Apple Awarded 'Anti-Sexting' Patent

[swagi]

Mal, basically we agree. And in all honesty you have the right to choose your education of will. Just one question comes to my mind:

Would you read your child's diary?

I wouldn't as I feel my child has the right to tell a book everything without risk of being caught. I personally think it's important that my child pins down good and bad feelings about everything. It boils down to one thing - I feel that a child should be perfectly save to text "Daddy sux - I have to go to bed early today" without the risk of having me read it.

You're right. Your POV is anecdotal and I should refrain from questioning your competence. Actually your choice of education is personal as is mine. We both feel it to be right and that's o.K.

To illustrate my point let me tell you that I just received a warning for "circumventing the profanity filter" while discussing with you. And that is, what it's all about.

I get it that macrumors has the perfect right to install such a system in a forum as they design the rules here and this forum is quite a public place. But a mobile to me is a rather personal thing. And I should rather teach my child to use proper language than try to prohibit foul language - why do you think four-letter-words are sooooooo fascinating? Because they are so taboo

 

[HLdan]

Thankfully, I don't have Orwellian parents, so I have privacy at home anyway. However, I'm still developing independence - I already mentioned how I make my own money, pay my own phone bills, etc.

However, it simply would not be feasible for me to move out while I'm still in full-time education, and at this point, I don't think I need to.

Not that my personal life is of any concern to you.

I never asked you information about your personal life, you brought it up all on your own.

 

[0dev]

I never asked you information about your personal life, you brought it up all on your own.

You made the unjust assumption I had no independence, so I had to correct you. And it isn't an insult, I'm just stating the facts.

Anyway, since you don't seem to have anything to say apart from taunts, I tire of this conversation.

Sent from my unmonitored iPad

 

[Mal]

Mal, basically we agree. And in all honesty you have the right to choose your education of will. Just one question comes to my mind:

Would you read your child's diary?

Probably not, but not because I don't feel I have a right to. I don't think it'd be a good idea. However, if my kids keep a diary, they won't do so because they think it's a secret place they can hide anything from dear old dad. They'll do so because I've recommended it's a good practice (not likely, simply because I've never been one to do that myself, so it doesn't come to mind) or their friends have suggested it. I don't think a child has the right to a private diary, but it and other forms of privacy are a privilege they can earn by showing me they can be trusted with it. Thus, if they start a diary when they're 10-11, I'll ask them to show me something from it on rare occasions (I don't feel a need to look at it regularly), and as long as I never see anything worrying, it'll quickly become something I have no need or desire to look at. Thus, while they'll know it's not off-limits from dad, they won't have to worry about me going through it, and I'd never do it without them knowing and either giving permission or giving me strong reason to think it necessary.

Basically what I'm getting at here is balance. No child has a right to privacy from their parents, not until they're an adult or very close. They can, however, earn certain opportunities for privacy, and for best results, should be given ample opportunity, but of specific kinds. I would let my child talk to a friend on the phone in private without any problems, unless I knew they were talking to someone that would be a particularly bad influence. Same with texting or email. However, never would I let them assume that was a right. It's a privilege I'm granting to them, and do so because I love them and want them to learn to behave properly on their own without me standing over their shoulder.

I get it that macrumors has the perfect right to install such a system in a forum as they design the rules here and this forum is quite a public place. But a mobile to me is a rather personal thing. And I should rather teach my child to use proper language than try to prohibit foul language - why do you think four-letter-words are sooooooo fascinating? Because they are so taboo

And this is where we draw the line differently. To me, a mobile phone is not a personal thing for a child. Yes, any adult has the right not to have the contents of his/her phone inspected without a warrant. But a child does not have that right, not when it comes to his/her parents. I would also rather teach my child to use proper language, but at the same time I'm perfectly willing to use a filter if necessary to prevent others from sending them that type of content.

jW

 

[nick9191]

Would love to meet the guy whose job it is to add more definitions to the word filter

 

[2 Replies]

unless this feature is completely optional, i don't like it.

I agree, but I expect this is primarily for a parental controls feature.
...or for China.

