Florida lawmakers push for bill that enhances penalties when using AirTag in a crime
The Brief
Florida lawmakers are pushing for harsher punishments against people who misuse Apple Airtags.
Senate Bill 1168 would upgrade the charge for misusing an AirTag to a second-degree felony, meaning an increase of ten years of prison time.
The bill awaits a second reading; if signed, it will go into effect on Oct. 1.
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - They can help you find your pet, phone or even your children if you lose them at an amusement park.
However, law enforcement says AirTags are also being used for criminal reasons. Some people use them to stalk and harass.
Florida lawmakers are trying to stop that during this legislative session, arguing for stricter punishments for those who misuse AirTags.
Dig deeper
Executive Director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, Albert Fox Chan, says that crooks can use that to their advantage as technology improves.
"It's clear when you start using technology for finding an object anywhere in the world, that's something that can easily be used for really nefarious purposes," said Cahn.
READ: Happy Birthday FOX 13: WTVT's 70 years worth of memories, stories in Tampa Bay
In Florida, there are growing concerns about the misuse of AirTags for stalking.
In 2022, a Miami-Dade police officer was arrested for secretly stalking his ex-girlfriend for a month while using an AirTag.
"These devices are really small, many of them are magnetic, and they stick very easily to the bottom of a car," added Chief Technology Officer of Computer Forensic Services Mark Lanterman.
What they're saying
That's why Republican State Senator Tom Leek introduced a bill that would create harsher punishments if they're used in a crime.
"It's critical we deter the use of this technology in furtherance of committing crimes which do real harm to our citizens," Leek explained.
CLICK HERE:>>>Follow FOX 13 on YouTube
Senate Bill 1168 would upgrade the charge to a second-degree felony if used in a crime. That means a difference of ten years in prison.
Computer forensics experts say that these devices' popularity opens the door for a lot of crime.
"The problem is you can go to eBay right now and you can buy an AirTag that has had the speaker removed, so there are no beeps," Lanterman explained.
What you can do
You can find out if an AirTag is following you by going to your "Find My" app and checking for alerts related to AirTags.
If you do find one, remove the battery. If you feel your safety is at risk, contact law enforcement and maintain your security proactively.
Apple has condemned any malicious use of its products and has taken steps to discourage unwanted tracking.
What's next
On Tuesday, Leek's bill passed another Senate Committee and awaits a second reading. If it passes and is signed by Governor Ron DeSantis, it would take effect by Oct. 1.
The Source
This story was collected by FOX 13's News Staff and presented by FOX 13's Chris Cato.
WATCH FOX 13 NEWS LIVE:
STAY CONNECTED WITH FOX 13 TAMPA:
Download the FOX Local app for your smart TV
Download FOX Local mobile app: Apple | Android
Download the FOX 13 News app for breaking news alerts, latest headlines
Download the SkyTower Radar app
Sign up for FOX 13's daily newsletter
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Brooklyn Center attorney suspended by Minnesota Supreme Court
The Minnesota Supreme Court has indefinitely suspended attorney Susan Shogren Smith, who authorities say filed legal challenges in the November 2020 election without permission of the plaintiffs. The suspension from practicing law came Thursday, on the heels of a petition for disciplinary action against Shogren Smith filed by the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility saying that she has conducted professional misconduct. The Brooklyn Center attorney was given a $10,000 sanction in 2021 after a judge found she 'bamboozled' voters into signing on as plaintiffs without their knowledge or permission to file legal challenges against the election of five congressional Democrats. Calls to Shogren Smith on Friday were not returned. The petition for disciplinary action noted that a three-judge panel had determined she had committed a 'fraud on the court' and gave her an additional $15,000 sanction. The petition claims that Shogren Smith has failed to pay the $25,000, according to court documents. 'Respondent's misconduct is serious,' the state Supreme Court document said, 'and involved not just lack of competence and failure to communicate with clients, but dishonesty to the courts and disregard for the discipline process.' The court documents said her actions were 'not a brief lapse of judgement' but something that occurred for several years. Shogren Smith is a member of the MN Election Integrity Team, a conservative group that sought to prevent the state from certifying its election results while President Donald Trump and his allies promoted unfounded claims of election fraud. On Dec. 1, 2020, she filed five complaints in Ramsey County District Court, naming as defendants Secretary of State Steve Simon and the Democratic candidates who won their Congressional races. Those legal challenges were filed in the names of 14 separate voters, at least four of whom had no idea they were participating. 'Susan Shogren Smith … perpetrated a fraud against this court and, more importantly, perpetrated a fraud against these plaintiffs,' Ramsey County Chief District Judge Leonardo Castro said at the time the first sanction was imposed. In February of 2021, Republican activist Corinne Braun discovered her name was connected to one of the cases. 