I think it makes sense if the goal is to never approve such an app. A rejection and subsequent tinkering might allow a derivative to make it through. Perhaps they believe in leaving such projects in purgatory and the developer unable to troubleshoot.
Except that other apps with very similar functionality / level of obviousness while in use are still available. Without Apple providing information on what this app does that violates their rules which the other apps do not violate, there’s no way to know that equal enforcement is being applied. I don’t think the author would have posted if all such apps were removed.
This is a bit like arguing that one shouldn't be punished for a traffic violation because not every other potential offender got caught.
> 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?
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.
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.
Sorry, but "others got away with it" is not a good argument. I would personally view your software as invasive malware, no matter how good your intentions may be. The right course of action here is to report all similar apps to Apple and have them taken down as well.
So by your logic are you saying it'd be immoral for someone to provide an app or program that a user _specifically wants_ that tracks their device activity and shares it with a designated recipient? No one is forcing anybody to install this app, many apps like this exist on a variety of ecosystems and there are many many many testimonies of these types of apps helping people accomplish their accountability goals. How can something you explicitly agree to and want be considered 'invasive malware'?
Except that other apps with very similar functionality / level of obviousness while in use are still available. Without Apple providing information on what this app does that violates their rules which the other apps do not violate, there’s no way to know that equal enforcement is being applied. I don’t think the author would have posted if all such apps were removed.
This is a bit like arguing that one shouldn't be punished for a traffic violation because not every other potential offender got caught.
Sure, if you limit “traffic violations” to “driving without a license,” and every car made you present a valid license before it would start.
EDIT: The difference being, Apple says YES / NO to every app, and every app always goes through the process, unlike policing traffic violations. If Apple is not being inconsistent, they need to say why.
This is the main reason why I am not interested in being an app developer. Your business is in the hands of someone who can cut you off and get away with not even giving you the time of day. Not worth the risk. (That being said: I'm not sure I would have approved an app like yours since it is designed to invade privacy)
The business in this case is from a religious extremist and this kind of software is very frequently used without the user's consent.
That is a frankly bigoted statement and one I'm use to seeing more on Reddit than HN. It is designed to be used voluntarily, or as parental controls for children. This is not $evilTechCompany coming to suck up all of your data.
This is a bit like arguing that one shouldn't be punished for a traffic violation because not every other potential offender got caught.
Sure, if you limit “traffic violations” to “driving without a license,” and every car made you present a valid license before it would start. EDIT: The difference being, Apple says YES / NO to every app, and every app always goes through the process, unlike policing traffic violations. If Apple is not being inconsistent, they need to say why.
So don't buy macs.
Either way, in this case they blocked a developer that was making what sure as hell looks like spyware to me, I'm not convinced this is a bad thing.
Also, you absolutely do need a license to operate a car. Probably not a good metaphor for your case.
Voluntarily using it. Not sure what is not benign about this.
A relationship that involves one partner snooping on the others phone like this is not a healthy relationship. If trust is eroded to that level the solution is counseling, separation or divorce. Not 24/7 surveillance - that's insane. Not to mention people in abusive relationships who might be coerced into using this. Just because they're aware it's on their phone doesn't mean it isn't being used to control them.
If one partner asked the other partner to keep them accountable voluntarily I can't see how this is so bad. Would you say this to a problem gambler?
It seems like this discussion should be raised up a level. We can debate the merits of the app itself, but then that leads to opposing, valid arguments. The app's creator can assert the numerous beneficial uses of the app. Detractors can note the potential for misuse/abuse. Neither is necessarily a winning argument in an objective sense. And thus, we need some arbiter. In this case, that arbiter is Apple, who in this…
If Apple did not retain such tight control over iOS app distribution (and considerably looser controls over Mac app distribution), then they would still have a moral obligation to help their customers defend against malware. And this application is definitely close enough to being malware that Apple would have to assess it as a potential threat and at least consider the possibility of blocking it.
You can't exclude Apple from having to make a judgement call here unless you want Apple to be thoroughly hands-off about security and privacy concerns to an extent that was really harmful to Microsoft's reputation back when they weren't taking security at all seriously.
This is what you wrote that I was responding to: "cards on the table: none of these apps should be allowed on the app store." I'm hoping you've simply not really thought this through. We can't demand that parents be held accountable for what their children do while also forbidding parents from knowing what their children are reading, watching, writing, hearing, or saying.
> We can't demand that parents be held accountable for what their children do while also forbidding parents from knowing what their children are reading, watching, writing, hearing, or saying. There's no reason that knowledge has to be garnered surreptitiously. (If your answer is "if it's not surreptitious, then kids will try to bypass it" … well, they will anyway.)
Nobody said it had to be surreptitious. And the app we are all discussing is explicitly not surreptitious. If you go back and reread the original ask HN comment, he says that it is visible.