"FREE TIBET" .... BLOCKED!
"TAIWAN" .... BLOCKED.... replace with "Republic of China"

 

[2 Replies]

Probably not, but not because I don't feel I have a right to. I don't think it'd be a good idea. However, if my kids keep a diary, they won't do so because they think it's a secret place they can hide anything from dear old dad. They'll do so because I've recommended it's a good practice (not likely, simply because I've never been one to do that myself, so it doesn't come to mind) or their friends have suggested it. I don't think a child has the right to a private diary, but it and other forms of privacy are a privilege they can earn by showing me they can be trusted with it. Thus, if they start a diary when they're 10-11, I'll ask them to show me something from it on rare occasions (I don't feel a need to look at it regularly), and as long as I never see anything worrying, it'll quickly become something I have no need or desire to look at. Thus, while they'll know it's not off-limits from dad, they won't have to worry about me going through it, and I'd never do it without them knowing and either giving permission or giving me strong reason to think it necessary.

Basically what I'm getting at here is balance. No child has a right to privacy from their parents, not until they're an adult or very close. They can, however, earn certain opportunities for privacy, and for best results, should be given ample opportunity, but of specific kinds. I would let my child talk to a friend on the phone in private without any problems, unless I knew they were talking to someone that would be a particularly bad influence. Same with texting or email. However, never would I let them assume that was a right. It's a privilege I'm granting to them, and do so because I love them and want them to learn to behave properly on their own without me standing over their shoulder.



And this is where we draw the line differently. To me, a mobile phone is not a personal thing for a child. Yes, any adult has the right not to have the contents of his/her phone inspected without a warrant. But a child does not have that right, not when it comes to his/her parents. I would also rather teach my child to use proper language, but at the same time I'm perfectly willing to use a filter if necessary to prevent others from sending them that type of content.

jW

All children have the right to sue their parents for emancipation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_rights#Parental_rights
...at least they do here in the US.

 

[Kestrel452]

Parental features like this accomplish nothing. Parenting doesn't mean filtering your kid 24/7 (nor does it help), it means trying to TEACH ethical standards. I don't understand the point of this at all.

 

[CFreymarc]

is there really a need to censor private conversations??

It has been shown time and time again in the telecommunications market that any form of censorship is bad for business. I see this as some sort of parental controls tool in future devices. Thus, a subscriber feature that can be turned on or off as needed and not from the carrier nor equipment provider. There are third party apps that already take out the "seven dirty words" and other levels of censorship if desired by the end user already.

Apple is already doing a good job keeping most sociopaths off the iPhone by refusing to distribute porn apps. (FYI, my fave of that category is the masturbation app that causes the phone to moan when you vertically jerk the mobile device up and down triggering the accelerometer. It looses novelty quickly like most girls that are only good in the sack.) I don't see this as a mandated feature.

 

[Mal]

All children have the right to sue their parents for emancipation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_rights#Parental_rights
...at least they do here in the US.

So? Yes, a child who is old enough for emancipation to be considered (usually not until they are at least 15, here in the US, 16 is far more common), can sue for it, but in case you didn't know, it's not granted for kids who's parents read their text messages or emails. I've never heard of emancipation being granted for anything less than a grievous trespassing of the child's basic rights. This issue simply wouldn't even be on the radar in an emancipation trial.

jW

 

[da-vid]

In the eyes of the law (at least in the U.S) you are a minor until you are age 18 and you under 18 you don't have any rights nor do you have any say so don't try that argument here buddy, it ain't working. I just love how kids (especially the ones on here) try to tout independence but are still living at home while their parents are out working to bring food home and keep them in a warm home and paying to wash their kids clothes, paying for their kids UNNECESSARY wants like a texting plan for a cell phone that don't need.

You want independence? You want to swear when you see fit? You want the control to flaunt sex and porn over your cell phone? Get the hell out of your parents home and start paying to live as your parents do for you. You have no rights as kid to tout independence but have your parents pay for your living expenses.

That's just so ridiculously arbitrary. What's the difference between a 17.5-year-old and an 18-year-old? Physically, mentally, emotionally... nothing.

The argument that your parents pay for everything and therefore you are their slaves is the worst argument ever. A parent has to pay for the maintenance of their child. It's not something they're doing out of the kindness of their heart and can stop at any time. (Although hopefully there is some love there.)

Do you know the only reason why children can't pay for everything themselves? Because they go to school, i.e. they can't hold a fulltime job. I'm not sure if you were unaware of that fact or something. I thought it was common knowledge that the parent's role is to go to work while the child's role is to go to school. If you're unable to take the responsibility as a parent to raise a child, then you shouldn't have had one in the first place.

The rest of what you're arguing is so trivial. It makes me wonder why, as you said, if parents have all this work to do, they would put it upon themselves to correct bad language, of all things. And "bad language" is subjective, because all the swear words you want to protect your innocent children from are used regularly in the real world, whether you like it or not. It's so pointless to block your child from texting to his friend, "**** that test was hard!"

