Mobile bill shock through kids in-app purchases

securityguy

wondermouse wrote: »

Apologies. When I set up my iPad 1 it did insist.
Clearly that's changed on later editions.

The whole provisioning process has changed. For a start-off, you can now provision an iPad without needing to attach it to a computer running iTunes, and you can do all the "big" tasks (such as an iOS upgrade) over the air. You do need an iTunes account for most sensible use-cases, but that iTunes account doesn't need a card attached to it. Otherwise Apple would need to put "warning: people without debit cards should not purchase this device" labels on the box.

You didn't actually need a debit card to provision the original devices either, nor iPhones back to the original one, nor iPods back to 200whatever. All you needed was an iTunes account, and they didn't need a card to set up.

Fire_Fox

wondermouse wrote: »

<bangs head on wall> What self-righteous rubbish!

These forums are NOT populated by morons (although there are exceptions.) Do you honestly think that this many people falling foul of the same thing is a coincidence? :mad:

Can you not understand that, DESPITE accounts being password protected there is a serious FLAW in the system which allows these purchases to be made? Even when all you've done is updated your apps as the device requests, then by default there is a 15 minute window, in which purchases can be carried out without a password.

When you get an iPad or iPhone, it insists that you give a credit card as part of the setup. Even if you're tech savvy, and many people aren't, you would probably accept the default settings.

I can assure you that it is NOT clear and "easy" to set it up in the way you suggest. I'm sure the rest of us here wish you well in Smugland.

I think what this proves is that the set-up process should ASK if in-app purchases should be disabled, or they should be disabled by default and you have to turn them ON to use them.

However this goes against the Apple mantra of easy to use, so I suspect they're not going to.

iPhones and iPads are not designed for or marketed at children, nor AFAIK are the Android equivalents. As already stated on iPhone the age barring is immediately next to the setting for switching off in app purchases. The fifteen minute thing is in the same part of the Settings menu. How is it not clear and easy to find that, unless you are not setting up parental controls?

Are you saying that for some Apple Store games that the blurb does not make it clear there is an age limit, in app purchases cost and what the pricing is? Genuine question: I haven't run through and checked a significant number of games, only a couple which are crystal clear.

I don't feel the need to be treated like a four year old to protect other people's four year olds, otherwise we need to make the entire internet child friendly and have passwords and warnings for everything. To me it's about taking responsibility, we ALL make mistakes but it's not OK to blame a company for failing to protect your own children.

In that fifteen minute window, is it worse that a child spends £50 on an in app purchase, watches p0rn or starts talking chatting to someone that means them harm? I suspect the vast majority of MSE parents would write off the money in a heartbeat if it meant their child stays innocent. And yet in their droves they don't read the blurb on smartphone games and allow their children to sign up to Facebook under the age of 13.

CFC

It scares me. Many people seem completely to lose their common sense (assuming they were born with some) once they are presented with a technology gadget.

I really also don't understand why folk buy a very expensive bit of kit and immediately hand it over to their kids to play with, either.

My last thought is I cannot understand why anyone with any brain cells would let a child play, completely unsupervised, with something connected to the internet.

What happened to parenting? Are a large proportion of this generation of parents just spoiled and infantilised adults that are not actually capable of taking care of little people but want to rely on companies and the government to do it for them?

I often think the wrong people breed.

Feel free to click the 'I hate you' button.

AAAAA

Fire_Fox wrote: »

In that fifteen minute window .

I really like the 15 minitue window.It is good not to keep haveing to enter my password but Mabey thats BECAUSE I am responsibile.I DON'T give my gadgets to children UNSUPERVISED.

Also been thinking what happens if your little darling drops/smash/ throws away/spills water on your VERY expensive gadget.I know I didn't trust myself not to drop it so I got one of these "millatrey protection cases".

jaibaby

CFC wrote: »

My last thought is I cannot understand why anyone with any brain cells would let a child play, completely unsupervised, with something connected to the internet.

So, are you suggesting that I shouldn't allow my children to play with my phone, even though they KNOW and are UNABLE to buy / access anything I don't want them to? Because I did set the settings to what they should be (password every time) and they've always asked if I could download any games they liked?

What happened to parenting? Are a large proportion of this generation of parents just spoiled and infantilised adults that are not actually capable of taking care of little people but want to rely on companies and the government to do it for them?

I do agree with you here to a point. Not every parent is like that. Please don't tar us all with the same brush

I often think the wrong people breed.

Again, as above

Feel free to click the 'I hate you' button.

As much as I would love an "I hate you" button - I wouldn't press it here - as said, I do agree to a point, just not all parents are those who don't care / put no effort into raising their children. Yes, I allow my children to play on my iPhone / iPad - I believe some of the apps are good to help them learn. I also allow them to play on the xbox - but only games suitable for them. They also use the laptop to do their homework, and not once have they been on any sites they shouldn't have. Why? Because the parental settings are done and they are well-informed on any dangers involved with anything connected to the big bad world (web).

Libertarianus

Since the profiteers refuse to take responsibility, a tweak to the law would appear to be necessary.

Everyone should lobby their MP to have the law amended to extend the principle of noli capax to cover debts incurred by misuse of an account by a child.

It should be a defence against any action to enforce a debt by Apple et al that the debt was incurred by a child below the age of responsibility, and the onus of proof should require the claimant to show that it was incurred by the account holder in person or an authorised individual before the debt can be enforced.

Without this change we are unlikely to see any change in attitude by the profiteers.

securityguy

Libertarianus wrote: »

It should be a defence against any action to enforce a debt by Apple et al that the debt was incurred by a child below the age of responsibility, and the onus of proof should require the claimant to show that it was incurred by the account holder in person or an authorised individual before the debt can be enforced..

So what you're saying is that you want all e-commerce transactions to be voidable, because the presumption would be that in every case a child could have done it? Have you thought that through?

jaibaby

Libertarianus wrote: »

Since the profiteers refuse to take responsibility, a tweak to the law would appear to be necessary.

Everyone should lobby their MP to have the law amended to extend the principle of noli capax to cover debts incurred by misuse of an account by a child.

It should be a defence against any action to enforce a debt by Apple et al that the debt was incurred by a child below the age of responsibility, and the onus of proof should require the claimant to show that it was incurred by the account holder in person or an authorised individual before the debt can be enforced.

Without this change we are unlikely to see any change in attitude by the profiteers.

Oh what a load of rubbish!!!

Can see it now - "My 6 month old baby bought over £1000 worth of donuts on Simpsons Tapped out."

Jeez, the makers of the Apps would have a REAL problem in generating any money from them then!

As said before, if security settings were set correctly and parents read the instruction booklet before doing anything with a piece of equipment they have no idea about, there wouldn't be any stories of this happening.

I, personally, still believe it's just stupid people that blame their kids in the hope to get the refund :mad:

Libertarianus

securityguy wrote: »

So what you're saying is that you want all e-commerce transactions to be voidable, because the presumption would be that in every case a child could have done it? Have you thought that through?

Unless the account holder in person or an authorised person is positively identified before a debt is incurred, the attribution of the debt is arbitrary and no different from a thief using a stolen credit card to commit fraud. No honest trader would expect a non-vulnerable adult to rack up insane levels of debt on a stupid game. Even casinos have specific staff delegated to watch gamblers and intervene where appropriate, even though not legally obliged so to do. The current free-for-all is merely an immoral licence to print money.

Campinelli12

Can anyone assist me my son has downloaded apps and games from google without my say so he is only young and did not realise and they total over £100 is there anyway i can get these back... help!