> That still doesn't explain why it's not an option _for nikdoof's partner_ to choose to disable notifications from that particular AirPod.

Coercion, simple as that.

Wait, I might not be understanding the threat model here. The situation I imagined was: persons A and B are spouses, A wants to track B, so since A and B are in a family unit, A would want to disable the "You're being followed" alert for B without B knowing.

If A had to coerce B to turn of the alert, then the alert would have already served its purpose to tell B that they're being tracked by A. Moreover, there should still be some interface which B can use to figure out which AirTag is following them, so person B would 1) know that A is tracking them in general, and 2) have the ability to check whether A is tracking them in the moment.

Please explain what additional information or utility the continued notification is giving person B in this moment, or if my understanding of the hypothetical is wrong.

The threat model is that B has no way of knowing if she is actually being tracked (or if she could potentially be), or if A has just made empty threats. By coercion - or by manipulating the setting on his own on B's phone without A knowing -, A could prevent her from finding out that she could be tracked by someone.

And here we are - I haven’t bought any.

I want to track the dog, the shared cars’ keys. I want to track a shared bike. There are a load of items I’d put them on, but they aren’t just mine.

I don’t believe it’s a security thing. It’s the Apple way to get software to a point then just stop development, there are plenty of examples.

Apple however can't differentiate between someone wishing to track their dog and someone wishing to track their spouse - at that point basic ethics come to play. It's bad enough that AirTags even exist, the absurd amount of stalking cases proves it, but now Apple is all but forced to rein the bullshit in.