That’s the art. Figuring out what’s likely and what’s not likely to be abused and raising alerts on the right topics.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Code for Apple's Communication Safety Feature for Kids Found in iOS 15.2 Beta [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oh, because you were a good kid, then all kids should be trusted?
Also, what's wrong with warning the child that something bad might be shown in the image and that if they view it, their parents will know.
Also, why aren't you boycotting all parental control features? I mean, you can control which apps can be used at what times and what websites aren't safe to go to as well. It's called parental control because parents can't just leave kids to do whatever they want unattended and the same goes for their digital activity too.
In my opinion, this feature is years late.
I’ll give a kid more benefit of the doubt than most adults, at least until they give me reason not to.
Are most parents going to be understanding if their kid pressed the button by mistake or thought it to be a false-positive, and they first find out via a notification? Or a “friend” snatches their kid’s phone to get their number, send them pictures, and click through the warning before giving the phone back? What could’ve been a mostly harmless prank that the kid learns how to avoid next time gets made into a big deal because the parents were notified by an automated system.
Here’s the thing, it’s just another thing that leads to weakening of users and more harmful “protection” of the kids. Some protection is good, too much is bad. By 8th grade, myself and everyone at my school had cell phones, a few with smartphones, but only a few trusted friends had my number. Just a little self control went a long way. Parents that protect their kids from everything sometimes end up having kids that grow up with no self control, no ability to think for themselves, and end up in serious trouble. Usually, we just end up with a bunch of adults that follow whatever they’re told, have a binary mob mentality, and have no understanding of nuance.
My idea of parental control is not just handing a kid a phone or iPad to keep them busy or quiet. Parental control is leading by example, giving some autonomy, and course correcting when necessary. If the kid can’t use something responsibly, they lose it for a while. Most of the time, only stop them if they will get hurt or if they try to do something morally/ethically wrong, and explain why you stopped them. Make it a learning experience.
My nephew is hopelessly addicted to TikTok, so I try to occupy him with other stuff when he’s at my house, whether we play games together, go bike riding, or do some work outside. I set a speed limit on my electric longboard when he rides it, but that’s about it for passive restrictions. It’s fast enough where he’ll get hurt if he wrecks, but slow enough that he won’t be hurt bad. Physics is one of those things that only gains respect through experience. When we play video games together, I lead by example with break time, wind down, and food/drinks. No candy, we stop and eat a meal, do something outside for a bit, and then go back to gaming if we want. He’s addicted to his phone because that’s what his parents spent most of their time doing at home. The course I’ve been on lately, it’s time we do another screen time challenge.
Because I don’t accept binary thought.
Many Passive restrictions just feed the fire and make things worse. The kid’s going to find out sooner or later, might as well teach it to them correctly rather than shun topics for them to learn from less than desirable sources.
The general public has always been unable to protect themselves. They have always had to have others looking out for them, lest they figuratively walk straight off a cliff, or be led astray by charismatic charlatans who like to prey on their ignorance and naivety for personal gain. So I wouldn't put much stock in that 70% number. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised it's not higher.
What's important here is watchdogs calling Apple out, regardless of the public's support. That is absolutely vital because if they don't, things are going to get way out of hand, way too fast.
A few years ago, I watched a lady almost actually sidestep into the Grand Canyon. If she would've taken one more step when posing for a photo, she'd be gone. The amount of people I see that just lose all intelligence when technology is involved is staggering.
For example, with Tesla Autopilot, what people still don't get is that it's visual object-recognition that steers the car, it's going to make mistakes. It's up to the driver to correct the car when it does, but it's up to Tesla to make the mistakes happen less often. It's not Tesla's fault if someone activates it, crawls into the back seat, and the car crashes. Tesla ought to have the car disable Autopilot and stop if it doesn't detect weight in the driver's seat for a mile or so (like it does when one ignores all the prompts to torque the steering wheel) to subvert this kind of behavior, but it's not their fault if the car crashes because the driver couldn't correct the car's mistake.
This same thing is why we have to deal with scam phone calls. Think about it, people. These are technology companies. They'd rather send an email than call you, and they definitely won't call you to warn you about account activity or a virus on your computer.
That's 100% right. We need more watchdogs as things are still getting out of hand too quickly outside of Apple.