 

[Zc456]

01010000 00100000 01100101 00100000 01101110 00100000 01101001 00100000 01110011 00100000 00101110 00100000

Censor that, Apple.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

That's just so ridiculously arbitrary. What's the difference between a 17.5-year-old and an 18-year-old? Physically, mentally, emotionally... nothing.

The argument that your parents pay for everything and therefore you are their slaves is the worst argument ever. A parent has to pay for the maintenance of their child. It's not something they're doing out of the kindness of their heart and can stop at any time. (Although hopefully there is some love there.)

Do you know the only reason why children can't pay for everything themselves? Because they go to school, i.e. they can't hold a fulltime job. I'm not sure if you were unaware of that fact or something. I thought it was common knowledge that the parent's role is to go to work while the child's role is to go to school. If you're unable to take the responsibility as a parent to raise a child, then you shouldn't have had one in the first place.

The rest of what you're arguing is so trivial. It makes me wonder why, as you said, if parents have all this work to do, they would put it upon themselves to correct bad language, of all things. And "bad language" is subjective, because all the swear words you want to protect your innocent children from are used regularly in the real world, whether you like it or not. It's so pointless to block your child from texting to his friend, "**** that test was hard!"

For me not much.
I set the line at college. When they leave home for college they gain the full right to privacy. I do not care if they turn 18 on August 1st or May 31st. The full right to privacy is earned when they leave home to go to college and even then I more than likely would have access and knowledge of some of their lives mostly because I would be controlling the purse strings and that is the price for that money.

Now at college it the digging would only really happen if failing school or huge sums of money being spent on things that do not seem right.

Also the privacy and what would get my attention to dig deeper in to txt would be on a sliding scale. Older they get the less likely I will even look or care. Younger more likely that I will care.

a 17.5 year old kid chance are very little. Normal kid by that point should of earned my trust. It would take something breaking it for me to care.


You seem to think that it is a hard line we are taking. Chances are most of us see it as a sliding scale on what is ok and not ok for the kid that moves along with age and maturity. I know between my brother sister and I. My parents were different with how much they let us get away with in age. My sister got the most room at a younger age and my brother got the least. I am the oldest and I was in the middle on that point but that was because we earned the trust and each one of us had screwed up at different points and different size screw ups. All of that factors in.
Remember sliding scale

 

[Ciclismo]

That's just absurd. People know the difference between IM/text-speak and proper English. Using both isn't going to blur the line. I use IM-speak when chatting on MSN or Facebook; it's not because my grammar sucks, but because it's a huge time saver. Besides, even when I'm using IM-speak, I still know the difference between homophones.

As I said, improve English classes; don't force people to use their best English in informal situations. Just continuously using your best English in every situation doesn't fix bad grammar; education does.

Yeah, but nobody wants to fix the education system. It would mean recognising that we are not all created equal and that some are more intelligent insome aspects over others. Instead, active efforts are made to lower the bar to the point where "no child [is] left behind". This is not because of a conspiracy to create a more malleable public, but because no one wants to admit that actual long term solutions are a lot harder to define and implement. Instead, everyone seems to be out for that magic little pill that solves all the worlds problems (usually by making something illegal).

 

[kamm]

What does this say about America? That we actually need to monitor text messages in fears of sexting?

It says we have dumber and dumber and more and more incompetent parents who, obviously, will raise even dumber and more clueless kids.

In my experience it was always Apple's main target audience - people who refuse to learn how to operate anything because it's "too hard" and somone "should take care of it for me" - all goes backto the good ol' "entitlement" BS they grew up with... perfect customers for Apple, I think.

 

[jBookey]

So teenager's texts are censored, but they can still look up porn on their iPhones, right?

 

[HLdan]

The argument that your parents pay for everything and therefore you are their slaves is the worst argument ever. A parent has to pay for the maintenance of their child.

Slaves? Oh that's a new word you're trying to throw in my mouth. I never used the word. Not surprised coming from you. Yeah, since it's the parent's requirement to pay for the maintenance of their child, it's the child's requirement to obey the parent. No argument. You don't get rights until you're of age and move the hell out.

Do you know the only reason why children can't pay for everything themselves? Because they go to school, i.e. they can't hold a fulltime job.

Cry my a friggin' river.

The rest of what you're arguing is so trivial. It makes me wonder why, as you said, if parents have all this work to do, they would put it upon themselves to correct bad language, of all things. And "bad language" is subjective, because all the swear words you want to protect your innocent children from are used regularly in the real world, whether you like it or not. It's so pointless to block your child from texting to his friend, "**** that test was hard!"

