Ohio Senate Moves to Criminalize Secretly Tracking People with Apple's AirTags and Similar Devices

The Associated Press reports: Tracking someone through apps and devices like the popular Apple AirTag without their consent could soon be deemed a criminal offense in Ohio, after the state's Republican-led Senate advanced the measure Wednesday with a unanimous bipartisan vote...

[V]iolators could be charged with a new first-degree misdemeanor offense of the "illegal use of a device or application," resulting in up to 180 days in jail. If the individual holds a prior conviction of menacing by stalking, the charge could escalate to a fourth-degree felony, resulting in six to 18 months in jail... There is no known opposition to the measure.

Exceptions to the proposal include some law enforcement activity; parents or guardians tracking their children; caregivers tracking an elderly or disabled person they are entrusted with; a non-private investigator acting on behalf of a "legitimate business purpose;" and private investigators on certain cases.
The bill now heads to Ohio's House of Representatives for further consideration.

"legitimate business purpose" exception

[TurboStar]

Of course there's an exception for the corpos who are secretly tracking literally everyone.

Re:

[ravenshrike]

A non-private investigator would primarily be insurance fraud investigators.

Re:

[Baron_Yam]

Never mind your Android phone is reporting your movements to Google whenever you turn on location services (which at one point included, and may still include, sending them all the cached location data from when you had the service turned off)... Google tracks you and does their best to figure out when you're using someone else's device and where that device is geographically located.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course there's an exception for the corpos who are secretly tracking literally everyone.

It's not secret and it's arguably not even without consent.

All of our company owned iPads run MDM software for us to manage them in bulk, pushing out software, geofencing, etc.
They are configured to lock down if not connected to the company wifi.
They are only for use on the shop floor and are never to leave the building. These aren't like company issued iPhones.
The anti-theft features available in MDM do involve tracking them when in violation of the geofence.

This exception is so we can file a police repor

Re: "legitimate business purpose" exception

[CoderKat]

Corporations tracking *their* property is perfectly fine in my book. After all, they own it, not us. It shouldn't be a secret, though (and usually isn't). The private investigator exception seems sketchy though (but I'm unclear on what the exact conditions are or what credentials they require).

First test case: Significant Others

[Voyager529]

"Your honor, I kept an Airtag in my own car, registered in my name. That I was able to catch my spouse cheating on me was a serendipitous coincidence."

"Your honor, I kept an Airtag in my suitcase. That my soon-to-be-ex-spouse took it to Vegas and gambled a massive amount of money is only proof that his claim of fraud to Mastercard is illegitimate."

"Your honor, I put an Airtag in *my* child's backpack. There's no way he ended up at the high end hair salon, and designer dress shops, reflecting the fact that my child support money is *definitely* being spent on things other than the child's well-being is undoubtedly evidence that the support arrangement needs to be revised."

To legislate the use of person-tracking technology is to leave 101 interpretations to the courts...and I'm genuinely uncertain whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.

Re:

[JaredOfEuropa]

Compare it to recording a conversation with a hidden microphone. In some places it's allowed if you are part of the conversation (or if another party gives consent), in other places it's allowed only with the consent of all parties. Your dashcam recording a conversation between your wife and her friend? Technically a crime... though if she knows it's there and doesn't pull the plug, consent might be implied.

So: your car, your suitcase, your airtag. If she knows it's there, that evidence might be admis

Re:

[sarren1901]

It's his suit case, so seems fine to track his property with his air-tag. I guess technically if they are married, it's also her suit case and her tracking device also. Sounds like a way for lawyers to make some money.

Also, if I place a tracker on my car, and it's stolen, am I now violating the thief's privacy by tracking them?

Re:

[JaredOfEuropa]

It really depends on how this law is worded. From another comment it seems that the law allows tagging your own stuff. There's been some talk here of similar laws, but they would be modeled after laws on recording conversations (which is why I made that comparison). In that case, what matters are the circumstances under which someone's location was tracked, not so much where or in what the tag was hidden.

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

Reading the bill (https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_134/bills/hb672/IN/00/hb672_00_IN?format=pdf) there doesn't seem to be an exception for it being your property. Cars are excepted, but suitcases don't appear to be.

Re:

[jenningsthecat]

To legislate the use of person-tracking technology is to leave 101 interpretations to the courts...and I'm genuinely uncertain whether this is a good thing or a bad thing

Because this makes it easy for innocent people to be railroaded, I think it's a bad thing. "Your honor, my client left an AirTag in his laptop bag because he's forever misplacing it. It's not his fault that the thief who stole it was unable to consent to being tracked".

In addition to this scenario, the legislation might give rise to warning labels on anything that contains or may contain an AirTag. Having to put a warning label on my own stuff just to protect myself from a lawsuit or a criminal charge over

Re:

[MooseTick]

"There's no way he ended up at the high end hair salon, and designer dress shops, reflecting the fact that my child support money is *definitely* being spent on things other than the child's well-being"

Unless the other parent's ONLY source of income is child support, you can't really determine how what you call "my child support money" was spent. And even then, shouldn't the other parent be able to get their hair cut and buy clothes? And is there a dollar limit for getting haircuts or clothing when you are

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

I managed to find the actual bill: https://search-prod.lis.state.... [state.oh.us]

You can put a tracker in your own car. Don't forget to remove it if you sell the car though.

For just keeping track of your bag and other stuff, it appears to make that illegal.