Sending sexually explicit photos to a minor (even by another minor) is NOT a "mostly harmless prank". It's a criminal act. You're also describing a very bizarre scenario in order to have an objection. And if that child explains to their parents what happened, the parents can pursue the matter with the school, etc. whereas if the parents are left in the dark, nothing may happen, and the kid who pulled the criminal prank will feel empowered to do it again.
"Weakening" of users? No idea what you mean by that.
Parents who "protect their kids from everything" are certainly not going to let them have a smart phone, especially in middle school or below. So if the child has a smart phone, you already know we're not talking about that kind of parent. Protecting your child from sending or receiving solicited or unsolicited sexually explicit images is not being an overbearing parent; it's being a good, loving parent.
And this parental control feature does just that. The child is given a warning and a choice. Sounds like autonomy to me. And if they make the wrong choice, then there will be consequences and/or accountability. Sounds like great training for adult life.
In my experience, they get their laughs and then move on.
Weakening, as in, "There's this feature that does that for me so I don't have to." People just continually pawn off tasks to technology so they don't have to deal with it. "I'm too busy to entertain my 3 year old. Just give him the iPad and let him watch some videos on YouTube." I only use "weakening" because my other words for what I'm trying to describe will get me in trouble. Basically, it's why so many drivers can't handle bad conditions now because the car took over pumping brakes, corrective steering, and throttle control. They don't need to know how to control the car in most situations, but when the situation is bad, most panic and hit the brakes when they actually need to power out of a bad spot.
Teaching them how to avoid AND handle situations are far better than protecting them from situations. Ever watch Finding Nemo?
Yeah, move on to the next prank and victim, which may even be worse. Pranksters and bullies aren't "one and done" kind of people.
And how, precisely, do you propose parents monitor their child's phone for inappropriate messages without such parental controls? They'd literally have to be by their child's side at all times while the child is using the phone. So the irony here (ironic in light of your objections) is that this parental control feature gives the child MORE autonomy than not having it. Also, there are probably parents who wouldn't otherwise let their child have a phone that now will because of this feature.
False dichotomy. You can do both (teach and protect).
By cultivating an atmosphere of trust where the kid isn't afraid to bring something up to their parents is one part of it. Somehow, my generation survived without these features, and that was in the early days of smartphones where it was more wild west. We're obviously not going to agree on this, and I don't really have the time to keep going on this (got this thing called work, and I'm still in the middle of de-clouding).
It wasn't either or. Teach so that you don't have to protect as much. "Teach a man to fish".
But make sure all parties have fishing licenses prior to the lesson.
I don’t know what your generation is but I can see where some technology is needed to rein in the rampant abuse of social media.
Well, the generation before you survived without smart phones at all, so I guess we should just chuck all those in the garbage too, using that logic. Time and technology marches on, and this parental control feature is definitely a positive result of that. It doesn't replace teaching your child how to handle situations. It's a fail-safe to protect them. Drivers should be taught how to safely drive, yet we still have guard rails, rumble strips, speed traps, sobriety checkpoints, etc. If you've taught your child properly, then your child shouldn't be willingly sending nor receiving sexually explicit images anyway, and this feature also helps prevent them unwillingly receiving it.
P.S. You're not the only one here who works on the weekends. I'm working too and replying when I have a break to do so. I'm not demanding you reply, so just do what you've got to do and don't worry about it.
Last edited:
Maybe you should care a little be MORE.
Some countries won't stay in their own sandbox, and I'm not even talking about the USA. China, for example, owns the souls of the NBA and Hollywood, and if you are in either of those and feed your family from it, you CAN'T say anything that opposes China. At best, you have a "talking to" and you come out with a mealy-mouthed apology. At worst, you get blacklisted/canceled. To verify this, all you have to do is check the headlines. Just don't stick only to your tired and worn out legacy media choices; some of THEM also cowtow to China.
Remember, China and India are the biggest polluters in the world. And yet, it always seems that America and the UK are made to pay. Even in these forums, people call Apple a polluter rather than go after China or India.
How did we get to this point? Well, things happen in degrees. It's almost never "Oh wow, I woke up one morning and the sky was dark". It always happens in degrees and it always telegraphs its moves. And then we blame Apple, as if we're Pavlov's Apple Dissers or something.
I say, let's bring back critical reasoning. And not just in the schools, either. Some of us adults could use a refresher course too!
