[HN Gopher] Ask HN: Apple revoked developer account for 2.5 year...
___________________________________________________________________
Ask HN: Apple revoked developer account for 2.5 years and counting
tldr: I launched Truple 4.5 years ago (see
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14113636). 2.5 years ago Apple
froze my developer account. Since that time competitors released
similar functionality for Apple products. Apple still has my
Developer account on lockdown. What can I do? long version: 4.5
years ago I launched Truple
(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14113636), a bootstrapped
parental control / accountability app. Truple is used by parents to
gain insight into how their children use the internet, but also by
adults who struggle with online habits they'd like to change (porn
being chief among them). The screenshot based approach Truple
offers proves to work much better than other solutions. It's the
only solution that allows you to use social media, but still have
accountability for what you're viewing through social media. For
example, if you have access to Twitter, you have access to porn.
You can't use twitter without having that access. Truple allows you
to use twitter while still being held accountable for what you view
on twitter. No other solution offers this, because they don't
report what you're viewing within an app. Twitter is just an
example, the same goes for all "innocent" apps (social media,
streaming sites, etc) that contain concerning content. 2.5 years
ago, I submitted an early version of a MacOS app for notarization.
A couple of days later my Apple Developer account was "frozen"
without any message or indication why. The signing certificates
were just revoked. After a year or so, Apple said they found
"potentially unwanted software" in my app and were investigating. I
indicated that was unexpected (that's the only question they asked
me). As background, to run the app you have to download and install
it, login to your truple account, select what you want the
monitoring settings to be, grant permissions, etc. It's a whole
process. I point this out because the app didn't do anything
malicious or against the device owners' will. After nearly two
years of waiting on Apple (I emailed regularly, they kept saying it
was under review) Apple decided they wouldn't finish the
investigation but that I needed to create a new developer account.
I've since done so. I submitted a redesigned version of the app for
notarization, and now, while my account isn't "frozen",
notarization is rejected with the message: "Team is not yet
configured for notarization." I submitted a "hello world" app using
boilerplate code for notarization, and I get the same rejection. I
now have another case open with Apple, and it's going nowhere it
seems. I'm assuming Apple has flagged my second account due to the
previous issue. I fear I'm stuck in a continual loop. Truple was
the first to offer screenshot based monitoring as a parental
control / accountability app, but during the past 2.5 years,
multimillion dollar competitors have been allowed by Apple to
launch apps with similar functionality for Apple products. I have
read and reread the Apple developer agreement. My app is in
alignment with it... I've made sure since day one that a
"reasonably suspicious" notification is present when the app is
monitoring. Once enabled, the data captured is end-to-end encrypted
and only made accessible to the account owner and their chosen
recipients. I've expressed a willingness to make changes if need
be, but Apple hasn't indicated I need to make any. They've just
been silent. What should I do? I've been _extremely_ patient with
Apple. But it 's now been 2.5 years and it's gotten me nowhere.
Apple seems unwilling to do anything for me but take my annual
developer fee. I'm not famous and I have no significant following
to rely on to garner attention to this unfair treatment. I ask for
your help.
Author : camhart
Score : 190 points
Date : 2021-12-15 18:14 UTC (4 hours ago)
| BTCOG wrote:
| I'm not in support of censorship, surveillance, locked-down
| devices. I think you should have moved on within months of being
| banned for creating this thing. Your responses are odd to me as
| well. Use some self-control and restraint and stop looking at
| porn if it's an issue to you. While I would certainly not wish
| for anyone to lose their livelihood, to me it seems that you've
| had plenty of ample time to go off and develop something else on
| another platform. Best of luck to you. Please don't make any more
| censorship/surveillance apps.
|
| Edit to add: I've also got several children and have been married
| for 12 years. I would not install anything like this for any of
| them. If you can't trust your wife, you can't trust your wife.
| Just the way it is. Spying on her, and spying on your children is
| gross and does not create any sort of trust.
| ramsundhar20 wrote:
| Apple, Google and Microsoft might just stop you as they get a
| better cut from the multimillion dollar app partners. Or your app
| might have some libraries that are having security issues.
| camhart wrote:
| I'd happily change the libs if there was an issue. I'm not
| aware of any and Apple hasn't indicated any. I take effort to
| keep libraries up to date, but certainly don't have everything
| on latest.
| tptacek wrote:
| Do you embed any monitoring, performance tracking, revenue-
| generation, advertising, or tracing tools in the app? Did you
| at any previous time?
|
| (I think it's just as likely that you're pattern-matching
| against stalker software that Apple screens for, just by dint
| of what your app does).
| camhart wrote:
| 2.5 years ago I had Bugsnag setup as part of the app, but
| removed it in the redesign because the developer agreement
| indicated something about analytics/tracking and I felt
| it'd be safest just to remove it. No advertising tracking
| in the MacOS app ever.
| outside1234 wrote:
| That is a seriously creepy app.
|
| Glad to hear you were blocked.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| This sucks. :(
|
| Apple is a closed ecosystem, and building on a closed ecosystem
| always carries the risk that the ecosystem owner will decide an
| individual or company just can't play. But that doesn't make it
| better; it's just a risk to be aware of.
| camhart wrote:
| Some may not agree with the use of parental
| control/accountability software. That's fine. Truple is not
| designed for you. There are tons of people who are negatively
| impacted by technology and they desperately need/want help. They
| should have the option to get it, and there should be competition
| in the space to deliver the best product for them. In today's
| world, using the internet is a part of life, and isn't something
| you can reasonably go without. Truple was built to help people
| learn to use technology responsibly with the help of their loved
| ones.
| agentdrtran wrote:
| Any software like this will, without fail, be used by abusers
| to do things other than blocking pornography. If it only did
| that one thing this wouldn't be a problem.