Yeah well, that's just too bad. You're just pissed because you're a kid and this isn't working out in your favor. Give up this argument, I've noticed many people here are against what you're saying (including me) because we are responsible adults and you're stomping your feet whining about you're undeserved rights as if you're entitled.

 

[da-vid]

For me not much.
I set the line at college. When they leave home for college they gain the full right to privacy. I do not care if they turn 18 on August 1st or May 31st. The full right to privacy is earned when they leave home to go to college and even then I more than likely would have access and knowledge of some of their lives mostly because I would be controlling the purse strings and that is the price for that money.

Now at college it the digging would only really happen if failing school or huge sums of money being spent on things that do not seem right.

Also the privacy and what would get my attention to dig deeper in to txt would be on a sliding scale. Older they get the less likely I will even look or care. Younger more likely that I will care.

a 17.5 year old kid chance are very little. Normal kid by that point should of earned my trust. It would take something breaking it for me to care.


You seem to think that it is a hard line we are taking. Chances are most of us see it as a sliding scale on what is ok and not ok for the kid that moves along with age and maturity. I know between my brother sister and I. My parents were different with how much they let us get away with in age. My sister got the most room at a younger age and my brother got the least. I am the oldest and I was in the middle on that point but that was because we earned the trust and each one of us had screwed up at different points and different size screw ups. All of that factors in.
Remember sliding scale

See, you keep saying how your children will be monitored if they "break your trust," but I fail to see how it's possible to break trust when you give them none to begin with. In what way is spying on your children's conversations with their friends giving them trust? If you catch inappropriate behavior while you're spying on them, i.e. *not giving them any trust*, how the hell is that breaking your trust?

Are you unclear on what the definition of trust is?

Yeah, but nobody wants to fix the education system. It would mean recognising that we are not all created equal and that some are more intelligent insome aspects over others. Instead, active efforts are made to lower the bar to the point where "no child [is] left behind". This is not because of a conspiracy to create a more malleable public, but because no one wants to admit that actual long term solutions are a lot harder to define and implement. Instead, everyone seems to be out for that magic little pill that solves all the worlds problems (usually by making something illegal).

And? Enforcing proper grammar in texts is still not going to make anyone's grammar any better than it already is.

--

And seriously, are there that many parents who really think it's *necessary* for a child's every action to be monitored and reviewed by his or her parent? How many of you know other parents who actually turn on Parental Controls? Literally none of the people whom I talk to has it enabled, and they're all model students with A's and B's, who don't do drugs, and who don't sext. Oh, and they swear on occasion in casual conversations. Hell, I've heard teachers drop the s-bomb when they made a clumsy mistake. Swearing is really not that bad. They're words; get over it.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

See, you keep saying how your children will be monitored if they "break your trust," but I fail to see how it's possible to break trust when you give them none to begin with. In what way is spying on your children's conversations with their friends giving them trust? If you catch inappropriate behavior while you're spying on them, i.e. *not giving them any trust*, how the hell is that breaking your trust?

Are you unclear on what the definition of trust is?

Again you do not get it.

The "spying" as you put it would be once or twice picking up their phone and looking threw it. More than likely with their knowledge of it. Red flag being them not letting me or screaming about it. Or if I pick it up laying around the house I might look at it.

Or walk into the room where the computer is at and I see on the screen something that should not be their (again red flags broken trust)
That and if I see a message as the pop up on the phone that raises some question. It is not like I am looking over everything. Mostly a spot check from time to time to confirm everything is going ok and other stuff that would be more closely related to me over hearing it in a convocation.

Over hearing exaples would be.
Here them talking with their friends because I am still in ear shot. Not really listening in but hearing a few words now and then. Gave an example earlier.

Walk into the room while they are on the computer IMing and see what is on the screen. Again like over hearing.
Txt message coming in and I pick up the phone to lets say hand it to them or see what the sound is. Pop up being giving me bits of info. Again over hearing.

Providing none of those raises any flags they have my trust and it grows.
If it raise flags then it depends on the result of farther investigation. If the answer when I would look in deeper is acceptable more trust is earned.

You clearly do not understand it.

 

[GroundLoop]

See, you keep saying how your children will be monitored if they "break your trust," but I fail to see how it's possible to break trust when you give them none to begin with.

Out of curiosity, have you ever heard of the expression "Trust is earned, not given"? This is true with children as much as it is in the professional world. Hence the sliding scale that RP is discussing.

