945 #>>42466970 #>>42467032 #>>42467388 #>>42468029 #>>42468376 #>>42468451 #>>42468731 #>>42470126 #>>42478230 #
1. nostromo ◴[19 Dec 24 23:48 UTC] No.42466970[source]▶
I’d be curious what jurisdiction that is true.

In my jurisdiction in the US it doesn’t matter if someone purchased the stolen goods or not, the goods still belong to the owner. This is sometimes called the "nemo dat" rule:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_dat_quod_non_habet

The person buying the stolen goods would need to file a claim against the thief to recover their money, but the goods still belong to the original owner. And this is how it should be, since it’s added reason not to buy goods you suspect are stolen.

And yes, you should always try and work with the police first and foremost.

replies(5): >>42468495 #>>42469170 #>>42469297 #>>42469912 #>>42480259 #
2. jorvi ◴[20 Dec 24 05:21 UTC] No.42468495[source]▶
That is probably mostly a common law thing, and as the article notes

> however, in many cases, more than one innocent party is involved, making judgment difficult for courts and leading to numerous exceptions to the general rule that aim to give a degree of protection to bona fide purchasers and original owners

> The person buying the stolen goods would need to file a claim against the thief to recover their money

Generally as long as the purchase is made in good faith, you are wrong. It is the original owner that needs to file a claim against the thief.

Obviously, what constitutes a sale in "good faith" is a rather imprecise science, although one steady element is the sales price: it needs to have been appropriate for the item. So for example a mint bicycle or antique coin should sell near sticker price.

replies(2): >>42468880 #>>42470200 #
3. nsomaru ◴[20 Dec 24 06:53 UTC] No.42468880[source]▶
The key element for a bona fide sale at common law is the buyer’s absence of knowledge of the defective title of the seller.

Not sure how US courts have interpreted this requirement but that’s the onus and I believe it rests on the third party buyer (to show absence of knowledge through evidence).

In that case the claim is against the thief only.

4. ostacke ◴[20 Dec 24 08:06 UTC] No.42469170[source]▶
Sweden is one such jurisdiction[1]. You can only retake what has been stolen from you if it is done shortly after the theft.

[1] https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sj%C3%A4lvt%C3%A4kt

replies(1): >>42470616 #
5. randunel ◴[20 Dec 24 08:34 UTC] No.42469297[source]▶
Another jurisdiction example would be Romania. Even if the thief themselves are in possession of the property you own, you can be charged with theft if you steal it back. The law clearly delimits possession from ownership.
6. easyThrowaway ◴[20 Dec 24 10:38 UTC] No.42469912[source]▶
How would they even prove that if it's in the open? "Stolen? No idea, I've always had that bike, I just forgot where I left it last time. Went and got it back. By the way, here's the receipt."
7. graemep ◴[20 Dec 24 11:23 UTC] No.42470200[source]▶
> in many cases, more than one innocent party is involved, making judgment difficult for courts and leading to numerous exceptions to the general rule that aim to give a degree of protection to bona fide purchasers and original owners

The next sentence is:

> The possession of the good of title will be with the original owner.

So you seem to be wrong there. The innocent buyer needs to file a claim against the thief, the original owner retails their title. It is explained in more detail later on.

replies(1): >>42472727 #
8. randallsquared ◴[20 Dec 24 12:43 UTC] No.42470616[source]▶
...as appropriate for a culture of Viking raids, one would suppose!
replies(1): >>42471651 #
9. lazide ◴[20 Dec 24 15:04 UTC] No.42471651{3}[source]▶
Possession truly is 9/10ths of the law in this case I guess?
10. jorvi ◴[20 Dec 24 17:01 UTC] No.42472727{3}[source]▶
No, I know our legal system quite well. You are wrong.

The reason for this is so that if you buy a bicycle at, say, a bicycle fair and for a reasonable price, you shouldn’t have to worry about it being yoinked from under you later on.

Lawmakers have clarified this is choosing between two evils, there is no winning proposition here.

So, in conclusion: the original owner needs to file the claim, not the third party.

replies(2): >>42473339 #>>42473796 #
11. hcurtiss ◴[20 Dec 24 18:12 UTC] No.42473339{4}[source]▶
To the degree lawmakers have weighed in, as you say, can you point me to a citation protecting the subsequent purchaser? I don't practice in this area, but that is definitely not my understanding of the law.
replies(1): >>42474108 #
12. graemep ◴[20 Dec 24 18:59 UTC] No.42473796{4}[source]▶
"o, I know our legal system quite well. You are wrong"

"Our" legal system? Do you mean all common law countries or a particular one?

replies(1): >>42477780 #
13. liber8 ◴[20 Dec 24 19:27 UTC] No.42474108{5}[source]▶
This guy is wrong, which is why he isn't citing any legal authority.

As anyone who has gone to law school will tell you, you can only acquire the title that the seller has. If seller stole the goods, he doesn't have any title, so he can't transfer title to a subsequent buyer. See, e.g. UCC § 2-403

There are exceptions when it comes to those who have voidable title (thieves do not have voidable title).

There are also cases where courts have more or less created exceptions close to those OP has described. For example, if Best Buy receives some stolen merchandise and sells it to good faith purchasers, courts have held that the victim needs to pursue the thief/Best Buy, not the end purchaser.

But generally, OP is wrong: if you buy a stolen bike at a flea market, you don't get title and the owner can get the bike back. Think of the policy implications if the rule was as OP claims. All thieves would have to do is immediately sell stolen goods and the owners could never get them back. That would be absurd.

replies(2): >>42477696 #>>42478498 #
14. jorvi ◴[21 Dec 24 05:17 UTC] No.42477696{6}[source]▶
> This guy is wrong, which is why he isn't citing any legal authority.

You never asked.

https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005291/2024-05-01 article 83 onward

> As anyone who has gone to law school will tell you

Sounds like you wasted $300 000 just to be wrong :)

> But generally, OP is wrong: if you buy a stolen bike at a flea market, you don't get title and the owner can get the bike back.

I said bike fair, not flea market.

I will reiterate: the sale needs to have been in good faith. All the conditions for that need to have been met.

15. codys ◴[21 Dec 24 05:46 UTC] No.42477780{5}[source]▶
The commenter appears to have been referring to a specific law in the netherlands without stating this.
16. Epa095 ◴[21 Dec 24 09:24 UTC] No.42478498{6}[source]▶
OP is just claiming that there exists juristrictions where his claim holds. IANALE (I am not a lawyer EVERYWHERE), so I can't really say that he's wrong. But you seem quite certain. Why?
17. Xmd5a ◴[21 Dec 24 15:40 UTC] No.42480259[source]▶
This happened to me. I bought a pair of headphones (Nuraphones) on ebay, only to have them bricked by the company remotely.

IIRC, they had a security hole on their payment page: they forgot to implement SCA (strong customer authentification, aka 2FA for payments). Had they done this, the liability would have shifted onto the bank/card issuer. For some reason they decided to go after the customers in vain resentment, were acquired and their product was discontinued.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Nuraphone/comments/8iw3he/beware_on...