The child tracking stuff is pretty bad too. Children means under 18, I assume. Tracking a 17 year old all the time is pretty creepy.

Re:Great

[ravenshrike]

Reading the bill would have helped you to keep from inserting foot in mouth. Of course, it would also have helped if the AP had bothered to name the bill in question. Miss Hendrickson possibly needs remedial journalism courses. In any case, the bill only apply to other people's property.

https://search-prod.lis.state.... [state.oh.us]

Re:

[burtosis]

Bothered to name the bill or even presented the information accurately.

Re:

[ctilsie242]

I wonder if the law requires intent to be a factor. Say someone has a toolbox in the back of a pickup truck with an AirTag or two epoxied in it. It gets filched, and winds up at a tent city. The owner of the toolbox was not intending to track anyone, but just see where their stolen stuff was.

If this bill doesn't make for an exception for that, then a lot of companies with GPS tracking equipment, company MDMs, and other items will be sending legions of attorneys to Columbus to ensure the lawmakers there a

Weren't there already laws for this?

[rsilvergun]

I mean is stalking legal in Ohio? I guess it's possible Ohio leaning towards becoming the Florida of the north lately but this does seem unnecessary.

Re:

[RitchCraft]

Exactly. More laws to muddy the waters. Politicians making it look like they are doing good. When politicians on both sides agree on something you can be assured the public loses something important in the process.

Re:

[schwit1]

More laws so prosecutors can pile on more charges for a single act.

Re:

[ArchieBunker]

I thought you liked when politicians were tough on crime.

Re:

[sg_oneill]

I dont really know why the US doesn't do concurrent sentencing as regular as other countries do. Consecutive sentencing might sound like its fairer "You do 3 crimes, you get 3x as long in prison", but the reality is a lot of crimes end up with a preponderence of charges that end up producing absurd outcomes, and now we have a situation where there are people who are doing serious 40+ year sentences for things that quite possibly shouldnt even involve prison, but at worse a year or two, because the prosecuto

Re:

[shitposter]

Some sentences are arranged so time is served concurrently and some sentences are arranged so time is served consecutively Courts/Judges have broad discretion in sentencing. From Cornell Law: "Does the judge decide if a sentence will run concurrent or consecutive? Courts typically have broad discretion in deciding whether sentences will be served consecutively or concurrently. Courts generally determine whether a sentence will be cumulative in pursuant to the sentencing goals of retribution and deterrence.

Re:

[SuiteSisterMary]

More laws because, sometimes, the existing laws don't cover new situations or technologies, or are too broad in scope.

Should tracking somebody with an airtag without their knowledge be illegal? Sure. Should it be treated as the same level of offense as hiding cameras in their house? Probably not.

Kind of like we have degrees of murder; planning to kill somebody and executing (pun intended) that plan is quantitatively worse for society than killing somebody in a fit of rage, is quantitatively worse than sh

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

yup some guys in the 18th century figured out all the laws, for all of time. never need to update anything to keep pace with a changing world

Re:

[lazarusdishwasher]

That was my thought. I think an AirTag would be covered under section (A)(2), does the presence of a tracking device automatically trigger (A)(1)? One proposed law is advantage to the bill is that it states "prohibit a person from knowingly installing a tracking device or application on another person's property without the other person's consent" which means 2903.211 (A)(1) does not need met.

(2) No person, through the use of any form of written communication or any electronic method of remotely transferring information, including, but not limited to, any computer, computer network, computer program, computer system, or telecommunication device shall post a message or use any intentionally written or verbal graphic gesture with purpose to do either of the following: (a) Violate division (A)(1) of this section;

(A)(1) No person by engaging in a pattern of conduct shall knowingly cause another person to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the other person or a family or household member of the other person or cause mental distress to the other person or a family or household member of the other person. In addition to any other basis for the other person's belief that the offender will cause physical harm to the other person or the other person's family or household member or mental distress to the other person or the other person's family or household member, the other person's belief or mental distress may be based on words or conduct of the offender that are directed at or identify a corporation, association, or other organization that employs the other person or to which the other person belongs.

Section 2903.211 | Menacing by stalking. https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2903.211 [ohio.gov]

Tracking possessions

[kmahan]

I hope they carved out an exception for keeping airtags/gpstrackers/etc in my suitcase/backpack/cars/trailers/bikes/possessions so that when they get stolen I can track them down. Especially since most of the items I listed are low/no priority for the police to try and find unless you can tell them EXACTLY where they are.

Same question

[SuperKendall]

I hope they carved out an exception for keeping airtags/gpstrackers/etc in my suitcase/backpack/cars/trailers/bikes/possessions so that when they get stolen I can track them down.

I was wondering exactly the same thing, does this law also cover tracking thieves without their consent?

Re:

[shitposter]

Did any of you bother reading the bill before flooding the comments with hypotheticals? Because the bill, as written, would not penalize you for tracking property you own that has been stolen by a criminal.

Re:

[quall]

I think that's implied when the bill states that it only applies to property that you don't own.

Otherwise, even "Track My Phone" apps would become completely illegal.

Re:

[kmahan]

While I agree that is is "implied" I've found that lawyers have a way of twisting words that us common folk think are obvious. So I'd like to see to expressly declared.

Just publish an ad

[nospam007]

In the Buttfuck-Ohio-Post.

"I hereby declare, that I will openly and UNsecretly tracking my wife Suivi Traquage with 15 trackers until the end of times."

Then it's not a secret.