Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Awarded 'Anti-Sexting' Patent

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

What ever happened to our first amendment?
 
^^^^WTF are you talking about?:rolleyes:




iPunish901 said:
so will this "parental control" keep up with the amount of slang words and acronyms that are constistently being created. kids or people in general always find a way around things, this is no different
Click to expand...

And that's how it's always been- a game between the parents and kids. The parents make a rule, the kids figure out a way to break it. The parents make a new rule, the kids figure out a way to break that.

It's a perpetual cycle, and this is no different.

All Apple is doing is providing parents with another tool to keep an eye on their kids. Kids will figure a way around it, and parents will have to try something new.

You're under 18 and you don't like it? Tough ****. Get creative and work around it. That's what we all had to do when we were growing up.
 
I'm all for individual liberties, and for being involved parents and teaching your kids how to think. But I also think people didn't read the article, or they're just looking for something to whine about today (tomorrow, something else).

The feature appears to be an option. Intelligent parents who want to guide their kids hands-on can opt not to use it. Parents who want to have some control, which they legally are in the right to have until the child is 18, can use it to mitigate abuse of the tools that they gave their child.

I don't get to make that decision for other parents, but it would be good to have the option for the parents to decide themselves if and how to implement it.

Another consideration is, if the filter is a two-way thing... imagine your child isn't a filthmouth like the douchebag teenagers sitting behind me last week at a screening where every third word out of their mouth was "*****" or "*****"... Now imagine some stranger accidentally OR intentionally texts them something very dirty or malicious. At least if a parent has an option to filter out that kind of stuff, there are some scenarios that don't revolve around what the child is initating and with whom.

I've had lengthy conversations with some parents who believe that government should be involved and censor across the board, but I believe that government censorship is abhorrent. However, this is not government censorship. No one's going to the FCC and telling us to police what EVERYONE can and can't do just to "shield" a specific class of people from things they don't want to see or hear.

This is entirely different, and it leaves the choice to the parent. And I like that option. It benefits me, even though I'm not a parent. How? Then I don't have to listen to people bitching about how the government should censor everything just because they don't have better resources at home with which to monitor their kids' activities and enforce their rules without affecting what I do in my house.
 
Small White Car said:
Someone critized these "kids today." You agreed. I believe that the kids' behaivor is no different from what I used to do as a kid.

So, yeah, I take that as a direct comment on me whether or not you meant it that way.
Click to expand...

If you think kids are the same as they were 20 years ago... you may want to get out more.
 
readerbreader said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

What ever happened to our first amendment?
Click to expand...

Your parents control your first amendment rights until you are 18. Read the article this about parent controls...
 
Caliber26 said:
This is RETARDED. Do people really think that blocking 'sexting' is going to deter teens (or anyone, for that matter) from having these type of conversations? Please. I was once a teenaged boy. Where there's a will, THERE'S A WAY.
Click to expand...

+1

What a @%#£ing stupid way to handle things... (Just checking if the MR forums has enable the 'Anti-Sexting' patent... ;))
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

And yet it won't block potentially offensive picture messages. Kids will be kids but there is also a lack of parenting. Parents buy their kids $600 phones because they'd rather be their best friends instead of being there parents. Besides kids will just find a way around it anyways. I was 16 once and those "filters" if any never stopped me.
 
Here's yet another example of the TOTAL FAILURE of the U.S. Patent system. How is this "new" ? Messenger systems of all kinds have had language filters for *AGES* already. There is nothing "new" to this at all except that it's for Apple's iPhone.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: That would be fine if it were simply a new feature they were offering for their text system, but a freaking PATENT for that? No way. Filtering is nothing new.

Honestly, if this doesn't prove that the patent system is 100% BROKEN, I don't know what else does. This is prior technology being resold as something new and therefore 100% bullcrap. It demonstrates once again why there should be NO SUCH THING as a "software patent".
 
