Tile is threatening $1M fines to deter stalkers. This won’t help

Can the threat of a $1 million fine really dissuade people from using Tile Bluetooth trackers for stalking? That seems to be Tile’s belief as it launches its new Anti-Theft Mode, which allows users to hide the company’s trackers from detection.

In exchange for this invisibility, Tile owners must agree to register personal information about themselves, including government-issued ID and biometric data—and also to pay a $1 million fine if ever convicted of using Tile trackers to monitor others without consent.

While well-intentioned, this safeguard is largely toothless. Let’s unpack why.

In its press release, Tile says anonymity helps fuel bad behavior, both online and in person—and that clearly established consequences prevent undesirable behavior in the future. That rings true in cases where the impulse to stalk is fairly low-grade. Make people jump through hoops, and at least a few of them won’t stalk. Add restrictions on their behavior, and even more will be dissuaded.

Indeed, having to file your name, official ID, and biometric info may make you think twice before harassing someone by tracking their movements.

All that said, people with stronger compulsions still have plenty of freedom to stalk another person. Registering personal information doesn’t mean instant detection of illegal behavior. Someone has to report the non-consensual monitoring, and discovering a hidden tracker takes more time.

Add in the slowness of the justice system, and victims could easily suffer for weeks before any serious action is taken. That’s assuming that their jurisdiction even takes them seriously—stalking isn’t handled with consistent harshness across locales. Getting a conviction that would trigger that $1 million fine could be outright impossible in some areas.

To its credit, Tile points out these flaws in the justice system within its blog post about Anti-Theft mode, and the company is right that the issue is complicated. But Tile could still be far clearer about how victims can get help.

Let’s say someone has slipped a Tile tracker into another person’s backpack, or has taped one to their car. How does that person determine the tracker exists or not? Do they first reach out to Tile? Must they instead make a report with law enforcement? Does law enforcement even have the ability to scan for the device themselves, or does Tile have to be contacted for the company to perform such a service? And what happens if law enforcement must be involved, but aid is refused to someone who believes they’re a stalking victim?

It’s not Tile’s fault that humans steal and stalk. Fundamentally, human behavior is at the root of this problem, and Bluetooth trackers only highlight long-standing societal issues. But in practical terms, a $1 million fine offers little comfort to stalking victims as they’re trying to end unwanted surveillance.

A clear, concrete process to follow when you’re concerned about a Tile threatening your physical safety is also needed. That is something Tile could easily implement, even if it doesn’t want to tip its hand in exactly how it will work with law enforcement—and having such guidelines would let people sleep a little easier when in the midst of fear and stress.