Show HN: Undetectag, track stolen items with AirTag

53 pompidoo 56 5/15/2025, 3:46:26 PM undetectag.com ↗
I developed a device that turns an Airtag on and off at specific intervals. Current Airtags are detectable right away and cannot be used to track stolen property. That device allows you to hide an Airtag in your car, for example, and someone that steals your car will not be able to use some app to detect it. The Airtag will also not warn the thief of its presence. After some hours, the Airtag turns on again and you can find out its location. It’s not foolproof, as the timing has to be right, but still useful.

What do you think?

Comments (56)

gojomo · 2h ago
After I saw third-party "10 year battery enclosure" offerings for AirTags, was wondering when other workaround customizations like this might appear.

Other impactful variants might be:

* senses whether another 'sibling' AirTag is present, if so, stays off. If not, waits X hours & then turns on.

* has its own motion sensor; only after X minutes of being stationary, it waits Y hours to turn on briefly

* has its own clock & (original-user-known) randomization seed; turns on at pseudorandom intervals the original user can predict

* low-power/low-bandwidth receivers so cheap & tiny now: could wait for national or even global unit-specific 'wake' request - perhaps even with parameters for duration/intervals – before powering-on AirTag portion

ale42 · 35m ago
Half-related question: the chip on the board looks like an STM32 microcontroller, wouldn't a 6-pin 8-bit PIC10 or similar µC be sufficient and cheaper for the purpose? And possibly use less power, a PIC10F322 in sleep mode with the watchdog timer enabled is around 0.5 µA, while a small STM32 is more in the 100 µA range in the best case.
Gys · 1h ago
> Events outside our control, such as Apple updating the firmware in the future to prevent the device from working

There are several much cheaper nock offs that inherently will never update the firmware. Why not support those? And just to be sure, offer a package deal, include such tracker.

wepple · 3h ago
Problems: if the thief steals your item while the AirTag is on, they can find and disable it.

Have you experimented with a setup (more complicated to package) where you have two AirTags and alternately power one at a time? Could that bypass apples detection whilst also broadcasting location?

Edit: at sufficiently small time durations to run under apples detection radar, but for long enough to be picked up as a location

I don’t know how Apple detects the tracking; this would easily be solved by them.

pompidoo · 3h ago
Yes I think having 2 is a good strategy. I'm also considering offering different timings in the future.
pimlottc · 4h ago
Wouldn't this also greatly reduce the reliability of tracking, especially in rural areas where there might not always be a Find My network device nearby?
subscribed · 3h ago
In rural areas you're always better off with gps+lte+LoRA tracker anyways.
pompidoo · 4h ago
Yes, unfortunately it would.
givinguflac · 4h ago
Very cool idea, and I love how compact it is!

My only feedback would be re: the site, specifically this part:

“ Airtag is a trademark registered by apple and we have nothing to do with apple.”

Might want to capitalize Apple; just a nitpick.

pompidoo · 4h ago
Good catch! Thank you I will correct it now.
cinntaile · 3h ago
Can the time interval be changed by the user or is it hardcoded? What are the limits if they can be changed?
pompidoo · 3h ago
hardcoded, but I'm thinking of offering different time intervals in the future
andygeorge · 2h ago
> offering different time intervals

your previous response to the stalking concerns was "it's 4 hours off / 1 hour on, the device is not very suitable for stalking someone"; wouldn't this comment - allowing that to change - then make it even easier for stalkers?

pompidoo · 1h ago
Well it would warn the person that they are being tracked when the airtag turns back on, so I feel like any other tracker would be better suited for stalking people, and most of the time it wouldn't even track.
Gibbon1 · 2h ago
A while ago saw someone who was working in the tracking space said the following.

For stolen items you don't want to track them. You want to be able to ask them where they are. The advantage is you can make a locator that doesn't reveal itself by transmitting. And it doesn't waste power receiving gps signals. You could literally have a device that runs for years on a AA battery.

The reason you don't see these on the market is because the people that fund products want to sell location data.

xmodem · 1h ago
> You want to be able to ask them where they are.

Through what presently-existing technology, exactly, is this idea supposed to work over distances greater than at best a couple of miles with say LoRA?

> The reason you don't see these on the market is because the people that fund products want to sell location data.

I'm not equipped to analyse their claims in detail, but Apple claims the design of their find-my network is end-to-end encrypted, and presumably it would be a huge scandal if this turned out to be a massive lie.

cmeacham98 · 4h ago
> Events outside our control, such as Apple updating the firmware in the future to prevent the device from working, will not qualify for a refund.