Right! "One way or the other" is often called a "false dichotomy" or a "prison of two ideas". I tend to call it the "tyrrany of only two ideas".
Example: My brothers want me to chip in equal shares to get mom into a retirement village, which is like an apartment near others her age. I'd love to do that, but my siblings are doctor, lawyer, and Hollywood actor. They want to buy mom into a facility that costs $260,000 per year. Even divided 4 ways, I still can't afford $65,000 per year!
When I found a really nice place that only costs $50,000 and I proposed that each of us could still be contributing equal amounts because I could make my family budget work with $12,500 less each year, they all got mad at me and accused me of wanting mom to be homeless and eat cat food.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's the "prison of 2 ideas" right there. You either love your mom by paying $65K or you hate your mom by not paying $65K.
I have noticed that any major sociological problem or argument lends itself very nicely to people who are lazy debaters and like to use the "prison of 2 ideas" to shut down a more skilled opponent. Just here in the articles, you see it every day:
- Either you hate Apple for polluting or you just hate people and want more pollution.
- Either you favor your government (with Apple as the conduit) to violate everybody's privacy or you're just a child molester.
- Either you are in favor of "this" (it could be 6 feet of masks for everybody except government and Hollywood, vaccines every week, cucumber baths, the cabbage diet, or something else, take your pick) or you just want to murder old people.
- If somebody is "for" something, say the right to bear arms for defense of self or family in riot-torn cities, for example, then the "false dichotomer" (person who is applying the false dichotomy) paints the other person as some sort of evil, for example: "you just want to shoot children!"
"I like bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwiches!"
"Oh so you hate vegans!"
We all need to stop that. It's not helping things, and in fact, it's hurting the conversation even here too, where I think we have a lot of smart people.
"Will that happen? No."
You don't know that. All we can do is keep fighting the good fight and try to change minds and hearts over time.
I don't respond to polls. There are more ways to falsify results than not. And often, the results you DO get are grossly misinterpreted by the pollster (or by the person or organization who commissioned that poll).
First off, this one was NOT a scientific poll with randomly-drawn pool of participants. It was only open to MR readers who wished to respond. And I think the questions were loaded so as to elicit one type of answer more than another. And it was entirely OPTIONAL to participate.
It's kind of like those democrat polls in the US this year. They get results saying 55% are in favor of more socialism or something, but then later we find out that in order to get that number, they had to poll 30% more democrats than republicans. The fakery is sometimes stronger than The Force in some people!
Hey, I could do the same thing! Did you know that 75% of people said in a recent poll that their favorite JellyBelly flavor was "Fart"? Yeah! So that means that people like eating farts! Incredulous, right? Until you see the pool of 3rd and 4th graders who I had vote in THAT poll, hehe! ?
Same with me, except that it was going to be a $7,000 MBP and a nearly $3K iPad Pro, both with M1 chip.Is the linked poll below the one you are thinking of? Because it’s not even close to 70%. More like 43%.
70% or 43%, if the disapproval is real and leads to lost sales, it can’t possibly be good for Apple’s bottom line. It would be catastrophic.
Will you leave the Apple ecosystem because of CSAM?
In light of the recent scandal backlash, will you consider moving out of the Apple ecosystem? Edit: For those who voted no: a new option has been added and you might want to revise your vote.forums.macrumors.com
Anecdotally, I was going to get an iPhone 13 Pro and a maxed out MacBook Pro this year. Not anymore. Not until Apple loudly announces a complete cancellation of their CSAM scanning plans along with an apology. If it doesn’t, I’m permanently done with Apple.
Apple has no idea how many people are starting to say, "whutchewtalkinbout, Willis?"
^ He's not wrong about this, people!
You made me laugh, but now I'm rethinking this. It's not a bad point.
We can protect kids from gunfire by doing these 3 things:
- Bring back the "Eddie Eagle" program and have qualified people show kids how to properly handle firearms.
- Stop telling kids through words and deeds that there is no right and wrong anymore.
- Punish criminals VERY harshly. Long prison terms without early release for ANY reason. Death penalty for heinous crimes, with a time-limit for appeals and court-appointed grabass tactics.
Remember the old saying: Raise your kids right, because they're going to be the ones picking out your nursing home!
