When Apple's Family Sharing system is supposed to protect children from online harm, it sometimes turns into a source of control and coercion. The product, launched in 2014 as an "easy way to share what's important," allows parents to track their kids' locations, screen time, and activities. However, this same system can become a digital trap for families that break up or for children who are subjected to non-consensual monitoring.
For Kate, a mother whose marriage ended in separation, Family Sharing became a nightmare. Her ex-husband, the designated organizer, used the platform to track her children's movements, monitor their screen time, and limit their activities during her custody days. This was an "invasive and coercive" situation that made it impossible for Kate to cut ties with her digital past.
Apple's lack of policies regarding family breakdowns has led to such cases becoming a reality. The company relies on the assumption of traditional family structures, where one adult controls everything. However, not all families fit this mold, and these systems start to break down when they do. In darker scenarios, the single-organizer setup can become dangerous.
As a result, many families are caught in digital traps, with their digital lives becoming coercive situations even after physical separation. The situation is made worse by the lack of clear policies for such cases. Even if Apple and other companies acknowledge that family breakdowns do happen, they seem to be relying on the assumption that everything will stay "rosy."
As a consequence, many parents are left feeling frustrated and unsafe. They are forced to navigate complex systems or resort to drastic measures like deleting their accounts altogether, which can result in lost purchases, memories, and digital identities.
The issue is not just about Apple but also about the inherent dual functionality of these digital tools. They were initially designed for convenience and connection but now serve as tools for control and coercion. The problem lies in the gaps in these systems, particularly when it comes to family breakdowns and data protection law.
In order to address this issue, companies like Apple need to have better policies regarding family breakdowns. A court order should be enough to override a family group and move minors to another. It's all well and good to hope families stay together forever, but companies must acknowledge that reality.
Ultimately, the current state of play is untenable. Companies must take responsibility for ensuring that their systems do not become a source of harm or control in situations where they should be protecting children.
For Kate, a mother whose marriage ended in separation, Family Sharing became a nightmare. Her ex-husband, the designated organizer, used the platform to track her children's movements, monitor their screen time, and limit their activities during her custody days. This was an "invasive and coercive" situation that made it impossible for Kate to cut ties with her digital past.
Apple's lack of policies regarding family breakdowns has led to such cases becoming a reality. The company relies on the assumption of traditional family structures, where one adult controls everything. However, not all families fit this mold, and these systems start to break down when they do. In darker scenarios, the single-organizer setup can become dangerous.
As a result, many families are caught in digital traps, with their digital lives becoming coercive situations even after physical separation. The situation is made worse by the lack of clear policies for such cases. Even if Apple and other companies acknowledge that family breakdowns do happen, they seem to be relying on the assumption that everything will stay "rosy."
As a consequence, many parents are left feeling frustrated and unsafe. They are forced to navigate complex systems or resort to drastic measures like deleting their accounts altogether, which can result in lost purchases, memories, and digital identities.
The issue is not just about Apple but also about the inherent dual functionality of these digital tools. They were initially designed for convenience and connection but now serve as tools for control and coercion. The problem lies in the gaps in these systems, particularly when it comes to family breakdowns and data protection law.
In order to address this issue, companies like Apple need to have better policies regarding family breakdowns. A court order should be enough to override a family group and move minors to another. It's all well and good to hope families stay together forever, but companies must acknowledge that reality.
Ultimately, the current state of play is untenable. Companies must take responsibility for ensuring that their systems do not become a source of harm or control in situations where they should be protecting children.