'To my horror, I saw that I had sued Steve Simon and Ilhan Omar. It was a surreal moment for me,' she said, likening the discovery to finding her car had been broken into. Braun testified she had received an anonymous email asking to add her name to a list of disgruntled voters. She filled out the form and signed her name and then forwarded the email to about 5,000 people on her mailing list. As Shogren Smith explained in court, what Braun had signed was an affidavit that agreed she 'will be joining with other voters across Minnesota to contest Minnesota election results.' Braun, though, said she didn't understand the implications. Shogren Smith acknowledged she never spoke with the plaintiffs or informed them of the outcome of the case, even when Braun and two other unwitting plaintiffs were ordered to pay $3,873 to the defendants at the conclusion of the case. Shogren Smith said at the time, she believed someone else with the MN Election Integrity Team was having those conversations with plaintiffs. 'I absolutely believed that those conversations were happening with these plaintiffs,' she said. U.S. Customs Border Protection officer charged with possessing child porn Man once convicted in Minnesota of supporting al-Qaida is now charged in Canada for alleged threats Jury finds Milwaukee man guilty of killing and dismembering 19-year-old woman 'We feel relief': Derrick Thompson found guilty in Minneapolis crash that killed five young women Man charged with hate crime in Boulder attack on 'Zionist people' appears in federal court
Black America Web
an hour ago
- Black America Web
Mayo Tears Or Real Fears: Supreme Court Rules For Straight Woman In Job Discrimination Suit
Source: The Washington Post / Getty In a unanimous Supreme Court decision that's already sending ripples through workplace law and DEI discourse, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Marlean Ames, a straight woman who claimed she was discriminated against for her sexual orientation after being passed over for promotion in favor of gay colleagues. According to reports, the high court rejected a previously accepted legal standard that required members of majority groups to meet a higher burden of proof when alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The ruling, penned by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, made it clear that equal protection under employment discrimination law does not shift depending on whether the plaintiff is part of a historically marginalized group or not. 'Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs,' Jackson wrote. And with that decision, what many had considered a quietly accepted court norm was struck down. The decision comes amid growing backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs nationwide, with critics arguing such initiatives increasingly favor the historically excluded to the point of excluding everyone else. Ames' legal victory is likely to fuel further debate over whether we're entering a new phase of 'reverse discrimination' litigation—where being white, straight, or male can now be leveraged in civil rights courtrooms as the basis of systemic bias. But the facts of Ames' case, while legally persuasive to the Court, remain emotionally murky. According to the lawsuit, Ames had been with the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004, eventually rising to lead a program aimed at combating prison rape. In 2019, she reportedly applied for a promotion and was passed over for a lesbian colleague who allegedly lacked a college degree and had less tenure. Not long after, Ames was demoted, and her former position was filled by a gay man. Her complaint: she lost both opportunities because she was straight. The employer's rebuttal: she lacked vision, leadership, and—more subtly—the emotional intelligence to lead. One might read between those HR lines and detect the scent of a corporate 'Karen.' Source: The Washington Post / Getty Despite Ames' insistence that her sexual orientation was the problem, court filings from the state describe her office performance as the real issue, revealing that she was more of a poor team player than a persecuted worker. Officials reportedly described her as 'difficult to work with' and pointed out that the supervisors who made promotion decisions were straight, challenging the idea of an anti-hetero bias at the institutional level. Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost defended the department's actions in court, saying Ames' rejection and eventual demotion were part of an internal restructuring process, with department leaders saying they felt she was difficult to work with, and lacked the vision and leadership needed for the position she sought. Still, the Court's ruling wasn't about whether Ames was discriminated against—it was about her right to argue that she was without being subjected to an unfair legal burden simply because she's straight. For that reason, this case now returns to the lower courts for another round and potentially a full trial. Legal scholars note that this ruling could open the floodgates to more lawsuits from majority-group plaintiffs who feel shut out by race- or orientation-conscious hiring and promotion practices. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, cited an amicus brief from the Trump-aligned group America First Legal, which has recently taken aim at major corporations like Starbucks and IBM for so-called reverse discrimination. But there's a deeper cultural layer here that can't be ignored. Was Ames truly the victim of anti-straight bias, or was she an underwhelming candidate looking for a convenient legal hook in the form of her colleagues' LGBTQ+ status? In an era where 'DEI fatigue' is a real thing in boardrooms and breakrooms alike, the line between legitimate grievance and performative fragility is increasingly blurred. Still, the Supreme Court's message is clear: Discrimination law is about equality of process, not identity advantage. No group, majority or minority, gets a shortcut or a steeper climb to their day in court. So while Ames may still lose her case, she'll now do so with the same legal footing afforded to any other claimant, and for some, that's progress. For others, it's the beginning of a new kind of fear. But let's be clear: whether Ames' tears are of mayo or merit, this ruling is a turning point and in today's polarized professional climate, it's only the beginning of a much larger reckoning over who gets to claim 'discrimination'—and who gets believed. SEE ALSO: California Teen Sprinter Disqualified For Celebrating State Title Win Donald Trump vs. Elon Musk: Feud Cools After Explosive Clash SEE ALSO Mayo Tears Or Real Fears: Supreme Court Rules For Straight Woman In Job Discrimination Suit was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