GL

 

[alphaod]

Good to have more parental controls.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I think your caps lock filter is broken there, bud.

If I were to take you literally, my entire post would have to be in all caps for it to even make any sense what-so-ever. *ALL* caps in a paragraph means shouting. Partial use for key words is the same as bold text (i.e. emphasizing words louder the same way you would when talking or using bold text). Yes, there are markup text options on this message board (you have no other choice but perhaps an asterisk (*) when there is no markup available). Even so, markup text is clumsy and slow compared to typing without it, especially when you you're used to typing nearly as fast as you can think of what you want to say (i.e. 100+ WPM). Picking up the mouse (and stop typing entirely) is even slower. I suppose if you type at 10wpm it wouldn't matter much. What amazes me is that someone would bother to stop and reply to a message over the capitalization of a few key words for emphasis to begin with.

wow, is this really needed?

honestly, if it isn't optional, i hate it.

we need less big brother in Apple, more enabling people to do what they want.

I don't need Apple to

1- Tell me Blu-Ray shouldn't be an option
2- limit what software i can install on my ipad/iphone

Tired of Apple becoming a Nanny restrictive company. time to let people be people. Computers and devices are tools. let the people who buy them use them as they please.

No, they're not tools. According to the Almighty Steve, they're vehicles, (desktop computers are trucks, specifically) and you need a license to drive a vehicle and there are rules of the road to follow. Apple has simply designated themselves as license bureau, state legislature and speech police all-in-one. If you don't like it, you can either buy a computer and/or phone from someone else or move to another country where you have no rights what-so-ever like China where all Apple devices are made. Let's face it, corporations are pretty much running the United States already so it makes sense that CEOs should start deciding your rights for you. They already control Congress and write most of our laws so really it's just shifting power visibly where it already is and has been for most of the past decade. After this election, you can expect even more corporate laws affecting every day life since there is no real difference between the two with one of the two major political parties and the more laws and influence they have, the more people like Steve Jobs will control every facet of your life. For those living in other countries, well, most of your countries are already controlled by the state and/or corporations. Either way, freedom is pretty much dead and privacy even more so.

 

[da-vid]

Again you do not get it.

The "spying" as you put it would be once or twice picking up their phone and looking threw it. More than likely with their knowledge of it. Red flag being them not letting me or screaming about it. Or if I pick it up laying around the house I might look at it.

Or walk into the room where the computer is at and I see on the screen something that should not be their (again red flags broken trust)
That and if I see a message as the pop up on the phone that raises some question. It is not like I am looking over everything. Mostly a spot check from time to time to confirm everything is going ok and other stuff that would be more closely related to me over hearing it in a convocation.

Over hearing exaples would be.
Here them talking with their friends because I am still in ear shot. Not really listening in but hearing a few words now and then. Gave an example earlier.

Walk into the room while they are on the computer IMing and see what is on the screen. Again like over hearing.
Txt message coming in and I pick up the phone to lets say hand it to them or see what the sound is. Pop up being giving me bits of info. Again over hearing.

Providing none of those raises any flags they have my trust and it grows.
If it raise flags then it depends on the result of farther investigation. If the answer when I would look in deeper is acceptable more trust is earned.

You clearly do not understand it.

You're just using "overhearing" as a euphemism for "eavesdropping."

You're saying that you'll just innocently pick up your child's phone "for them" or listen in on their conversations with their friends. You're saying that that's looking through their personal communication with their knowledge? Sounds pretty sneaky to me.

Just because you don't look over literally everything they say or do, doesn't mean that you're not spying.

Out of curiosity, have you ever heard of the expression "Trust is earned, not given"? This is true with children as much as it is in the professional world. Hence the sliding scale that RP is discussing.

GL

Yes, I have. Would you agree that behaving is enough to earn trust from your parents? If you give your parents no reason for alarm, e.g. you're getting good grades, coming home on time, and not ditching school, isn't that enough to "earn" trust? Wouldn't you then rather foster your child's independence as opposed to eavesdropping on their social life?

Of course, if your child is caught doing drugs and suspended from school, by all means tighten your control over them. But I get the impression that Rodimus Prime's children are well-behaved and that he's just being ridiculously overprotective.

 

[eye]

If you don't spy on your kids, you're a crappy parent.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

If you don't spy on your kids, you're a crappy parent.

Perhaps if one raised them right, they wouldn't need to spy on them.

My parents never needed to "spy" on my brother or myself.