Quite possibly. Luckily, I only troll with my gmail account and I don't do Horseface, Whinnie, Clip-Clop, Snapshat, or any of the others.
Wow, you're not wrong about that! It's frightening! Some adults will even be on facetime while driving!
The article only mentions an alert for any kind of explicit content, not passing it on to another person. Guess the thought process is to have a conversation with the child afterwards.
Due to events ^, all I have to say now is:
Last edited:
Clearly you don’t know or either forgot Apple’s roots being in America and started by hippies. Literary.
Maybe you should care a little be MORE.
Some countries won't stay in their own sandbox, and I'm not even talking about the USA. China, for example, owns the souls of the NBA and Hollywood, and if you are in either of those and feed your family from it, you CAN'T say anything that opposes China. At best, you have a "talking to" and you come out with a mealy-mouthed apology. At worst, you get blacklisted/canceled. To verify this, all you have to do is check the headlines. Just don't stick only to your tired and worn out legacy media choices; some of THEM also cowtow to China.
Remember, China and India are the biggest polluters in the world. And yet, it always seems that America and the UK are made to pay. Even in these forums, people call Apple a polluter rather than go after China or India.
How did we get to this point? Well, things happen in degrees. It's almost never "Oh wow, I woke up one morning and the sky was dark". It always happens in degrees and it always telegraphs its moves. And then we blame Apple, as if we're Pavlov's Apple Dissers or something.
I say, let's bring back critical reasoning. And not just in the schools, either. Some of us adults could use a refresher course too!
Right! "One way or the other" is often called a "false dichotomy" or a "prison of two ideas". I tend to call it the "tyrrany of only two ideas".
Example: My brothers want me to chip in equal shares to get mom into a retirement village, which is like an apartment near others her age. I'd love to do that, but my siblings are doctor, lawyer, and Hollywood actor. They want to buy mom into a facility that costs $260,000 per year. Even divided 4 ways, I still can't afford $65,000 per year!
When I found a really nice place that only costs $50,000 and I proposed that each of us could still be contributing equal amounts because I could make my family budget work with $12,500 less each year, they all got mad at me and accused me of wanting mom to be homeless and eat cat food.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's the "prison of 2 ideas" right there. You either love your mom by paying $65K or you hate your mom by not paying $65K.
I have noticed that any major sociological problem or argument lends itself very nicely to people who are lazy debaters and like to use the "prison of 2 ideas" to shut down a more skilled opponent. Just here in the articles, you see it every day:
The Tyrrany of (only) Two Ideas is a lazy way to argue your point with somebody. Additionally, it causes mental atrophy over time. The habitual user of the technique eventually loses their ability to actually present a cogent, reasoned argument with facts supporting their point.
- Either you hate Apple for polluting or you just hate people and want more pollution.
- Either you favor your government (with Apple as the conduit) to violate everybody's privacy or you're just a child molester.
- Either you are in favor of "this" (it could be 6 feet of masks for everybody except government and Hollywood, vaccines every week, cucumber baths, the cabbage diet, or something else, take your pick) or you just want to murder old people.
- If somebody is "for" something, say the right to bear arms for defense of self or family in riot-torn cities, for example, then the "false dichotomer" (person who is applying the false dichotomy) paints the other person as some sort of evil, for example: "you just want to shoot children!"
"I like bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwiches!"
"Oh so you hate vegans!"
We all need to stop that. It's not helping things, and in fact, it's hurting the conversation even here too, where I think we have a lot of smart people.
"Will that happen? No."
You don't know that. All we can do is keep fighting the good fight and try to change minds and hearts over time.
I don't respond to polls. There are more ways to falsify results than not. And often, the results you DO get are grossly misinterpreted by the pollster (or by the person or organization who commissioned that poll).
First off, this one was NOT a scientific poll with randomly-drawn pool of participants. It was only open to MR readers who wished to respond. And I think the questions were loaded so as to elicit one type of answer more than another. And it was entirely OPTIONAL to participate.
It's kind of like those democrat polls in the US this year. They get results saying 55% are in favor of more socialism or something, but then later we find out that in order to get that number, they had to poll 30% more democrats than republicans. The fakery is sometimes stronger than The Force in some people!
Hey, I could do the same thing! Did you know that 75% of people said in a recent poll that their favorite JellyBelly flavor was "Fart"? Yeah! So that means that people like eating farts! Incredulous, right? Until you see the pool of 3rd and 4th graders who I had vote in THAT poll, hehe! ?