| tptacek wrote:
| The platform is wary of surveillance applications, which often
| have off-label use as stalking tools. It's not so much about
| whether people agree with parental controls or not; it's that
| Apple sets a different standard for intrusive parental control
| software than it does for other tools, because parental control
| tools are widely misused.
|
| If that's the problem you're running up against here, and not
| that you somehow embedded malware/adware into your app that
| they screen for, I think you might have trouble getting
| anywhere with this.
| camhart wrote:
| Then why do they allow competitors to do it? They should be
| facing the same issues.
| tptacek wrote:
| What's your hypothesis about why they're not letting _you_
| do something? Do they just not like you? That seems
| unlikely.
| chris_wot wrote:
| And yet, they don't explain what the issues are. A bit
| hard for him to tell what the issue is if they don't way
| what the issues are.
|
| Sure seems they don't like him to me.
| w1nk wrote:
| I have to imagine the answer lies in the interpretation of
| the rules you quoted in your post: My app is in alignment
| with it... I've made sure since day one that a "reasonably
| suspicious" notification is present when the app is
| monitoring.
|
| Could you elaborate on what your version of this reasonably
| suspicious notification compared to your competitors
| actually is?
| camhart wrote:
| The original version of the app I submitted for
| notarization had the Truple logo, with a red dot/circle
| to indicate recording and make it more suspicious. The
| redesign I did dropped the red dot/circle because
| competitors weren't being forced to do anything like
| that. Competitors just use their logo. And their logo's
| aren't any more/less suspicious than Truple's. If you
| click on the notification on MacOS, a menu pops up
| indicating the device is being monitored and includes
| instructions for how to uninstall the app though if you
| do an alert is sent indicating that you did.
|
| It's convenient to think I've done something wrong
| here... but I've puzzled over this for 2.5 years, and if
| I have done something wrong, the least Apple could do is
| let me know so I can correct it.
| verall wrote:
| > The original version of the app I submitted for
| notarization had the Truple logo, with a red dot/circle
| to indicate recording and make it more suspicious. The
| redesign I did dropped the red dot/circle because
| competitors weren't being forced to do anything like
| that.
|
| Doesn't this seem kind of damning? Like you admit the
| recording dot is suspicious, so you remove it because
| why? Are you targeting anyone that isn't fully aware of
| what the truple notification means, maybe because they
| are a child or otherwise mentally compromised?
| camhart wrote:
| Put on the hat of the end user. Keep in mind the end user
| is a child, or someone struggling with an online
| addiction/behavior they want to quit. They welcome the
| app, but those issues are somewhat personal. There's a
| balancing act I'm trying to walk here, of being
| reasonably suspicious while also not publishing for
| everyone who peeks over their shoulder that they're using
| an app like this.
|
| Again, if the red dot matters, I'll add it back.
| tptacek wrote:
| Apple's reasonable concern here might be that the end
| user isn't a child, or even someone who consents to have
| the application running.
| p1necone wrote:
| You seem to be sticking a hood over your eyes and
| pretending that your app is only used for the most
| morally sound use cases you can think of. You've written
| something that enables abusive relationships and
| helicopter parenting and you should be ashamed.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| > Put on the hat of the end user. Keep in mind the end
| user is a child, or someone struggling with an online
| addiction/behavior they want to quit. They welcome the
| app, but those issues are somewhat personal.
|
| This sure as hell reads to me like you're trying to hide
| the fact that you're recording vulnerable user's screens
| from them.
| camhart wrote:
| You can read into it however you want. It wasn't my
| intention.
| Nevermark wrote:
| So you did the same thing, without trying?
|
| The "trying" part isn't the practical problem.
|
| And if that was not your intent, you are not thinking
| through the obvious implications of your own software
| design.
| tux3 wrote:
| If you think they should do more, then the first step can't
| be criticized on the grounds that it's not the last step.
|
| Presumably, more will come.
| throemdiwo wrote:
| Fundamentally, you are doing some things that require special
| entitlements and you are not on the short list of those
| entitlements.
|
| This has always happened, be it with explicit software
| entitlement or just with "off limits" areas.
|
| I suggest you find a business partner with better connections.
| You won't be able to force Apple to notarize your thing...
| GVRV wrote:
| I don't understand why people are trying to guess the reason why
| Apple is doing this. I'm not a fan of this concept, but I
| wouldn't label it as malware to be used by abusive spouses and
| parents.
|
| If you read the FAQs on the website, it clearly states:
| Can I hide the Truple notification icon? No. Truple is
| voluntary use software, and is not intended (or allowed) to be
| used as spyware. All of our applications require a persistent
| notification.
|
| And if Apple thinks this is malware or might be a legal
| liability, why can't it be transparent in its communication with
| the developer?
| [deleted]
| tptacek wrote:
| If you read the thread we're commenting on, you'll see that the
| author removed a conspicuous warning indicator that screen
| recording was enabled, because their competitors didn't seem to
| be required to provide one. We don't know who those competitors
| are, but we do know that the author deliberately made this
| surveillance app stealthier because they believed they'd get
| away with it.
| camhart wrote:
| I removed a red dot that didn't belong on my logo and wasn't
| being required by Apple with any other apps.
| tptacek wrote:
| For everyone else reading, here's the subthread:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29570450
| bijant wrote:
| I'm sorry for You. I can see how you'd think that your software
| is providing society a service. And yet from my perspective your
| software is malware. I don't think you have considered the legal
| ramifications of your software in all markets where the app store
| is offered. Aside from the legal risk to You, there is also a
| reputational risk to Apple, a company trying to rebrand itself by
| focussing on privacy (CSAM nonwithstanding). Do you have
| safeguards that can 100% rule out the use of your App as spyware
| ? I think you should move on with your life.
