I revised the title many times. Am I giving the impact breadth of what it could be without veering into click-bait?
Bluetooth Low Energy MESH Network, it is built into the OS without any noted country exemption. Although there be will many air gaps, that is not what I mean.
Some questions that came to mind reading it?
- Can China even pull it out of the OS for good measure, hack it?
- Even with topology of some enable, others disable, others wanting security will be reading bluetooth MAC addresses of un-consenting, disabled, for tracking of others whom have enabled, even if they are not being targeted. See below screenshots from the Internet Engineering Task Force presentation.
- Is the Bluetooth freqz and combinatory fields bio-active in any regard of it’s function? Do plants stay healthy around “high intake” Bluetooth whatever that may be?
- They mentioned other devices and Industry being involved, how many devices to we expect to also use this protocol in the future?
- If we mapped it out, all of these devices thus operating, mapped out of the whole network with a Supercomputer, real-time, how much energy do you think it would be? How many BLE pulses per second, in a busy metropolitan area?
- Who pushed for this TRACKING NETWORK I will be partcipating in whether I like or NOT (uptake)?
- Where was the pre-planning market and socio-economic research on this presented beforehand?
- If entities very intent on tracking you, will just disable/refuse the protcol, then why instead would Apple and Alphabet whom introduced the vulnerability, just …make thier own implementation secure?
So we’re going to skip this useless marketing-speak on 9to5 Mac - Here’s how the new Cross-Platform Tracking Detection works in iOS 17.5
As far as I can tell, there is nothing that says it doesn’t perform assessment of the MAC address in range, all of them, for “your” security of course. In fact, it seems in line with what they want to accomplish: Track all the trackers? Later safeguard them with a “Safefilter” online database check when Phone starts?
Did I get it wrong?
I think you need to take the thought of “network” completely out of your mind. This protocol is specifically regarding devices such as air tags, which don’t have any network capability themselves but rely on “connecting” to Bluetooth of the manufacturers models. The phones themselves are what gives tracking information back, based on GPS of the phone that was in proximity of the tracker.
The question that Google/Apple have is, how can we make sure people aren’t unknowingly being tracked by someone putting a physical tracker in say, your car. THAT’S the “protocol” part. A protocol is just an agreement on how a technology is going to be implemented. If your own tracker is following you that’s fine, the MAC address will keep changing. If someone else’s air tag is following you, your phone will know this tracker has been near you for some time, and will tell you.
I can appreciate your re-iterating of the fundamentals of extremely easy to understand tech, but instead of basic thinking, you just repeating the already presented text which anyone can read hopefully, I presented a case for how it could be used that meets all technical specifications and is therefore possible. Likely even, given big tech track record.
This pheneomena of using tech “not as in the manual” is common. In fact, the Apache web server team was not sure it would work and the Internet adopted a series of HTTP patches as a whole unlike they intended.
That is just wrong and I can’t understand how you came to that conclusion. I also invite you to think of it as a network, because it is using Bluetooth in a network?
Brother, I’m a 10+ year network engineer… Bluetooth is a low power, low speed, short range(30 feet) technology. The power of Bluetooth signals are over 1000x weaker than what cellphones use to connect to cell towers. There isn’t going to be any sophisticated “networking” happening between airtags. Your original post was almost gibberish, I had to struggle to arrive at the point you’re trying to make. You can call it a network if you want but you’re asking if it could be practical as a standalone, autonomous network and the answer is no. They lack the capability to communicate over any meaningful distance. Not much “networking” capability if it can’t talk to other networks. Others have struggled to talk sense into you so I won’t waste anymore of my time. Though I’d suggest that if you’re going to argue against logic then you should be more open to reason.