MagnusVonMagnum said:
Here's yet another example of the TOTAL FAILURE of the U.S. Patent system. How is this "new" ? Messenger systems of all kinds have had language filters for *AGES* already. There is nothing "new" to this at all except that it's for Apple's iPhone.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Honestly, if this doesn't prove that the patent system is 100% BROKEN, I don't know what else does. This is prior technology being resold as something new and therefore 100% bullcrap. It demonstrates once again why there should be NO SUCH THING as a "software patent".
Click to expand...

I think your caps lock filter is broken there, bud.
 
Hold on now, fellow villagers, lower those pitch-forks and torches, I've got a good feeling this is just a parental-control option. For all of us out there, we shouldn't be affected. Even if it were standard, with no way of shutting it off, that would be a 1st amendment catastrophe, so no worries on this one.
 
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.
 
knewsom said:
Great, now I'll have to jailbreak my iPhone just to flirt with my wife while she's in meetings...
Click to expand...

Uh, I'm pretty sure this is just a profanity filter. Meaning it's a Parental Control thing. Meaning you could easily turn it on or off. I don't think this is going to effect anyone here really.


Oh sorry, I mean GRRR APPLE HOW COULD U :mad::mad::mad::mad: APPLE IS DEAD :mad::mad::mad::mad: :rolleyes:
 
mdntcallr said:
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.
Click to expand...

Read the article. Read it. Read it. I dare you.
 
Caliber26 said:
Do people really think that blocking 'sexting' is going to deter teens (or anyone, for that matter) from having these type of conversations?
Click to expand...

Well, if parents can keep their teens from talking about sex, they can keep them from having sex. No, seriously. :rolleyes:
 
I think I'm against parental controls. I think children should be raised to be intelligent in the first place, smart enough to understand what they see and learn from it. Banning objectionable content isn't going to help stupid people, they'll find ways around it eventually.

I believe that parents having control over even the child's mobile phone (something quite personal) puts mental pressure on the child, and these kids will eventually become paranoid and mentally unstable later.

It's like prohibiting smoking to your children. If you tell them they should not smoke every single day, they will want to try it. If you tell them what it is, show them, and let them know that you trust them, they'll be smart enough to decide wisely.

Unless they're stupid by nature, in which case it doesn't matter what you do anyway.
 
All of you people whining about your first amendment rights, quit your complaining. You're not nearly as intelligent as you think you are. This amendment prohibits Congress from passing a law that infringes on your free speech. It doesn't prohibit private companies from building devices (that you can choose to purchase or to not purchase) that will inhibit your free speech.

Next, in case some of you didn't read the patent description:

"The text-based communication control application filters incoming and/or outgoing text-based communications based on administrator-defined criteria."

This means that it won't automatically filter anything without your (or, more accurately on this particular forum, your parents') permission.

I'd like to note, also, that ratio of positive to negative ratings about this topic does a great job of revealing the demographics of this forum. At the time of this post, there are 30 positive ratings and 126 negative ratings. I wish that we could have more adults actively participating on these boards, and less children.

I find it hard to understand how anyone could possibly care enough to dislike a feature that only exists if you choose to activate it.
 
baryon said:
I think I'm against parental controls. I think children should be raised to be intelligent in the first place, smart enough to understand what they see and learn from it. Banning objectionable content isn't going to help stupid people, they'll find ways around it eventually.

I believe that parents having control over even the child's mobile phone (something quite personal) puts mental pressure on the child, and these kids will eventually become paranoid and mentally unstable later.
Click to expand...

Agreed! Adults should always be telling kids why. "Because I'm your father, and I said so!" is a cop-out, and will eventually backfire on you. Take the time to explain why and eventually you'll train the child to think for him/herself.

I know one mom who shielded her son to an extreme. She would use "allergies" as an easy cop-out way of saying no to things when he was little. "Mom, can I have some candy?" "No son, you can't have it -- you're allergic to it!" The kid's all grown up now, but, well, he isn't quite normal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back