| camhart wrote:
| It's not malware if it's voluntarily installed and wanted by
| the end user, provides a persistent notification indicating
| that monitoring is occurring, etc. These are the requirements
| Apple/Google have for parental control type apps.
|
| In case you didn't read the full description, Apple is allowing
| competitors to do the same thing.
|
| I've gone over privacy concerns with lawyers though I
| appreciate your concern/suggestions.
| threatofrain wrote:
| I also don't want Apple approving apps which can essentially
| take over everything and eliminate all safety or privacy
| guarantees... but this developer is also saying that Apple has
| approved competitors of the same nature.
|
| I don't know how accurate the fine details are, but this story
| in its broad outlines seems very unfair and capricious.
| Isthatablackgsd wrote:
| > I also don't want Apple approving apps which can
| essentially take over everything and eliminate all safety or
| privacy guarantees.
|
| Unfortunately, it won't happen because that would mean Apple
| need to ban MDM software from the App Store. Thousands of
| thousands of companies using MDM and it won't be a good move
| for Apple if they attempt to do so. Apple could do it, but
| they will lose profits, money talks louder than doing for the
| goodwill.
| camhart wrote:
| Competitors are allowed to capture screenshots randomly and
| send those screenshots to someone. The details are very
| similar. Interestingly enough, competitors don't end-to-end
| encrypt the data. Only I do that.
|
| If there was some little tweak that was super important to
| Apple, I'd hope they'd let me know about it instead of being
| silent though. I'm willing to adjust based on their feedback,
| but they say nothing.
| [deleted]
| umvi wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| It would be a bit less of an issue if Apple allowed apps
| outside of their store to be installed to begin with.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| tptacek wrote:
| You keep talking about kids, but your own advertising
| talks about _spouses_ using this. That 's considerably
| less benign.
| chris_wot wrote:
| Voluntarily using it. Not sure what is not benign about
| this.
| nerdjon wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| bastardoperator wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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?
| nyuszika7h wrote:
| > 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.
| btown wrote:
| 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.)
| chris_wot wrote:
| 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.
| jtbayly wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| OP clearly does not have children in 2021.
| mimimi31 wrote:
| 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)
|
| [2] https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/c
| rc.aspx
| jtbayly wrote:
| 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.
| cronix wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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?
| jackson1442 wrote:
| I would feel deeply uncomfortable if a parent (or anyone,
| really) were able to essentially listen in on every
| conversation I have. A tool that goes this far with
| monitoring really needs to be installed with consent from
| all parties.
| rhizome wrote:
| This kind of software is not used by people in healthy
| relationships.
| [deleted]
| indymike wrote:
| > And yet from my perspective your software is malware.
|
| At first I thought exactly this. This app is disclosing what it
| does, in the open. The product is very direct and clear what it
| does, and how it does it. One of the hallmarks of malware is
| that is is doing things without the user knowing, or in many
| cases wanting. The only way I would install this is if I wanted
| it to do exactly what it does.
|
| > Do you have safeguards that can 100% rule out the use of your
| App as spyware ?
|
| I'm not sure that this is really what is needed here. Any app
| with telemetry, especially screenshots could be used as
| spyware. In this case, the app is not hidden, is installed by
| the user, and it is very clear what it does. There's nothing
| clandestine or spy-ish about it. It is literally marketed
| saying this app will take and send screenshots to a person you
| pick.
|
| > I don't think you have considered the legal ramifications
|
| This is probably where the biggest potential problems really
| are: truple is collecting evidence that likely would be used
| against users in court - be it civil court where it could be
| used to prove you were doing something bad at 10am (you were
| chatting instead of working) last week or criminal court where
| the screenshot might be used as direct evidence of a crime.
| camhart wrote:
| With regards to the last point. Truple offers end-to-end
| encryption. We also permanently delete all accountability
| data once it's 15 days old. Not saying it's without risk,
| just that I've done everything I can to mitigate the risks of
| data getting into hands it shouldn't.
|
| Competitors currently allowed by Apple don't offer end-to-end
| encryption. Most delete data eventually, but 15 days is the
| shortest retention I'm aware of.
| Pigalowda wrote:
| Your app constantly surveils a subject and sends frequent random
| screen captures to a controller - no matter the activity.
|
| In order to eliminate a few sexual behaviors you've created an
| application that has serious potential for abuse and control. A
| well functioning adult will simply have a burner phone and the
| infected phone will only be used for "approved" uses. A minor or
| abused adult will stop using the phone and probably be isolated
| as a result. Which of their friend or family will want to have
| even benign communication with the subject knowing this app is
| installed (because they will).
|
| You're not a victim here.
| nightfly wrote:
| > You're not a victim here
|
| If the app was just rejected I'd agree. Freezing the account,
| and then _years_ later suggesting the user create a new account
| makes no sense.
| Pigalowda wrote:
| 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.
| nightfly wrote:
| That's not a fair strategy. Say if this developer has
| published several reasonable apps before this, that
| strategy would forever cut them off from updating those as
| well.
| Pigalowda wrote:
| I'm not trying to be abrasive here but I do believe it's
| fair collateral damage if your hypothetical scenario is
| true. If he lost update access to his other assets by
| trying to push this risk onto the app store, I'm ok with
| it.
|
| The app he made in our example is privacy degrading with
| control and abuse likely being its best feature. He took
| his shot.
| msh wrote:
| If someone with access to the phone installs the app, will the
| monitoring be obvious to a user who is the handed the phone?
|
| AKA if someone can install the app is it possible to use it to
| monitor someone without their knowledge?
| camhart wrote:
| There's a persistent notification that says "Truple -
| Screenshot Accountability" on it, and when it's clicked, it
| opens up the Truple app or menu depending on the platform.
