6 ms·

> And yet from my perspective your software is malware. So don't buy/install it. But don't take away that choice from other people. I have a good married frien

by umvi 5y ago

> And yet from my perspective your software is malware. So don't buy/install it. But don't take away that choice from other people. I have a good married friend who uses parental control software on himself to reduce the temptation to look at porn. It basically just gives his wife access to his browsing history. Sure, he could bypass it a number of ways if he was really determined, but it's more about just raising the level of effort required so that impulsive usage is mitigated.

johnisgood 5y ago
It would be a bit less of an issue if Apple allowed apps outside of their store to be installed to begin with.
nyuszika7h 5y ago
> So don't buy/install it. But don't take away that choice from other people. It's not that simple. You are purposefully bringing up an extremely rare use case to detract from the fact that 99% of users of this software are going to be abusive parents who install it on their children's phones without consent. (Or heck, maybe even abusive spouses.) If parents are that concerned, even banning their children from "innocent" apps like Twitter or computer/phone use altogether is better than this invasive 1984-like software.
- chris_wot 5y ago
  I'm not at all convinced this is an extremely rare use case. There are hundreds of thousands of Christian pastors, priests and ministers of religion who would probably find this very useful. There are a lot of Christians who would also find this useful, for themselves.
- btown 5y ago
  Designing systems that don't empower abusers is so, so incredibly important. Completely separately, though, it's also the case that OP is essentially building an Internet-connected backdoor into the system that will have been permitted to monitor cross-app activity. Even if data is E2E encrypted, that doesn't mean the software is immune from vulnerabilities that could then piggyback on the elevated permissions given to the app. And OP being a bootstrapped developer without the resources to have robust security practices is a liability here. Apple's response to treat this as a vulnerability is reasonable. (As a side note, if OP wanted to distribute source code and unsigned binaries, macOS would allow an end user to run that software, and that's a perfectly reasonable caveat emptor for me. But Apple is under no obligation to digitally vouch for software that enables abusers and hackers.)
  - noduerme 5y ago
    I mean, you can run any binary you want on MacOS if you disable Gatekeeper or go into the security settings and allow an exception for it. The developer doesn't need to be known or notarized by Apple. If you trust the source, go for it. If it's your wife or child's computer and you're installing spyware on it anyway, why worry?
- cronix 5y ago
  > install it on their children's phones without consent That's a curious phrasing. Are you implying a parent needs consent from their minor child to install something, anything they deem appropriate, on "their" phone?
  - easrng 5y ago
    I'm not the person you were replying to, but yes. That would be an extreme breach of trust and especially with the level of detail that's being collected here, effectively removing all privacy, it's just not ok. This could have disastrous consequences for ex. closeted LGBTQ+ youth with unsupportive parents who could kick them out of the house or worse if they found out.
    - jackson1442 5y ago
      Not to mention how socially alienating it would be to have this on your phone- who wants to text the person whose parents listen in to every conversation they have?
    - FunHearing3443 5y ago
      There's nothing immoral about it if the parent is up front with the child, the child knows the device is monitored. If they don't want to be monitored, then they don't get the device. I know for a fact once my kids are older not a packet will leave my house without getting snooped at least by a parent controls filter. I'm sure they'll find ways around it (as I did as a technical child) but kids need to be protected from devices and the internet just as much as they need to have access. There is a great deal of harmful and damaging content - social media being the least of it in many ways. If a kid feels they need to hide something as meaningful as issues about sexuality (which I do understand is common) from their parents, the issue is not the filters, it's the relationship, and the solution isn't to give the minor free reign to choose to use the internet unabated according to their own wisdom. Once they're an adult, fine. I guess there are just extremely different views on parental authority today.
      - qubitcoder 5y ago
- jtbayly 5y ago