I fully understand why you would want to do this, but as a consumer I would never buy this product with this clause.

pompidoo · 3h ago
I understand your point. In this case the price point makes this a bearable risk, especially to protect much more valuable items. A refund is only useful if only a certain % of people have issue or the company is big. Since this is my only product, an Airtag update that bricks the devices would just bankrupt the company and make me unable to refund most people as my margin is very low anyway.
andygeorge · 3h ago
sure but you've acknowledged that your product is something that Apple considers bad and could shut it down. that can usually be overlooked for things like emulation, but you've developed a product that does something Apple specifically added protections against after they learned of its dangerous misuse
birdman3131 · 1h ago
That does not read as "something that Apple considers bad" but rather "something that Apple COULD consider bad"
dudeinjapan · 4h ago
A reasonable solution would be to get to buy the newer model half-off if this happens. Obviously the maker can’t just have his entire biz nuked with refunds if Apple happens to update firmware.
mulmen · 3h ago
I think you have your priorities wrong. Why should an unsustainable business be prioritized over consumer benefit?

Nobody has a right to a successful business but when consumers can trust their purchases they are more likely to make additional purchases.

pompidoo · 1h ago
I felt like adding that disclaimer was a nice thing to do, informing the customer and letting them make their own decision. It makes almost no difference to remove that disclaimer (well, it would increase sales). it is not to protect myself. The price is very low and margin is very thin, what happens if Apple bricks the device? There would be very little money left to refund the customers, and most of the refunds would be eaten by transaction fees. Is it worth it for the customers to receive a few cents back? And that's assuming I keep all the money in the company and don't pay myself.
_aavaa_ · 3h ago
The lack of trust in the purchase comes from Apple, not from this seller. It's apple that's reaching into your device and force updating the firmware without your consent.
mulmen · 2h ago
No. The product in this case relies on unintended functionality in a specific firmware version of an Apple device that is specifically designed to not be suitable for this application. In this case it is the add-on device that is not offering refunds if it stops working.
_aavaa_ · 1h ago
Yes.

> if it stops working.

It doesn't magically stop working though, it would be apple explicitly putting in effort to break this functionality and forcing you to update a device you own, forcing you to use it only how they want you to use it.

spuz · 45m ago
Where do you get the idea that Apple specifically designed the AirTag to not be suitable for a third party device to control when it switches on and off? I can understand how they might not approve of this adaptation to their product but I don't see any reason to believe they specifically designed against it.
mulmen · 3h ago
AirTags aren’t meant to get stolen items back. That just isn’t the use case. How does this compare to actual GPS trackers like https://monimoto.com/?
lostlogin · 3h ago
That device you link to is more expensive but would never alert the person being stalked, so I suppose that might justify the price.
RandallBrown · 2h ago
It's about 10x the size and 4-5x the price.

Probably worth it for a vehicle, but maybe not for a backpack.

wanderer2323 · 4h ago
You have also developed a device that allows people to use AirTags for stalking.
_QrE · 4h ago
This. Normal AirTags are just fine for tracking your stuff.

> "(thiefs use apps to locate AirTags around, and AirTags will warn the thief if an unknown AirTag is travelling with them, for example if they steal your car)"

The reason this was introduced is exactly because people used AirTags to stalk others. Advertising that your product turns that off is basically targeting that specific demographic.

Ajedi32 · 4h ago
That's true. But the advertised use case (tracking stolen items) is perfectly valid.

No comments yet

thebruce87m · 4h ago
> The reason this was introduced is exactly because people used AirTags to stalk others.

There were anti-stalking features from the start. It didn’t stop the media hysteria however.

pompidoo · 4h ago
As it's 4 hours off / 1 hour on, the device is not very suitable for stalking someone. Also once the AirTag is back on and the person starts moving, they will be alerted that the AirTag is tracking them.
schmichael · 3h ago
That’s perfect for finding out where someone lives. Drop it in their bag or jacket at a concert/bar/work/whatever-in-the-evening, and the place they’re likely at in 4 hours is their home.

Not trying to be creepy, I’m just trying to demonstrate how we all need to think like adversaries (eg creeps) when designing products.

fn-mote · 3h ago
You can probably find out where they live from knowing their name. This application is not a high level of stalking.
schmichael · 3h ago
The concert/bar example allows stalking without knowing someone’s name.
andygeorge · 3h ago
> not a high level of stalking

imo no level of stalking is appropriate. while this device might not do everything a stalker wants it to, it surely makes it easier for them

hangonhn · 3h ago
That's not true in all scenarios.

I once donated an infant car seat to a coworker but forgot I had put an AirTag on it. After she had taken it home, her iPhone told there was an unknown AirTag and she texted me. I apologized profusely and she wasn't bothered by it. Nonetheless had I been nefarious, I would have been able to get her home address.

cryptonector · 28m ago
AirTags are already that. There's videos on YouTube on how to disconnect the speaker that allows AirTags to warn the stalking victim.