Los Angeles Times
4 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Voters who don't vote? This is one way democracy can die, by 20 million cuts
During China's imperial age, those deemed guilty of the worst offenses were sometimes sentenced to death in a public square by a brutal form of execution known as lingchi. Soldiers — using sharp blades — would slice away pieces of flesh from the accused until they died. Translated, lingchi means 'death by a thousand cuts.' Maybe democracy does die in darkness, as journalist Bob Woodward often suggests. Or maybe democracy's demise comes in the light of day, in a public forum, where everyone can bear witness. Sometimes those holding the knives are the oligarchs or elected officials drenched in corruption. And sometimes there's blood on the hands of the people. On Saturday, voters in San Antonio — the seventh-largest city in the country — are headed to the polls to decide the first open mayoral race since President Obama's first term. Or at least some voters will be. In November 2024, nearly 60% of the 1.3 million registered voters in the county cast a ballot in the general election. However, in the local election held last month, barely 10% showed up to the polls. Before anyone starts throwing shade at San Antonio, in Dallas the turnout was even lower. Lackluster participation in an 'off year' election is not new. However, the mayoral race in San Antonio has increased national interest because the outcome is being viewed as a litmus test for both the strength of the Democrats' resistance and the public's appetite for the White House's policies. Like other big blue cities nestled in legislatively red states, San Antonio's progressive policies have been under constant assault from the governor's mansion. And with neither the progressive candidate, Gina Ortiz Jones, or her MAGA-leaning opponent, Rolando Pablos, eclipsing 50% of the vote in May, the runoff has drawn more than $1 million in campaign spending from outside conservative groups looking to flip the traditionally blue stronghold. The outcome could provide a possible glimpse into the 2026 mayoral race in Los Angeles, should the formerly Republican Rick Caruso decide to run against Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat. When the two faced off in 2022, around 44% of the city's registered voters went to the polls. Caruso lost by less than 90,000 votes in a city with 2.1 million registered voters — most of whom didn't submit a ballot. It is rather astonishing how little we actually participate in democracy, given the amount of tax dollars we have spent trying to convince other nations that our government system is the best on the planet. Capitulating to President Trump's unsubstantiated claims of mass voter fraud, many local conservative elected officials have tried to ram through a litany of 'voter integrity' policies under the guise of protecting democracy. However, democracy is not a delicate flower in need of protection. It's a muscle in need of exercise. 'Some people find voting to be a chore,' Michele Carew, the elections administrator for Bexar County — which includes San Antonio — told me. 'We need to make voting easier and quite frankly, fun. And we need to get those who don't feel like their vote counts to see that it does. That means getting out and talking to people in our neighborhood, in our churches, in our grocery stores … about when elections are coming up and what's at stake locally.' Carew said that the added outside interest in the city's election has driven up early voting a tick and that she expects to see roughly a 15% turnout, which is an increase over previous years. It could be worse. The city once elected a mayor with 7% turnout back in 2013. Carew also expressed concern about outside influence on local governing. 'One of the first times I saw these nonpartisan races become more political was in 2020, and so as time goes by it's gotten even more so. I would like to think once the candidate is elected mayor they remain nonpartisan and do what's best for the city and not their party.' In 2024, a presidential election year when you'd expect the highest turnout, 1 in 3 registered voters across this country — roughly 20 million people — took a look around and said, 'Nah, I'm good.' Or something like that. The highest turnout was in Washington, D.C., where nearly 80% showed up. Too bad it's not a state. Among the lowest turnout rates? Texas — which has the second-greatest number of voters, behind only California. And therein lies the problem with trying to extrapolate national trends from local elections. Maybe Ortiz Jones will win in San Antonio this weekend. Maybe Caruso will win in L.A. next year. None of this tells us how the vast majority of Americans are really feeling. Sure, it's good fodder to debate around the table or on cable news shows, but ultimately the sample size of a mayoral election belies any claims about a result's meaning. Turnout during an off year is just too low. One thing we know for certain is most voters in America exercise their right to vote only once every four years. Oligarchs and corrupt officials are not great, but it's hard for democracy to stay healthy and strong if that's all the exercise it's getting. @LZGranderson