| Competitors do a similar thing and aren't running into issues
| with Apple for it. If Apple had an issue with something like
| this, they should let me know and I'd adjust according to their
| feedback. I've asked--all I get back is silence.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| Are you sure competitors aren't struggling with App review as
| well?
| camhart wrote:
| They've had apps in the app store for years, and MacOS apps
| notarized. If they're struggling, they're at least able to
| work with Apple where I'm not.
| tptacek wrote:
| They're also more restricted than your app (one of them
| only works if you load the app by resetting the phone in
| iTunes; another always blurs screenshots; another only
| records screenshots from their own browser app).
|
| I think you're doing something the App Store simply
| doesn't want you to be doing, and it's hard to fault them
| for that.
| camhart wrote:
| This has nothing to do with the App Store. It's a MacOS
| app. None of the competitors require resetting a phone to
| use their MacOS app. Only one of the competitors requires
| blurring. None of them require a custom browser on MacOS.
| maven29 wrote:
| You could observe how Corporate MDM solutions approach the
| problem? For example, a replacement web browser, after forcing
| them to use the webapp? Actually use the MDM APIs?
|
| As an aside, shaming someone out of a impulsive habit may not be
| sustainable. I'd say that you're trying to cure a symptom rather
| than create room for self-reflection and encourage them to chase
| down the missing pieces and identify the root cause.
| camhart wrote:
| Holding people accountable doesn't require shaming. Truple
| isn't a silver bullet, but it is a tool that can be incredibly
| helpful.
|
| The MDM solutions all require enterprise developer accounts. I
| want to pursue one, but I hoped to get this resolved first.
| dj_mc_merlin wrote:
| I think what's really happening is your app is in a grey area.
| There's similar apps on the market which haven't been removed,
| and a mountain which have. Now yours has been removed since
| someone thought it straddled the line the wrong way too far, and
| there is no incentive to restore it. That would require affirming
| that they specifically condone it again. Nobody has any special
| interest in doing so.
|
| No matter how much you make concessions and try to obey the
| rules, a surveillance app is always shady. Much like brothels
| still have a shady atmosphere even where it's legal. Some markets
| are so.
| nerdjon wrote:
| You said other apps are fine, but are those other apps
| advertising themselves as parental controls or as stalking
| software?
|
| I took a look at your website https://truple.io and... there is
| very little mention of this being for parents. TBH looking at the
| website is... deeply concerning for anyone that would
| legitimately want to use this product. Especially on a spouse?!?
|
| I am willing to bet part of the issue is the targeting for this
| app. The functionality is likely second, but they may have
| special rules when it comes to parental apps. But there is a very
| very fine line there that can be dangerous when it comes to
| surveillance.
|
| Last... I find your focus on "online filth" insulting.
| DavidSJ wrote:
| Note that parental control apps are a type of stalking
| software; it's just that society is okay with it.
| comeonseriously wrote:
| > I am willing to bet part of the issue is the targeting for
| this app.
|
| Then why can't Apple just fucking say that? Why all the stupid
| drama?
| tptacek wrote:
| Likely for the same reason that not every rule about
| combating spam and promotion on HN is public: because if you
| document them all, you're providing a blueprint to bad actors
| for how to get around the rules.
| datavirtue wrote:
| Integrity by obscurity?
| tptacek wrote:
| If you find that concept jarring, I think you'd be
| surprised by how much of security, compliance, privacy,
| and anti-spam is facilitated in part by obscurity. These
| tasks are about imposing costs --- ideally untenable
| costs --- on bad actors; obscurity has a cost as well.
|
| There are times when obscurity isn't OK (notably, when it
| prevents other good actors from verifying the security of
| a piece of software), but this isn't one of those times.
| noduerme wrote:
| I feel so gross after looking at that site I think I need to
| watch some porn.
| camhart wrote:
| > You said other apps are fine, but are those other apps
| advertising themselves as parental controls or as stalking
| software?
|
| Search for "accountability software", and you'll find apps
| advertised in a very similar manner that have had no issues
| with Apple, with absolutely no mentioning of parental controls.
|
| > I took a look at your website https://truple.io and... there
| is very little mention of this being for parents. TBH looking
| at the website is... deeply concerning for anyone that would
| legitimately want to use this product. Especially on a
| spouse?!?
|
| It's used voluntarily by the device owner. It's not used "on"
| anyone. The whole point of this is to provide accountability.
| Including a comment from below I'd hoped would get pinned:
| "Some may not agree with the use of parental
| control/accountability software. That's fine. Truple is not
| designed for you. There are tons of people who are negatively
| impacted by technology and they desperately need/want help.
| They should have the option to get it, and there should be
| competition in the space to deliver the best product for them.
| In today's world, using the internet is a part of life, and
| isn't something you can reasonably go without. Truple was built
| to help people learn to use technology responsibly with the
| help of their loved ones."
|
| > Last... I find your focus on "online filth" insulting.
|
| Online filth was intended to generalize the concerns, not focus
| them.
| tptacek wrote:
| What are some of the comparable applications you're thinking
| about? Can you link to them? You know more about the space
| than most of us, so help us out a bit.
| camhart wrote:
| I've been hesitant to do so. Look at the top several
| results from
| https://www.google.com/search?q=porn+accountability+app for
| apps that don't even try to advertise as parental focused
| apps.
|
| If you want direct links, send me an email (you can find it
| in my profile).
| tptacek wrote:
| For instance, "Covenant Eye" (which: holy shit, how
| creepy is this!) always blurs screenshots. Yours
| apparently does opt-in blurring.
|
| I'm interested in the detective project of figuring out
| what red lines your app may have crossed, just because
| it's interesting. But cards on the table: none of these
| apps should be allowed on the app store. Maybe Apple just
| hasn't gotten around to shutting down "Covenant Eye" yet.
| jtbayly wrote:
| Should I, or should I not be allowed to run whatever
| applications I want on my phone?
|
| Should I, or should I not be forbidden from filtering the
| internet _for myself_? Meanwhile, the content I see is
| filtered by FB, Twitter, etc. Why should their desires
| rule mine on my device?
|
| Should I, or should I not be forbidden from seeking help
| accomplishing my own goals for online use, in particular
| accountability for giving up various addictions?
| Meanwhile, FB and Twitter are allowed to know what I
| view, but I'm not allowed to let anybody else know what I
| view. Why should they be able to hold me accountable,
| while I'm not allowed to seek accountability from anybody
| else?
| tptacek wrote:
| You're asking me? Ok: it should not be possible for you
| to install surreptitious screen recording software on an
| iPhone. The problem isn't that this app got blocked; it's
| that all the other ones (except _maybe_ that one app that
| only records screenshots when you use _their browser_ )
| aren't banned.
|
| But this is totally besides the point. We're not
| discussing what Apple's rules _ought_ to be. We 're
| trying to help figure out what they _are_. That 's what
| the author of this app asked us to do.
| jtbayly wrote:
| 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.
| camhart wrote:
| > it should not be possible for you to install
| surreptitious screen recording software on an iPhone.
|
| I agree with this 100%. It should not be possible on any
| platform. Key word there being surreptitious.
|
| To clarify, your comments are about iOS apps. Look at
| their MacOS apps, and it's a different story. The capture
| the entire devices screen, not just the web browser. And
| several competitors do it.
| jtbayly wrote:
| FTA: "I've made sure since day one that a "reasonably
| suspicious" notification is present when the app is
| monitoring."
|
| So are you still sure I should never be allowed to run
| this code on _my_ phone?
| tptacek wrote:
| "Ever Accountable", another example, only works for a
| small list of applications --- if you're not on their
| VPN, you even have to use their browser. Your application
| takes _random screenshots_ and advertises that it 's hard
| to bypass, which is kind of the opposite of what "Ever
| Accountable" claims.
| tptacek wrote:
| For "OurPact", the third comparable app, there's this fun
| review:
|
| _For the "premium" level with all the controls (which
| frankly is the service level any responsible parent will
| want), you have to back each kid's phone up to iTunes on
| your (parent) laptop, then erase and reinstall each one
| with a new OurPact-controlled OS._
|
| I'm starting to see a pattern here.
| camhart wrote:
| Look at the MacOS app.
| tptacek wrote:
| Respectfully, no. The Mac App store is not interesting in
| this discussion; you can install any app your want on a
| Mac (not necessarily via the App Store, but that's fine
| for a number of very big businesses that ship Mac
| software). What we're interested in here is the iOS App
| Store, which is the only way to realistically install
| commercial software on an iPhone.
| camhart wrote:
| This entire discussion is about Mac apps. My account was
| frozen when I attempted to notarize a MacOS app. I have
| not (yet) tried to submit an iOS app.
| tptacek wrote:
| Oh! That makes a lot more sense. Disregard my previous
| comment! ("Notarization" should have been my tip-off).
|
| ... why are you trying to sell this app via the Mac App
| Store in the first place?
| camhart wrote:
| I'm not trying to distribute through the Mac App Store.
| Notarization is required for MacOS apps as of several
| years ago, unless you bypass gatekeeper.
| scythe wrote:
| >filth
|
| This is a sort of "smelly" word to see in an advertisement,
| in that referring to material as "filth" brings up
| memories/images of, for want of a better phrase, cultural
| intolerance. You may get better reception by calling such
| content "improper" or something less emotionally charged.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| > Search for "accountability software", and you'll find apps
| advertised in a very similar manner
|
| I googled a bit and found [1] and [2]. Their marketing is
| very very different from yours [3].
|
| [1] looks very tasteful, considering they are basically
| spyware. It's a very positive spin with great copywriting.
|
| [2] gives me some Christian vibes, it's not for me, but it
| still looks decent.
|
| [3] on the other hand just looks really creepy. The copy is
| awkward and the hectic GIF with the screenshots and the
| bikini picture just gives me stalker vibes.
|
| It's a question of taste. Great Mac and iPhone are done very
| tastefully. Truple is missing that.
|
| (That doesn't mean that Apple only approves tasteful apps.
| There are a lot of poorly designed apps on the app store. But
| if you are doing something even slightly questionable, and
| your app looks a bit creepy, then Apple is not going to go
| out of their way to help you get it out there, even if you
| aren't breaking any explicit rules.)
|
| [1]: https://accountable2you.com [2]:
| https://everaccountable.com/ref/61/ [3]: https://truple.io
| mdoms wrote:
| > It's a question of taste. Great Mac and iPhone are done
| very tastefully. Truple is missing that.
|
| It is wild to me that there is a megacorporation whose
| subjective opinion of "tastefulness" (based on their own
| North American cultural norms) is a gate to software
| delivery and that there is an entire category of users who
| actually think this is a good thing.
| calsy wrote:
| The issue in this case is the 'spyware' nature of the
| app, rather than any matter of taste.
| nerdjon wrote:
| I looked up a few alternatives and your website and marketing
| tell a very different story.
|
| "Online filth" is in your website header, so your kinda
| focusing on them. I looked at the reviews and your most
| recent one continues to reinforce something about "filth" htt
| ps://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.camhart.ne...
|
| As far as not being used "on" someone. Again you have reviews
| from Spouses and Parents which would imply they are being
| used "on" someone. Something I noticed the other apps focus
| on is individual accountability. I see almost no reference to
| spouses or parents there. Just having some you trust to be
| accountable too.
|
| Your first line on google play says "Truple protects your
| loved ones against porn & other online filth. It holds your
| loved ones accountable in a way that's near impossible to
| bypass by capturing and sharing screenshots." How exactly is
| that not it being "used on anyone"?
|
| Your marketing around this tells a story of surveillance
| trying to pass it off as some "good" where accountability is
| a secondary issue. While here you are focused on
| accountability.
|
| And personally I have to wonder if Apple takes this into
| account when approving apps (which I assume they do)
| akyoan wrote:
| I don't get this. Porn is filth. What's the problem with
| that categorization? We can't both classify it as "oh it
| empowers women" and "lest a penis ever be shown anywhere."
|
| Which one is it?
|
| Edit: lol @ "flagged"
|
| Buncha idiots. Answer my question instead.
| camhart wrote:
| Suppose I'm addicted to porn and that it's damaging my
| marriage. I want to be free of it. But when I pick my phone
| up, I'm tempted to view it. I know I want to be free of it.
| I don't want my life to suffer any more as a result of it.
| But I need help, because in those weaker moments my will
| power isn't sufficient. This is where making it difficult
| to bypass comes in. Keep in mind difficult do bypass
| doesn't equal "can't be removed", it means it can be
| removed but an alert is sent if it is removed. They can't
| bypass it without triggering an alert, therefore it's not
| been bypassed (at least by my definition/use of the word
| bypass).
| detaro wrote:
| You don't seem to be engaging with the parents point
| about your messaging at all with this comment. FWIW, this
| all reads like an excellent demonstration why this
| category of app isn't trusted.
| nerdjon wrote:
| Again you are saying something very different here than
| any of your marketing.
|
| If _you_ want to make the choice to stop watching porn,
| that is fine. If _you_ want to use software like this and
| you want to ask your spouse to help, that is fine.
|
| But your marketing, your google play listing that I
| quoted it is not _you_ making the choice. It is someone
| else "protecting" you and making the choice.
|
| Quoting an exact quote from your google play listing. The
| very first sentence:
|
| "Truple protects your loved ones against porn & other
| online filth. It holds your loved ones accountable in a
| way that's near impossible to bypass by capturing and
| sharing screenshots."
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| What if it said:
|
| "Truple holds YOU accountable in a way that's near
| impossible to bypass by capturing and sharing
| screenshots."
| camhart wrote:
| It used to say you. I adjusted the Google Play
| description due to changes in Google Plays Developer
| Agreement.
|
| See https://web.archive.org/web/20200216145020/https://pl
| ay.goog...
| nerdjon wrote:
| Then at least what the OP is saying here and what the
| marketing said would align.
|
| But at this time, there is one story of what this app
| does here (hacker news) and a completely different story
| from what is being told on the website and marketing.
|
| The other apps that they are saying had no issues with
| approval, follow the story that is being told here.
|
| I don't think it changes the problematic nature of the
| app. But they are claiming to be the same as the other
| app but there is a dramatic difference in how the
| capabilities of the app is communicated to Apple and
| users.
| camhart wrote:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20190424203239/https://truple
| .io... is the landing page when the original version of
| the app was submitted for notarization. Since you're
| digging into the ad copy, we might as well be looking at
| the appropriate website.
|
| It's not two stories... I include customer reviews on my
| landing page that show spouses, individuals, and parents
| feedback because all benefit from it.
|
| The Google Play app description is adjusted to be more in
| alignment with Google Play Developer Agreement policies,
| which states the the only exception for this is for use
| as parental control apps. Other apps are in violation on
| Google Play, yet they remain. See
| https://blog.truple.io/2021/07/28/changes-to-google-play-
| pol....
|
| To clarify, keeping Google, Apple, and everyone else
| happy with the wording in the marketing seems to demand
| walking a razers edge. I've done my best to comply
| appropriately for each platform. It's a disservice to the
| conversation for you to pull in the Google Play listing,
| make accusations about me/Truple as a result, and not
| have the full picture. I've shared more in this post than
| I originally cared to in order to provide the bigger
| picture. I'm not trying to hide anything here, but there
| are reasons other than malicious intent for why things
| are worded the way they are and instead of leaping to
| those conclusions you could instead ask why.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| To be honest, I don't believe you. "Our app will only be
| used by people on themselves in order to change their own
| behavior" is a wildly implausible use case to focus on
| for what is effectively spyware.
|
| My takeaway is that I'm beginning to think that Apple was
| correct in blocking your app.
| aetch wrote:
| You need to tell us what gym you go to because your
| mental gymnastics are on another level.
| zokier wrote:
| 2.5 years sounds pretty extreme. Not from Apples part (its pretty
| on-brand), but on your part.. To me it sounds like it would be
| time to just leave the platform behind and move on with your
| life? Ask yourself is it really worthwhile to fight the uphill
| battle against Apple to get your app approved?
| krisoft wrote:
| Is it really a fight though? Presumably they send a letter
| every x month, and do other things with their life in the
| meantime.
| camhart wrote:
| I don't intend to throw in the towel until I've exhausted my
| options. I'd hoped that being patient would garner favor with
| Apple. This has proven it doesn't.
|
| Personally speaking, I also fear rejection/failure. Dealing
| with this has been extremely difficult for me emotionally.
| nyuszika7h wrote:
| 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.
| openthc wrote:
| Hmm, ages ago we added a cannabis related app on Apple/iOS -- and
| there were loads of other (small-ish) already on there -- to help
| grow, or find (to buy) or to review cannabis products.
|
| Ours was for regualtory compliance -- a legal obligation for
| cannabis businesses. REJECTED! And after a 6mo appeal/review
| process -- with moving goal-posts -- we were allowed back in.
| YAY.
|
| And then they started getting into the application and making
| demands -- one was to use their payment systems -- which was BS,
| because our clients get into the App, and use it most of the time
| outside of Apple devices (ie: Desktop in Browser). So another
| round, 3mo later and they'd not force the payment issue.
|
| And the next review required us to remove any details about
| pricing from our application -- not our app pricing -- but the
| pricing for the inventory under management. So, users, in-app,
| couldn't see the regulatory compliance data: price of product
| sold; in the APP. But we pushed through! and finally got
| published in the App Store!! Yay!
|
| And one month later we had to renew our Apple Developer -- cause
| this whole thing took 11 months of back/forth with Apple.
|
| Then we got clients using it (finally!) and the clients were all
| grumpy cause the features were gone. Then another two more years
| with us trying to Apple trying to improve our App.
|
| An last year, we just bailed on the App Store and have given up.
|
| What's super frustrating is since we initially tried our process
| (starting in 2016) -- other cannabis apps, with pricing and
| online ordering and all this stuff that we were NOT allowed to do
| are in the store.
| ghostly_s wrote:
| What regulation requires you to publish an app? That strikes me
| as very unusual.
| openthc wrote:
| Nothing requires us to publish an app -- but when you make
| LOB software, the user-base is like "where's the App?" -- so
| you build one. It's not a strict, absolute requirement --
| it's a de-facto requirement (like passing to the left)
| FourHand451 wrote:
| It's kind of sad that we went from "there's an app for that" to
| Apple themselves being a huge obstacle to making useful,
| feature-rich mobile software. I used to think writing an app
| would be a fun side project or that a job in mobile development
| could be cool. These days I don't want to touch it with a six
| foot pole.
| sneak wrote:
| > _Ours was for regualtory compliance -- a legal obligation for
| cannabis businesses._
|
| Cannabis businesses are illegal to operate in the United
| States, where Apple resides. Possession and distribution of
| cannabis is a federal felony in all 50 states and US
| territories.
|
| This is an issue with the United States, not with Apple.
|
| The lack of side loading is an Apple issue, but if you are
| going to make that argument (and you should!) then the cannabis
| app rejection is a red herring.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| We really have to get away from having only a few mega-powerful
| providers for such services to having smaller providers that
| actually compete with each other. It's insane that Apple has
| full control of what goes onto devices that have such a
| significant market share. The app store(s) should be run by
| different that do the app reviews and allow apps by their own
| guidelines. So if you want a cannabis or porn app you can go to
| an app store that allows these apps and if you like a more
| family friendly store you go to another app store.
|
| The censorship abilities these companies have is just too much.
| I don't like Trump but it really bothered me that Facebook and
| Twitter blocked him. If the block the US president how many
| smaller guys are being censored and you never will know?
| datavirtue wrote:
| Content and distribution by a single entity...keeps rearing
| its head.
| coupdejarnac wrote:
| Who the fuck has time for this bullshit? I don't miss
| developing mobile apps.
| T3RMINATED wrote:
| This is my favorite app for stalking my wife! its incredible!
| Jonovono wrote:
| I think we will be moving back to web apps (PWA). The app store
| was always a hack and the web3 movement is incompatable with app
| stores.
|
| I'm working on a mobile browser for PWAs
| https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/wapps-private-minimal-browser/...
| vmception wrote:
| Web3 is its own ecosystem fortunately
|
| Its just the people trying to provide a service to a crowd that
| still needs to be onboarded to Web3 who find the problems
|
| Just cater to Web3 users, there are trillions of dollars of
| value already in the ecosystem which can be used for
| investment, revenue, goods and services
|
| The people that want dollars are such a small portion at any
| given point in time, which is perfect
|
| I've never thought "wish this was on the App Store"
| evancoop wrote:
| 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 case, must anger
| some subset of the people on this thread.
|
| So really, the debate is "who is a valid arbiter?" On what basis
| should the authority to deny access to a platform/market be
| granted or revoked? It seems that discussion is, to date, wholly
| inadequate.
| tayistay wrote:
| I make rather nerdy music and art apps full time, and being shut
| down by Apple still worries me. What if I said the wrong thing on
| twitter? Very unlikely but it pisses me off that they can push
| the cancel button on by business. I didn't really realize this
| until the past few years, with significant time invested in the
| platform.
| pc86 wrote:
| Short version: Nothing.
|
| Long version: Nothing; get over it.
|
| Also, you've been paying for a locked developer account for 2.5
| years?
| bborud wrote:
| 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)
| camhart wrote:
| The hesitancy to approve is understood on my part. Have a child
| who's negatively impacted by tech though, or be married to
| someone who is, or attend an addiction recovery group for any
| online addiction, and you'll be persuaded otherwise. Apple
| allows parental control apps.
| agentdrtran wrote:
| The business in this case is from a religious extremist and
| this kind of software is very frequently used without the
| user's consent.
| jgod wrote:
| That's very libelous of you.
|
| You may like you and your young children being able to stream
| unlimited hardcore pornography to their iPads, but that
| doesn't mean other people have to like and allow it for
| themselves.
| chris_wot wrote:
| Do you have any evidence of the software being used without
| the end user's consent?
| NationalPark wrote:
| Isn't that all electronic businesses? I don't think anyone
| except maybe netflix actually controls their entire networking
| infrastructure. CDNs and cloud computing businesses make
| arbitrary decisions all the time. Payment processors,
| publishers..
| bogwog wrote:
| Ignore the people calling you malware here. They're just Apple
| fanboys who have never tried to run a business before.
|
| Your app sounds like it offers real value and is actually
| innovating. Apple is destroying your business at their
| discretion, for seemingly no reason.
|
| Have you consulted with any lawyers? If they're suspending your
| account without any cause, I think that counts as a breach of
| contract on their end. And if there were are a lot of competitors
| popping up in the past 2.5 years, you could potentially even
| calculate some hefty damages beyond just the $99/year Apple tax.
| camhart wrote:
| I appreciate this. Thank you. I'm sorry you were down voted at
| my defense.
|
| > Your app sounds like it offers real value and is actually
| innovating. Apple is destroying your business at their
| discretion, for seemingly no reason. People really get fired up
| about apps like this, but few people can say they've built
| software that has saved marriages and helped parents to raise
| their children. I honestly can and am honored and grateful to
| be able to do it.
|
| I have not yet consulted lawyers on it. That's one of the next
| steps I'd been considering if I can't make "going public"
| helpful.
| tptacek wrote:
| They weren't downvoted for your defense; they were downvoted
| for belittling everyone else on the thread, which is
| straightforwardly against the HN guidelines, which you can
| read via the link at the bottom of the page.
|
| I see a lot of people here who are critical of the app you're
| trying to sell but also doing their best to be helpful. If
| you're looking for a cheering section, you're probably not
| going to find it here; you asked a question in your post, and
| it is being answered, thoughtfully and thoroughly.
| camhart wrote:
| Malware definition: software that is specifically designed
| to disrupt, damage, or gain unauthorized access to a
| computer system.
|
| Truple doesn't do that.
| tptacek wrote:
| It would have been perfectly reasonable for the now-
| flagkilled parent comment to have made that argument
| about the definition of malware without calling everyone
| on the thread an "Apple fanboy". They chose not to. See
| what happens?
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Also, this is not really a forum full of "Apple Fanboys".
| People are regularly and vocally critical of Apple's
| decisions here.
|
| Arguably defending Apple's App Store policies is the
| controversial take on this forum.
| mdoms wrote:
| Stop tending other peoples' gardens. I don't write software for
| any device if I need to ask permission from some faceless billion
| dollar corporation. I write software I can manage myself.
| SrslyJosh wrote:
| Sounds like an invasion of privacy that will be forced on people
| who can't provide meaningful consent.
| camhart wrote:
| A computer sounds like a hacking device used for ransomware.
| Just because a tool has one possible negative use (which I do
| everything I can think of to protect against) doesn't discount
| it's valid use cases and bar it from being used.
| kingcharles wrote:
| This is going to sound facetious, but at what point do you have
| to create an entirely new identity for yourself? Change your
| name, perhaps get a passport from another nation that legally
| sells citizenship, perhaps get a new SSN, just to get around
| issues like this?
|
| I guess an alternative would be to rent the identity of a
| homeless person, or perhaps the ID of someone on death row?
| agentdrtran wrote:
| You develop stalkerware, Apple booting apps like you is one of
| the few good aspects of the app store.
| supermatt wrote:
| Fortunately you have an android app, so you are able to use
| available statistics to estimate loss of earnings.
|
| That may be enough to generate enough interest for you to find
| some form of "no win no fee" legal representation on a matter
| which I admittedly have no clue about.
|
| Good luck!
| camhart wrote:
| I've thought about this... but Apple's developer agreement has
| some wording in it that makes me believe it may not be
| possible. I'm no lawyer, so it's certainly something I could
| ask if I go the legal route.
|
| Thanks for the suggestion!
|
| > Apple shall not be responsible for any costs, expenses,
| damages, losses or other liabilities You may incur as a result
| of Your Application development, use of the Apple Software,
| Apple Services (including this digital notary service), or
| Apple Certificates, tickets, or participation in the Program,
| including without limitation the fact that Apple performs
| security checks on Your Application.
|
| https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/terms/apple-de...
| oneplane wrote:
| Your software sounds like malware. If I came across it I would
| probably make a YARA rule against it to purge it from any managed
| network I control.
| jgod wrote:
| Your managed network sounds like malware. It intercepts,
| hijacks, records, blocks, etc. -- and all without the need for
| the user's continuous permission and knowledge.
| chris_wot wrote:
| I think that's a valid point. Does their managed network do
| monitoring? Isn't that as bad as this app?
| [deleted]
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| Small claims court?
| camhart wrote:
| Thanks for the suggestion. If I can't get anywhere with "going
| public" about the issue, that's the only other potential
| solution I can think of. Not one I _want_ to have to use
| though...
| brookside wrote:
| Small claims court is for what it sounds like - small claims (<
| 5-10k depending on state).
| inetsee wrote:
| I am not a lawyer, but I doubt if Small Claims Court would be
| useful. I doubt if a judge would/could compel Apple to restore
| your Developer account. The best you might expect from that
| route might be to get Apple to refund any fees you paid for the
| Developer account.
| NationalPark wrote:
| He doesn't have a small claim, he wants a specific performance,
| that is he would be suing to have a judge force Apple to
| contract with his business. For that, with that opponent, you
| would need a whole legal team.
| amelius wrote:
| Parental control sounds like something the OS should do, not an
| app. From that viewpoint, I think you chose an application that
| inherently has a risk of being taken over by Apple, and frankly,
| you should not be surprised that something like this happened.
| camhart wrote:
| Whether I agree or not, they aren't doing it. They've had
| decades to build it in, but what is built in sucks and is
| easily bypassed. See https://protectyoungeyes.com/12-ingenious-
| screen-time-hacks-....
|
| While I wasn't so aware of the risk when I started, I've
| learned plenty about it over the past 4.5 years.
|
| > frankly, you should not be surprised that something like this
| happened. Did you read the whole description? The surprising
| thing is the unfair (unequal) treatment, the silence on their
| part, and the long delay.
| amelius wrote:
| Ok, but with parental control you are trying to control other
| apps. Apple does not like that. They want apps to stay in
| their own sandbox and mind their own business. I agree with
| you, but given Apple's strong determination to control
| everything on their platform, what you tried was just doomed
| to fail from the start.
| verall wrote:
| I thought the point is that it is easily bypassed or
| disabled, so in a coercive or sensitive situation the
| physical holder of the phone can take control.
| anaisbetts wrote:
| Yikes, this app is gross. Good on Apple for keeping you off their
| store.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-15 23:01 UTC)