  > You are purposefully bringing up an extremely rare use case to detract from the fact that 99% of users of this software are going to be abusive parents What exactly is abusive about me wanting to know if my 6 year old is watching porn? Are parents that signed up for Youtube Kids abusive, too? Is Google abusive for filtering the videos? And are all those who shared articles about how porn was showing up in YTKids abusive for letting parents know that their children might have been exposed to mature material?
  - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
    OP clearly does not have children in 2021.
  - mimimi31 5y ago
    I think there's a big qualitative difference between having a Youtube Kids profile and filtering access to certain content versus completely negating a child's digital privacy like this. It actually reminds me of that one Black Mirror episode[1]. Ethically, I agree with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child[2], which states in Article 16: >No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy [...]. >The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkangel_(Black_Mirror) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkangel_(Black_Mirror) [2] https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
    - jtbayly 5y ago
      So, to be clear, the government can keep tabs on what my child watches. Google can keep track of exactly what my child watches. Twitter can filter based on its morals, what my child can see and share, as well as monitor everything they read and watch and say. But I, as the parent that is actually responsible for the child (and may face lawsuits if I don't) am not allowed to do any of that. Got it.
      - nanobyte 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> So don't buy/install it. But don't take away that choice from other people. You mean the choice to install malware on other people's devices? Why shouldn't it be taken away?
- camhart 5y ago
  Reveal to a loved one, someone of their choosing. It's not revealing it to the world or even to Truple. > The whole purpose of this software is to the reveal the private life of others. Why should people be able to install malware on other people's devices? People shouldn't be allowed to do it to other peoples devices. People should be allowed to install software on their down devices, for their kids or for their own use to help with online behaviors/addictions.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    If it's your own device, I guess it's fine. I'm not sure I would consider my child's phone to be my device though. I certainly wouldn't have tolerated that sort of behavior from my parents when I was a kid myself.
    - camhart 5y ago
      Whether the device your child uses is yours, or theirs, that's up to you as the parent to decide. > I certainly wouldn't have tolerated that sort of behavior from my parents when I was a kid myself. Kids will be kids. I would have been the same way. I learned to pick a lock on the computer desk as a kid in order to play computer games after I was supposed to be in bed. The issues is the negative impact of tech is only growing, and it's harder and harder for kids to come out unscathed.
      - nerdjon 5y ago
        Phones are also how children are able to find out about things in a safe space. I am thankful every day that I grew up very technical and I was able to hide being gay from my parents but find the resources I needed online. If a phone is my only resource, this removes every ability for a child to find resources if they are curious about their sexuality. Or worse, if their parents are abusive this removes the ability completely for the child to safely get help.
bastardoperator 5y ago
Off topic, I knew marriages could be toxic but this is peak. If you don't trust your partner 100%+ the marriage is already dead IMHO.
- umvi 5y ago
  My friend doesn't trust himself not to look at porn without a safety rail, so he bought a safety rail and gave his wife the key, so to speak. How does that make his marriage toxic?
  - bastardoperator 5y ago
    I think this is what he told you to save face about being in a toxic relationship. Unless he has a problem or is looking at something illegal, I'd say the average person looks at porn sometimes and that there is nothing wrong with it. Even if he was being upfront and honest, why would he put something like this on his partner? It makes no sense. I have married friends and have been married for 21 years, I've never heard of anything like this in a healthy relationship.
    - FunHearing3443 5y ago
      I think you're probably just not in the circles that do this. Christian men do this all the time, either with their wives as the 'accountability partner' or a male Christian friend. It might be your opinion that there's nothing wrong with looking at porn occasionally but there are large groups that don't believe it is (eg most Christians) and if a married couple with that belief agree to set up an accountability system like this, whose right is it go deny that. Seems a bit like discrimination.
  - sjg007 5y ago
    Safari offers content blocking...

by umvi 5y ago

johnisgood 5y ago

It would be a bit less of an issue if Apple allowed apps outside of their store to be installed to begin with.

nyuszika7h 5y ago

> So don't buy/install it. But don't take away that choice from other people. It's not that simple. You are purposefully bringing up an extremely rare use case to detract from the fact that 99% of users of this software are going to be abusive parents who install it on their children's phones without consent. (Or heck, maybe even abusive spouses.) If parents are that concerned, even banning their children from "innocent" apps like Twitter or computer/phone use altogether is better than this invasive 1984-like software.

chris_wot 5y ago
I'm not at all convinced this is an extremely rare use case. There are hundreds of thousands of Christian pastors, priests and ministers of religion who would probably find this very useful. There are a lot of Christians who would also find this useful, for themselves.
btown 5y ago
Designing systems that don't empower abusers is so, so incredibly important. Completely separately, though, it's also the case that OP is essentially building an Internet-connected backdoor into the system that will have been permitted to monitor cross-app activity. Even if data is E2E encrypted, that doesn't mean the software is immune from vulnerabilities that could then piggyback on the elevated permissions given to the app. And OP being a bootstrapped developer without the resources to have robust security practices is a liability here. Apple's response to treat this as a vulnerability is reasonable. (As a side note, if OP wanted to distribute source code and unsigned binaries, macOS would allow an end user to run that software, and that's a perfectly reasonable caveat emptor for me. But Apple is under no obligation to digitally vouch for software that enables abusers and hackers.)
- noduerme 5y ago
  I mean, you can run any binary you want on MacOS if you disable Gatekeeper or go into the security settings and allow an exception for it. The developer doesn't need to be known or notarized by Apple. If you trust the source, go for it. If it's your wife or child's computer and you're installing spyware on it anyway, why worry?
cronix 5y ago
> install it on their children's phones without consent That's a curious phrasing. Are you implying a parent needs consent from their minor child to install something, anything they deem appropriate, on "their" phone?
- easrng 5y ago
  I'm not the person you were replying to, but yes. That would be an extreme breach of trust and especially with the level of detail that's being collected here, effectively removing all privacy, it's just not ok. This could have disastrous consequences for ex. closeted LGBTQ+ youth with unsupportive parents who could kick them out of the house or worse if they found out.
  - jackson1442 5y ago
    Not to mention how socially alienating it would be to have this on your phone- who wants to text the person whose parents listen in to every conversation they have?
  - FunHearing3443 5y ago
    There's nothing immoral about it if the parent is up front with the child, the child knows the device is monitored. If they don't want to be monitored, then they don't get the device. I know for a fact once my kids are older not a packet will leave my house without getting snooped at least by a parent controls filter. I'm sure they'll find ways around it (as I did as a technical child) but kids need to be protected from devices and the internet just as much as they need to have access. There is a great deal of harmful and damaging content - social media being the least of it in many ways. If a kid feels they need to hide something as meaningful as issues about sexuality (which I do understand is common) from their parents, the issue is not the filters, it's the relationship, and the solution isn't to give the minor free reign to choose to use the internet unabated according to their own wisdom. Once they're an adult, fine. I guess there are just extremely different views on parental authority today.
    - qubitcoder 5y ago
jtbayly 5y ago
> You are purposefully bringing up an extremely rare use case to detract from the fact that 99% of users of this software are going to be abusive parents What exactly is abusive about me wanting to know if my 6 year old is watching porn? Are parents that signed up for Youtube Kids abusive, too? Is Google abusive for filtering the videos? And are all those who shared articles about how porn was showing up in YTKids abusive for letting parents know that their children might have been exposed to mature material?
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  OP clearly does not have children in 2021.
- mimimi31 5y ago
  I think there's a big qualitative difference between having a Youtube Kids profile and filtering access to certain content versus completely negating a child's digital privacy like this. It actually reminds me of that one Black Mirror episode[1]. Ethically, I agree with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child[2], which states in Article 16: >No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy [...]. >The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkangel_(Black_Mirror) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkangel_(Black_Mirror) [2] https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
  - jtbayly 5y ago
    So, to be clear, the government can keep tabs on what my child watches. Google can keep track of exactly what my child watches. Twitter can filter based on its morals, what my child can see and share, as well as monitor everything they read and watch and say. But I, as the parent that is actually responsible for the child (and may face lawsuits if I don't) am not allowed to do any of that. Got it.
    - nanobyte 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> So don't buy/install it. But don't take away that choice from other people. You mean the choice to install malware on other people's devices? Why shouldn't it be taken away?

camhart 5y ago
Reveal to a loved one, someone of their choosing. It's not revealing it to the world or even to Truple. > The whole purpose of this software is to the reveal the private life of others. Why should people be able to install malware on other people's devices? People shouldn't be allowed to do it to other peoples devices. People should be allowed to install software on their down devices, for their kids or for their own use to help with online behaviors/addictions.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  If it's your own device, I guess it's fine. I'm not sure I would consider my child's phone to be my device though. I certainly wouldn't have tolerated that sort of behavior from my parents when I was a kid myself.
  - camhart 5y ago
    Whether the device your child uses is yours, or theirs, that's up to you as the parent to decide. > I certainly wouldn't have tolerated that sort of behavior from my parents when I was a kid myself. Kids will be kids. I would have been the same way. I learned to pick a lock on the computer desk as a kid in order to play computer games after I was supposed to be in bed. The issues is the negative impact of tech is only growing, and it's harder and harder for kids to come out unscathed.
    - nerdjon 5y ago
      Phones are also how children are able to find out about things in a safe space. I am thankful every day that I grew up very technical and I was able to hide being gay from my parents but find the resources I needed online. If a phone is my only resource, this removes every ability for a child to find resources if they are curious about their sexuality. Or worse, if their parents are abusive this removes the ability completely for the child to safely get help.

bastardoperator 5y ago

Off topic, I knew marriages could be toxic but this is peak. If you don't trust your partner 100%+ the marriage is already dead IMHO.

umvi 5y ago
My friend doesn't trust himself not to look at porn without a safety rail, so he bought a safety rail and gave his wife the key, so to speak. How does that make his marriage toxic?
- bastardoperator 5y ago
  I think this is what he told you to save face about being in a toxic relationship. Unless he has a problem or is looking at something illegal, I'd say the average person looks at porn sometimes and that there is nothing wrong with it. Even if he was being upfront and honest, why would he put something like this on his partner? It makes no sense. I have married friends and have been married for 21 years, I've never heard of anything like this in a healthy relationship.
  - FunHearing3443 5y ago
    I think you're probably just not in the circles that do this. Christian men do this all the time, either with their wives as the 'accountability partner' or a male Christian friend. It might be your opinion that there's nothing wrong with looking at porn occasionally but there are large groups that don't believe it is (eg most Christians) and if a married couple with that belief agree to set up an accountability system like this, whose right is it go deny that. Seems a bit like discrimination.
- sjg007 5y ago
  Safari offers content blocking...