Same with me, except that it was going to be a $7,000 MBP and a nearly $3K iPad Pro, both with M1 chip.
Apple has no idea how many people are starting to say, "whutchewtalkinbout, Willis?"
^ He's not wrong about this, people!
You made me laugh, but now I'm rethinking this. It's not a bad point.
We can protect kids from gunfire by doing these 3 things:
Kids are probably the smartest amongst us. They're nearly infinitely adaptable. They WILL run the world one day! Once they see that we lock up criminals and hang the worst ones, they'll have more motive for being good members of society. And we will all be better for it.
- Bring back the "Eddie Eagle" program and have qualified people show kids how to properly handle firearms.
- Stop telling kids through words and deeds that there is no right and wrong anymore.
- Punish criminals VERY harshly. Long prison terms without early release for ANY reason. Death penalty for heinous crimes, with a time-limit for appeals and court-appointed grabass tactics.
Remember the old saying: Raise your kids right, because they're going to be the ones picking out your nursing home!
Quite possibly. Luckily, I only troll with my gmail account and I don't do Horseface, Whinnie, Clip-Clop, Snapshat, or any of the others.
Wow, you're not wrong about that! It's frightening! Some adults will even be on facetime while driving!
Ther Eid a LOT in this post. Love it !
China has their hands in a Lot more than you outlined.
Building a new trade route in Europe where THEY (gov’t) owns all land of all the ports. This is huge!
Many lands across the world growing crops and livestock yet damaging the lands outside of their borders. Long term growth is not the goal here btw.
Having 2/3rds USA trade debt. That was a long time coming. A comedian joked about learning the languages - he was serious (Eddie griffin)
That said I think adults that are poor parents need NEH MUST learn how to be interactive parents again. In my younger years the TV was the babysitter - this generation it’s the smartphones and social media (presence and addiction culminating self worth of youth very damaging ). I think this first steps is Apple’s way from a classic hippie standpoint is trying to help wealth middle and higher income families that let their kids just do about anything as lawyers (the best) they can afford to bail them out of serious trouble and bad decisions.
I’m not the best father - I have a difficult time understanding mental illness (adhd, bpd etc) something an ex lovely woman I had dated and potentially my son is going through is suffering. Other variances run in 1 side of my family so I may have a spectrum for myself not sure. But I took 100% care in raising him, and his sister not of my own genetics. Helping understand at a you ge age NOT to share location no matter what. Filtering internet traffic on the router at ho e but showing them potential dangers from seemingly harmless actions. Being east of their surroundings when outside (using reflections, noting feature of people they see clothing’s worn a trinket : necklace or ring when seeing a person seemingly following them in 3 random turns). Having them always walk an alternative route home that is public. Having know their way from from 20km out in any direction. Understanding their phone is a tool like the computer. How existió. Is important for awareness but to question it - ask questions get different perceptions. Etc.
Nobody helar is trying on other platforms that I’m aware of. I wonder if those against methods to protect children under age from sending stupid revealing photos of themselves never had kids. It’s honorable since there is so many “adults” that have kids are terrible parents worse than me. Their absent.
That said an open dialogue would’ve been nice Freon Apple in beta stages to hear feedback and interact fully.
We’ll see what the future holds but critical thinking by us all regardless of age needs to be done in all topics and aspects.
Transformers cartoon cannon of the 80’s used to have a phrase “more than meets the eye” it could easily be applied as more than meets the mind in our world today. Simply not digest, investigate question open dialogue and share opinions intent and what’s wrong with process and how can it be fixed. Ok I’m rambling.
As a parent / grandparent, I should have the option to install features like this, not have them forced upon us. Apple’s take on right / wrong is not mine or any other parents take. We all differ. There may be some alignment. But; this should be an installable (app) feature, not an on/off OS feature - something you as a parent can decide whether to install and implement.
JMO YOMV.
Last edited:
It is the technology and how it can be leveraged. Substitute “CSAM” for any other government provided database.
Apple has said they would follow the law. That varies wildly depending on the country. Even with CSAM, many countries do not have laws specifically against this. Only 118 of the total 195 do.
Since it hasn’t been a mainstream media darling headline, how many really even know about it?