Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

AirTags or other “tracking devices” are not illegal. We don’t sue gun companies for selling legal weapons which are then used to illegally murder someone, do we? Do we sue knife companies when someone stabs someone using one of their knives?

AirTags, like knives, are a useful tool that can also be used for purposes which are either illegal or borderline illegal. But we have so many tools which are like that, are we going to sue every company that sells something that could be used nefariously?




I love how you're putting guns and knives into the same category here. They're actually a nice example for how a difference in quantity (deadliness) becomes a difference in quality. Which is why anyone can buy a knife pretty much anywhere in the world, while most of the "civilized" world puts heavy (heavy) constraints on who gets to carry fire arms. But I'm sure the countries that neither control who gets one nor require much training before they get it are doing juuuust fine. /s


> Which is why anyone can buy a knife pretty much anywhere in the world

Not quite true. I went to AUS a couple of years ago with a pocket knife, at one point I took it out to cut something and someone mentioned to me that a knife like that was illegal in AUS so I had to keep it hidden in the hotel the rest of the trip.


In the UK, you can buy a knife like that, but you it might be illegal to carry it around in your pocket.


Some places ban knives based on the opening mechanism. E.g. from what I can tell the UK bans spring-assisted opening knives (switchblades in colloquial terms).


The government web site: https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives

"It’s also illegal to: carry most knives or any weapons in public without a ‘good reason’"

"A court will decide if you’ve got a good reason to carry a knife or a weapon if you’re charged with carrying it illegally."


Honest question: Is "because sometimes I need to cut something" a "good reason." I routinely carry a small pocket knife with a 3" blade that folds up, and I use it very frequently. Would this be allowed in the UK?

Also from the site, one of the requirements is "are not lock knives (they do not have a button, spring or catch that you have to use to fold the knife)"

My pocket knife folds open and then catches, meaning I have to push a little metal tab out of the way to fold it back closed. This seems safer to me, since otherwise the blade might fold up on my fingers while I'm trying to use it. Would this be illegal in the UK?


> Would this be illegal in the UK?

I think those are legal, I think you've got it reversed. Knives that lack some kind of mechanism that locks the blade open are illegal (e.g. a butterfly knife).

Thinking about it, I think that section is to specifically ban butterfly knives. That's the only style of non-fixed blade knife I can think of that doesn't have a compliant locking mechanism.


I got one like that on my keychain too and while the personal at the airport measured the blade size, it was fine to take along for an international flight within the EU. I'm neither from the UK nor a lawyer through, and airport personal aren't the police, still hard to imagine that they'd ignore that if it was illegal.


That reasoning would make sense but the most server limits on firearms are mostly applied to the least commonly used weapons for murders. For instance more than twice the number of people get murdered by knives in the US than rifles (rather broad category). Unless you're talking about quantity of deadly use vs non deadly use

Regardless i think it doesn't make sense to have a legal gray zone where it's legal but you can still be sued about it. Either make it illegal or certain behaviors illegal and sue for that but arbitrary lawsuits are not the answer

> https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in...


> That reasoning would make sense but the most server limits on firearms are mostly applied to the least commonly used weapons for murders.

Well, yeah, if you consider the limits on rifles to be severe, why would you be surprised that they're used less for murder? If anything, that sounds like an argument that limits work and we should be limiting _more_ things


> For instance more than twice the number of people get murdered by knives in the US than rifles (rather broad category)

That's just cherry picking data. You're comparing the broadest possible category "knives" with a subset of another category -- rifles are a subset of knives.

You might note that certain categories of knives are regulated, and actually illegal in many states. Not all knives are the same. This is obvious. But your point ignores it.


> Which is why anyone can buy a knife pretty much anywhere in the world

Actually in the UK, you are not allowed to sell a knife of any kind to someone under 18 years of age (though Scotland allows 16 and 17 year olds to buy cutlery).

https://www.police.uk/pu/advice-crime-prevention/possession-...


This is because their is a federal law that says gun companies aren't liable. Prior to the passing of this law, the NRA argued that without it, gun companies would all go out of business because they'd be sued into oblivion.

The families of the children murdered at Sandy Hook have sued gun companies and succeeded (at least to some degree, they settled) through a workaround of the federal law. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/nyregion/sandy-hook-famil...


> We don’t sue gun companies for selling legal weapons which are then used to illegally murder someone, do we?

People do all the time[0]. Do they win? Not sure.

0. https://www.texastribune.org/2022/11/29/uvalde-shooting-laws...


> We don’t sue gun companies for selling legal weapons which are then used to illegally murder someone, do we? Do we sue knife companies when someone stabs someone using one of their knives?

_You_, don't sue gun companies. Don't project. Plenty of other people do and get money from it.


Presumably the case would focus on marketing claims of protection against this kind of use versus reality, or basic due diligence, etc. A gun company that claimed specific protective features that didn't work, or missed some obvious base safety features would probably get sued, yes.

I don't know enough about the product to know if any of that has any merit, but I assume that's what the plaintiffs will try to prove.


There are many cases, such as: https://www.wmur.com/article/lawsuit-new-hampshire-sig-sauer...

In this cause the suit is that the gun is defective, it can fire without a trigger pull.

The Apple suit is claiming negligence on the part of Apple because they did NOT do something "simple" to prevent tracking. It'll likely come down to whether that "simple" thing actually was, whether it was known, etc, etc.

How a product is marketed can also come into play, which is why Apple has been very careful (just like gun manufacturers) to never say or imply that it could be used for crimes.


>Apple has been very careful (just like gun manufacturers) to never say or imply that it could be used for crimes

They have talked about it:

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/02/an-update-on-airtag-a...

Even on the main product page (https://www.apple.com/airtag/) ..."AirTag is designed to discourage unwanted tracking".


That's talking how it can't (or shouldn't) be used for crimes, but it starts to get a little close to Mr Incredible telling the old lady what not to do at some point, and that can be the point the lawyers aim at.


The argument here is that Apple's design of IOS was negligent as it failed to protect from stalking.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: