
Apple has removed or restricted several screen-time and parental-control apps - pseudolus
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/technology/apple-screen-time-trackers.html
======
miki123211
So, let's get the facts straight here:

1\. The apps used MDM profiles, intedned for control of employee's smartphones
and/or vpns to filter access to apps.

2\. Those approaches gave the app makers enormous control over the devices. If
they used vpns, _all_ internet traffic from the device could be intercepted.
If they used MDM profiles, they had deep access to all the device's settings.
It was a _huge_ privacy risk.

3\. This was clearly against Apple's policies. APIs were used for the purpose
they were not intended for. That was what Facebooks's certificates were
revoked for. They should've feared removal since the day they wrote their
first line of code.

4\. I guess that Apple understood the need for parental control apps and
allowed them, with the privacy risks, as there was no other way to get
parental control at the time.

5\. Apple knew how important iPhone addiction has become and developed their
own, privacy respecting solution, screen Time.

6\. The need for parental control has now been filled and the privacy risks of
those apps now outweigh the benefits. Apple made the decision to remove.

7\. Apple, in general, doesn't allow other apps to access such information on
your device, for privacy and security reasons. It's a bit anti competitive,
yes, it limits what app makers can do, but it makes iOs secure. There's no
other way to do it, and that's what many people don't understand. Apple's
philosophy sacrifices some features you might have for your own security. If
you're not fine with it, use Android and sideload, but don't run screaming to
the police when it suddenly turns out that the online banking app you've just
installed was a very good fake. [1].

[1] [https://www.tahawultech.com/industry/technology/android-
warn...](https://www.tahawultech.com/industry/technology/android-warning-fake-
banking-apps-on-the-rise/)

~~~
sigmar
>It's a bit anti competitive, yes, it limits what app makers can do, but it
makes iOs secure. There's no other way to do it, and that's what many people
don't understand.

Doesn't it seem weird to you how they only cared about "making iOS secure"
once they had their own product?

If Google or Microsoft did this the reaction here on HN would be so different.
Any anti-competitive practice could be rationalized by saying it makes the
platform more secure.

~~~
floatingatoll
If you’re building something and you lift up a rock and find a lot of weird
solutions to a problem you’d never really thought through crawling under it,
what would you do?

1) Ban them immediately, no matter how necessary to parents, as the risk of
tracking/stalking of all iPhone users is unacceptable

2) Build a safer solution that can’t be harnessed for tracking/stalking, and
then ban all solutions that can be used for tracking/stalking

Seems like they chose the latter. It’s easy to construct a case for why it is
technically inappropriate to allow third-party apps in this space, that I
personally boil down primarily to “a frequently-abused chance for corporate
entities to monetize the user data of minors”.

Apple took years to implement content filtering, and did so in a way that
prohibits applications from knowing whether their filters are ever exercised,
as otherwise Facebook and other malicious entities would long ago have added a
filter for ^(.*)$ to transmit every request to third-party servers. Is their
refusal to permit otherwise anti-competitive, security-forward, or both?

Apple, if I understand correctly, prohibits third-party keyboards in certain
password-type dialogs on iOS because keyboard apps are allowed to send network
requests. (They are allowed to do so because e.g. GIF search.) Is this
prohibition anti-competitive, security-forward, or both?

We as a community need to become a lot more careful with use of the phrase
“anti-competitive”, as many industry-standard security practices that we would
demand of any product we build and use are then labeled “anti-competitive”
solely when they interfere with us doing anything we like, or when they’re
done by an organization that doesn’t share its internal discussions with us
when making decisions on our behalf.

Is it appropriate to stifle the competition for my personal data, even if that
is, in a literalistic interpretation, anti-competitive?

I sure hope so.

~~~
JadeNB
> If you’re building something and you lift up a rock and find a lot of weird
> solutions to a problem you’d never really thought through crawling under it,
> what would you do?

> 1) Ban them immediately, no matter how necessary to parents, as the risk of
> tracking/stalking of all iPhone users is unacceptable

> 2) Build a safer solution that can’t be harnessed for tracking/stalking, and
> then ban all solutions that can be used for tracking/stalking

Surely the correct answer, if the solution is really so valuable that it
cannot be done without in the time it would take to come up with a safe
solution, is

3) tell the programmers of the potentially privacy-violating solutions that
they'll be banned once you do (2), _then_ do (2);

or arguably even

4) do (3), and, in the meantime, display a hard-to-ignore dialogue on
installation that warns "this app may violate your privacy, and will be
automatically uninstalled once Apple's safer solution is available. Do you
wish to proceed?"

?

~~~
floatingatoll
ESR-type freedom fighters typically suggest that the priority should be on
one’s freedom to shoot your own foot off with a footgun, as long as the
footgun has clear warnings. This idealism commonly places absolute freedom as
the number one priority, leaving no room for competing priorities such as the
safety and welfare of those who are unable to make sensible judgement calls
regarding footgun operation.

I have watched expert users infect themselves with malware faster than I can
open my mouth to warn them that they’ve just unthinkingly clicked Next and
blown their foot off, and then had to help them wipe their installation and
start over.

I do not consider the current world we live in to be one where it is safe to
prioritize absolute freedom over all other concerns. I accept that this puts
me at odds with those that do, but as I watch them shoot their own feet off, I
am grateful that I chose a more pragmatic path. I am grateful that a safer
path is available for those who are unable to comprehend the severities of the
risks they are defended against.

The solution you propose is no different than saying that the safety on a gun
is sufficient to protect someone from accidentally shooting themselves with
it. I do not agree with your assumptions, and I think the solution you
describe is selfish and neglectful. You prioritize your ideals over the
welfare of others unable to avoid paying the price you think yourself able to
dodge. Your choice is abhorrent to me, and pushes me further away from the
absolutist freedoms you espouse. Consider carefully in the future whether your
argument as presented today helps or harms your cause.

~~~
JadeNB
> You prioritize your ideals over the welfare of others unable to avoid paying
> the price you think yourself able to dodge.

Wow, that's a lot of assumptions. Both my (3) and (4) include "then do (2)",
which seemed to be the solution you were proposing; they just more clearly
communicated to developers that (2) was coming, and more clearly communicated
to users the consequences of implementing half-baked solutions before (2) was
done. I can imagine a lot of practical problems with what I suggested, but
it's hard for me to see how increasing the communication in either or both of
the ways that I proposed, _while also doing what_ (it seems) _you 're
proposing_ (and what Apple did), constitutes adherence to a selfish ideal.

------
bArray
I'm pretty sure if Microsoft can be successfully sued for anti-competitive
practices for shipping Microsoft only with Internet Explorer [1], Apple should
also be sued for this. This isn't the first time or last time they've pulled
this stunt either, just look at Spotify [2]. Just because they own and run the
market place doesn't mean it is without regulation.

There may be an even bigger case if you consider proprietary connectors, Apple
certification chips (which is a whole other scam if you've ever worked with
them) and third party repair. People must be allowed to choose, even if there
is some acceptance of fault upon things not working correctly.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp).

[2] [https://www.ccn.com/spotify-smacks-apple-with-antitrust-
comp...](https://www.ccn.com/spotify-smacks-apple-with-antitrust-complaint-
over-predatory-30-tax)

~~~
kristianc
> Just because they own and run the market place doesn't mean it is without
> regulation.

That's exactly what Apple is doing - in this case protecting their ecosystem
from providers that use undocumented APIs and MDMs whose business model is
fingerprinting customers and selling to advertisers.

What exactly do people expect of Apple here? Apple gets criticized if it
doesn't take a hard line on customer privacy, but when it does exactly that it
is abusing monopoly power and needs to be regulated and broken up.

If people want third party app stores that's fine, but let's be very clear
about what that means. It is going to come with compromises in terms of crappy
UX, dark patterns, privacy violations, private APIs and all sorts of stuff
that users pretty much hate.

~~~
judge2020
The issue is that the moment you introduce the third-party app store, these
gambling, privacy-disrespecting apps will flourish. That unique Advertising
identifier is now worthless if they can just target ads based off of <more
permanent unique ID>. All of the private APIs, like getting your phone's
actual Tel number, will now be used and sent off to Facebook. Overall, your
phone becomes just as "free" as android, and just as "apps can do anything,
even if it's bad" as Android.

~~~
saagarjha
I’m pretty sure the APIs to get the device’s phone number, along with most
other identifying characteristics, are gated behind entitlements that Apple
will not grant third party developers.

------
pandatigox
After reading miki123211's comment and doing some further research, I am
peeved at the article's blatant bias to portray Apple negatively. The
developers knew that they were circumventing the rules, as shown Apple's
response, but pretend to be the victims and complain that they can't
understand Apple's feedback.

I suppose this also goes back to the bigger picture in society. We have been
trained to root for the underdogs, while the faceless corporation is always to
blame. Apple has been consistent in its effort to make iOS secure, but public
opinion keeps changing depending on whether it causes them an inconvenience.
When Apple refuses to comply with the FBI, Apple good. When Apple removes apps
that violate privacy and weakens security, Apple bad.

~~~
talkingtab
I agree that we need a full and complete understanding rather than a
simplistic one. miki123211's response adds to that, but a fuller picture is
that

\- companies were using IOS to serve a legitimate need that Apple did not.

\- As noted this was done by subverting an API

\- Apple tolerated this (did they not know or not care or ?)

\- Apple released a competitive product with a new API

\- Apple begins removing products using the old methods

The question is whether Apple is allowing _existing_ products to migrate to
the new API or are they locked out? If existing products cannot use the same
API then my sense is that Apple is indeed being anti-competitive.

~~~
saagarjha
Apple’s competitive product (namely, Screen Time) has no API. It’s a system
level feature that no third-party app has access to.

~~~
mkozlows
Which is not a fact of nature, but a decision that Apple made.

~~~
seandougall
Is it impossible to believe that was a legitimate security decision? How would
you implement such an API and prevent developers from abusing it for spyware
purposes? Personally, even though I opt into sharing app-specific usage data
with developers, I don’t particularly want my global device-level usage
statistics available to any random app that also has network entitlements.

------
CriticalCathed
It is a shame that the Apple Walled Garden prevents customers from being able
to purchase and use the software that they want.

Seems inefficient. And potentially anti-competitive.

>Spotify complained to European regulators last month that Apple used the App
Store to give its Apple Music service an unfair advantage over Spotify’s
competing app. Dutch regulators announced this month that they would
investigate whether Apple abused its control of the App Store.

Funny that Europe of all places ends up being more pro-market than the
'States.

>In the United States, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a Democratic
candidate for president, recently suggested separating the App Store from
Apple as part of her proposal to rein in the American tech giants.

Though, maybe that will change.

~~~
gumby
> Funny that Europe of all places ends up being more pro-market than the
> 'States.

Why should that be funny? The EU is explicitly pro trade and has much cheaper
telecoms, air travel, and many other items thanks to aggressive pro
competition policy. They forced Microsoft unbundle explorer.

In fact they have a very powerful competition commissioner unlike the us which
has no such, and where antitrust has been systematically watered down for
almost 40 years.

~~~
crumpets
Being pro-trade and pro-competition very often means not actually being for a
free market. Policies that dictate what apple can do with its iphones’ app
access might be “pro competition”, but the regulation used is against free
markets.

The free market argument would be to let Apple do what it wants with its
products. A “competition commissioner” is antithetical to that.

~~~
threeseed
Free market != allowing companies like Apple to do what they want.

Even in a free market there are regulations in particular around around anti-
competitive conduct.

------
kristianc
I'm not sure you can have it both ways: you can't complain on the one hand
about the likes of Facebook having access to undocumented APIs, and on the
other expect apps which make use of these APIs (even for social good) to not
get removed from the App Store.

We had the wild west of apps with the Windows ecosystem and it ended in
malware, viruses and spyware. Even with appropriate permissions, most
customers do not know what they're letting themselves in for if
undocumented/private APIs, custom certs and proprietary VPNs are part of the
picture.

~~~
saagarjha
FWIW, I don't think these apps used undocumented APIs. They merely used (or
abused, depending on your viewpoint) publicly available MDM APIs for parental
controls.

~~~
kristianc
> They merely used (or abused, depending on your viewpoint) publicly available
> MDM APIs for parental controls

Same difference. Most consumers don't understand the implications of a third
party provider fingerprinting their App usage (and then likely selling the
device ID + app usage to advertisers)

~~~
snazz
Most consumers also don’t understand that these apps don’t provide MDM-level
control to parents, but to the app developer who shares a small amount of that
control with parents. It would be a good compromise if Apple allowed third-
party applications to use some Screen Time data with a device permission.

------
theclaw
Apps use undocumented APIs to track which apps you’re using and prevent you
from opening certain apps, Apple realises this is a potential security/privacy
problem, so builds screentime into the OS so it can plug the security hole.

What they should have done is allow apps access to the screentime data if the
user gives permission to the app to manage screentime.

~~~
snazz
That sounds like a fair compromise. Make Screen Time data a permission just
like access to cameras and microphones and regulate the usage of such data so
that it doesn’t get siphoned off to who-knows-where.

~~~
saagarjha
> regulate the usage of such data so that it doesn’t get siphoned off to who-
> knows-where

How would you do this?

~~~
dwaite
Apps which request access to ScreenTime data show up in a consent list in the
parental controls UI.

However, the kinds of data exposed likely would be the output of the screen
time processing system, not the raw data. So these apps would get different UI
widgets showing the same data Apple is displaying.

~~~
saagarjha
Sure, but apps are still getting access to things like which apps are
installed and how much they’re being used.

------
joshstrange
Lots of smoke and no fire. The only way apps could accomplish “parental
controls” would be though MDM or maybe through something a bit more heavy
handed like a VPN. Neither are great solutions (MDM being slightly better) AND
the privacy concerns are very high (see: Facebook VPN/“Study”). There exist no
API’s to natively do what these apps said they could do and so they took the
MDM/VPN heavy-handed route.

I am 100% ok with Apple requesting changes from or straight up blocking apps
that do shit like this. It’s deceptive IMHO and users don’t understand what
they are really signing away when they stuff like this. I doubt parents fully
understand that while they get some level of control over the phone they are
ceding full control over every packet the goes over the VPN to some random
company. That’s another thing, let’s not pretend these companies are well
know/reputable. I’ve never heard of them before and I assume that’s because
they didn’t really do anything novel and instead used a sledgehammer to kill a
fly. Granted it’s because a fly-swatter didn’t exist (and still doesn’t) but
they exist in the same category for me as ad-blocker apps that use a VPN to
accomplish their goals. I’m not interested in giving up 100% of my internet
traffic to get something like filtered ads. Also I have a legitimate use for
VPN’s for home and work and I don’t like halfway solutions (am I supposed to
be fine with ads when I need to use a real VPN?).

In summary I question the usefulness of these apps and strongly feel that they
create way more problems than they fix. Also Apple is LOSING money by
removing/neutering these apps. This isn’t a case of Spotify vs Apple Music and
I’ve got nothing but crocodile tears for these “businesses” that have gone up
in smoke because from my perspective they were all smoke and mirrors to begin
with.

------
asr
There is lots of debate on here about whether or not Apple is right to remove
these apps and whether, on balance, Apple should allow apps to use MDM/VPN
features "for good" or whether Apple is right to lock down those features.

That debate is beside the point. Apple's _timing_ makes a very strong
circumstantial case that Apple is not removing these other apps because they
suddenly care that the apps are violating their TOS. Apple is removing them
now because _Apple now offers a competing app_. If Apple had never approved
these apps in the first place, or removed them promptly over the years, nobody
would have a problem.

Here's an analogy: suppose you live in a small town and the cops have set up a
speed trap to catch tourists. They never ticket you because they know you are
a local. Years pass, you have children, life is good. Then your daughter dumps
her boyfriend, who happens to be the police chief's son. All of a sudden, the
cops start ticketing you because "everybody needs to follow the law." Do you
believe their explanation?

~~~
benologist
Apple's willfully dishonest about hardware issues so when yet another story
lands of how they released an app and banned competing products the truth
really isn't complex, this is a company prioritizing unethical, anti-consumer,
anti-competitive behavior.

Their official iOS developer guidelines even threatened developers for
speaking to the press about these things...

[https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer...](https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/)

    
    
         If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps.
    

2008 - banned a podcasting app for competing with iTunes
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080915/0136292268.shtml](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080915/0136292268.shtml)

2008 - rejected a mail client for competing with a mail client
[https://apple.slashdot.org/story/08/09/21/122225/Apple-
Bans-...](https://apple.slashdot.org/story/08/09/21/122225/Apple-Bans-iPhone-
App-For-Competing-With-Mailapp)

2008 - rejected Opera browser [https://www.applegazette.com/iphone/apple-
rejects-opera-brow...](https://www.applegazette.com/iphone/apple-rejects-
opera-browser/)

2009 - Apple rejected Google Voice
[https://daringfireball.net/2009/07/google_voice](https://daringfireball.net/2009/07/google_voice)

2011 - removed a game for criticizing the human/environmental costs of iPhones
[https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/game-that-
critique...](https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/game-that-critiques-
apple-vanishes-from-app-store/)

2013 - removed a music store for competing with iTunes
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/22/apple-
hmv...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/22/apple-hmvgroup)

2015 - Firefox finally gets approved by skinning Safari
[https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2015/11/firef...](https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2015/11/firefox-finally-comes-to-ios/)

2016 - Apple refused Spotify's updates for having web-based subscriptions
[https://www.recode.net/2016/6/30/12067578/spotify-apple-
app-...](https://www.recode.net/2016/6/30/12067578/spotify-apple-app-store-
rejection)

2018 - rejected Steam's streaming client for competing with their app store
games [https://www.shacknews.com/article/105107/ios-steam-link-
app-...](https://www.shacknews.com/article/105107/ios-steam-link-app-rejected-
by-apple)

2018 - Apple stopped approving Telegram updates
[https://www.technadu.com/apple-rejected-all-telegram-
updates...](https://www.technadu.com/apple-rejected-all-telegram-updates-mid-
april/29947/)

2019 - Spotify claims Apple are uncompetitive, surprising many
[https://www.idownloadblog.com/2019/03/14/spotify-sues-
apple-...](https://www.idownloadblog.com/2019/03/14/spotify-sues-apple-app-
store-fees/)

------
votepaunchy
“Apple allows corporations to use such software to control employees’ phones.
But last year, the company stopped apps from using the software to enable
parents to control their children’s devices. The Apple spokeswoman said Apple
had blocked the practice because app makers could gain access to too much
information on the children’s devices.”

Think of the children! Or at least, stop complaining about both Facebook for
violating privacy and Apple for protecting privacy. We need to legislate by
law rather than anti-trust and arbitrary corporate fines.

~~~
robertAngst
>We need to legislate by law rather than anti-trust and arbitrary corporate
fines.

Why?

I live a modern life and I don't use Facebook or Apple.

There is plenty of competition, let these anti-consumer companies feel the
pain of Markets. Or we will find out, people don't actually care about this.

I don't want the government to get involved in Apple, and ruin companies that
I do use (Google, Snapchat, etc..)

~~~
rootusrootus
Apple is anti-consumer, Google is not?

------
jSully24
Apple's response 4/28/2019: [https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/04/the-facts-
about-paren...](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/04/the-facts-about-
parental-control-apps/)

------
bmurphy1976
Well, this is a load of crap. Apple's parent controls are woefully
insufficient and OurPact is a wonderful app. Losing it without a viable
replacement is a big problem.

------
DavideNL
Apple and Google have way too much power to determine what we can and cannot
do with "our" devices.

If anyone at all, government laws should determine this, not 2 or 3 big
companies. An opt-out of this "walled garden" on mobile devices should be
possible, like how System Integrity Protection can be disabled in macOS (if
you accept the risks involved.)

~~~
saagarjha
Android lets you sideload apps without jumping through very many hoops, if
that's what you mean by being able to opt-out of the "walled garden".

~~~
viraptor
Epic gave them a nice excuse too. We could potentially claim it's not default
and hard to do. But now Google can just point at the number of Fortnite
players - see? works just fine.

~~~
bpye
The situation on Android used to kinda suck with the global "Unknown sources"
toggle, but now you can toggle it per app which is better. I do wish that
third party app stores could update apps without user intervention though.

------
jasonhansel
What are the odds that Apple's app store policies end in an antitrust suit?
IANAL but it seems plausible.

------
miga
Hope they do not block parental control apps on Mac OS X as well.

Current builtin solution is horrid to use in practice. I also see that
screentime is inconvenient for the parent trying to limit access to only few
websites. And bookmarks still do not appear by themselves as they should.

------
Twisell
I’m paywalled so can’t be sure, but do they explain how theses apps were able
to track others app usage in the first place without breaching their
sandboxing pledge?

~~~
lelf
Likely Accessibility API (or/and undocumented APIs).

~~~
votepaunchy
In at least one case: Then, with Mobicip’s deadline just a few days away,
Apple responded three times to his earlier detailed questions — with virtually
the same message: “Your app uses public A.P.I.s in an unapproved manner, which
does not comply with guideline 2.5.1 of the App Store Review Guidelines.”

~~~
saagarjha
I looked through Mobicip's support materials and they install a remote
management profile.

------
chourobin
The NYTimes and their "journalists" are quickly becoming an embarrassment.
Such a biased article that presents a one-sided story.

It's no wonder trust in the media continues to wane.

------
sa1
I don’t believe any app in the iOS ecosystem should have access to other apps
on the phone, in these days of surveillance capitalism. This is definitely the
right move from Apple. Remember that Facebook went to such lengths to misuse
its certificate to gain exactly this kind of data.

------
philshem
Sent from my iPhone

------
amelius
Seriously, who wants to work for a company which acts like that?

------
connorcodes
This round of removal sounds a bit shady. It's not anything like Android
removing flashlight apps that have dangerous permissions.

------
o10449366
Oh please, NYT can't have it both ways. These apps operate by subverting and
abusing an API that gives them more access than they should have. I can
already see the NYT headlines had Apple not closed this loophole - "Apple
allows 3rd party apps to track young children."

I'm getting pretty tired of NYT's tech reporting.

------
jacquesm
The fact that we're even having a discussion about what consenting adults can
do with their own devices, including what software they wish to run on them,
is a pretty bleak statement as to the current state of the smartphone arena.

~~~
lotsofpulp
That lack of power is what has enabled my non English speaking non technically
literate family members to be able to use the internet and video call around
the world without worrying about malware.

~~~
babuskov
Why would a non English speaking non technically literate person go and
install a random parental control iOS app?

I have half a dozen such people in my family and they don't even know how to
open the app store, let alone the password for it. I install stuff for them
when they need it, which is like maybe once in a year.

------
skilled
I have gotten to the point where none of this invokes any feeling anymore.
It's so bizarre what is going on with big corp and how they are getting away
with all this.

Nothing I say or comment will ever have an impact so they might as well run
with it.

------
yeahitslikethat
It's starting to feel like human attention is being squeezed like a turnip.
Extract that last little tiny bit we have left.

All we have is focused on work or a device. Where are our loved ones?
Exercise? Hobbies? Safe driving?

We even have to automate DRIVING because we can't keep out eyes off the phone.

When this cracked screen phone finally dies on me, hopefully soon, I'm done
with the whole industry.

We are destroying the planet and our minds and our relationships and out lives
with these things.

and here I sit. Ranting to people I don't know and who will have entirely no
impact on my life with one.

It's time to be done with it.

What a waste.

------
viraptor
On one hand side I'm happy this information gets popular. On the other, why
are those creators surprised? I remember Apple doing the same in many other
areas for as long as they had apps. We get an article about this every few
months.

I feel like the lesson people should start taking here is if they publish for
iOS, they should move to another idea as soon as Apple publishes something
similar.

~~~
luckylion
It's also the cost of making business easy. You don't have to deal with a ton
of different devices, Apple provides a lot of framework and services, so your
work gets easier.

It seems a bit like renting a store in a mall vs renting a store somewhere in
town.

~~~
viraptor
I'm not saying don't publish for iOS. Sure, there are good reasons. Just that
this quote:

> “They yanked us out of the blue with no warning,” said Amir Moussavian,
> chief executive of OurPact, the top parental-control iPhone

Means they haven't been paying attention and they should've been prepared for
this since at least September 2018. This is their warning:
[https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-use-screen-time-
ios-12/](https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-use-screen-time-ios-12/)

~~~
rootusrootus
They should have been prepared for this the moment they decided to use MDM as
a parental control technique.

