Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 448 posts

Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'

#321

Post by fc417fc802 »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #200
ndriscoll wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was, in fact, what COPA mandated in the US in 1998, and SCOTUS struck it down as too onerous in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, kicking off the last 20 years of essentially completely unregulated Internet porn commercially available to children with nothing more than clicking an "I'm 18" button. At the time, filtering was seen as a better solution. Nowadays filtering is basically impossible thanks to…

This has already come up before the Supreme Court, with the argument that filtering was a less invasive technique to fulfill the government’s legitimate interests back in the early 2000s. That ship has sailed. Even the opposition admits that trying to get everyone to filter is not going to work and is functionally insignificant. The only question is whether age verification is still too onerous.

> The only question is whether age verification is still too onerous.

You've skipped right past the "does it work" question. It doesn't. Porn is available on file sharing networks in far greater quantity than it is on reputable websites.

The only realistic methods I'm aware of are whitelist filtering, sufficient supervision, or sufficient interaction and education.

Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'

#322

Post by jasonlotito »

mrbigbob wrote: post #319

I am getting sick and tired of the thinly veiled excuse of "we need to strip away more of your privacy in order to protect the childen" we all know they are doing it because they want to surveil/track you more easily. and for those that think they are actually doing this to protect the children and you are concerned about what your children sees online this might sound a bit harsh but why dont you actually parent. St…

The fact that you think that anything you suggested would prevent or hinder a child from seeing things you don't want them to see online, or that it would affect a child's ability to be affected by what is online is indicative of the bigger problem. To put it into terms you might understand, you are storing your passwords in plaintext and the traffic isn't encrypted.

Basically, you're ignorant.

This isn't to say that the laws that the majority put into place are good. I'm not speaking on that. You are, in this situation, that layman, who cannot solve the problem you are claiming you want to solve.

Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'

#323

Post by intrasight »

mrbigbob wrote: post #319

I am getting sick and tired of the thinly veiled excuse of "we need to strip away more of your privacy in order to protect the childen" we all know they are doing it because they want to surveil/track you more easily. and for those that think they are actually doing this to protect the children and you are concerned about what your children sees online this might sound a bit harsh but why dont you actually parent. St…

I've made this suggestion in past discussions on this topic.

Users should be anonymous.

Sites should verify that user is over 18 using a government web service.

Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'

#324

Post by fc417fc802 »

redczar wrote: post #302
RHSeeger wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the government should come up with a good way to prove age that does not negatively impact privacy. It shouldn't be possible for "who is viewing what porn (or other thing)" to be accidentally leaked; because it should be possible to not store the "who" part.

Such a proof does not exist. It is already the case that your porn viewing habits can be leaked. It’s just that at present the one storing the information is not the government.

Can they? It seems highly unlikely to me that most web site operators are colluding with my VPN provider to unmask me.

(Yes fingerprinting is a huge issue but the implications of that get fairly complicated.)

Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'

#325

Post by mrbigbob »

jasonlotito wrote: post #322
mrbigbob wrote: post #319

I am getting sick and tired of the thinly veiled excuse of "we need to strip away more of your privacy in order to protect the childen" we all know they are doing it because they want to surveil/track you more easily. and for those that think they are actually doing this to protect the children and you are concerned about what your children sees online this might sound a bit harsh but why dont you actually parent. St…

The fact that you think that anything you suggested would prevent or hinder a child from seeing things you don't want them to see online, or that it would affect a child's ability to be affected by what is online is indicative of the bigger problem. To put it into terms you might understand, you are storing your passwords in plaintext and the traffic isn't encrypted. Basically, you're ignorant. This isn't to say that…

you could never solve the problem of completely preventing a child or anyone from that matter from doing something if they are determined enough and you are naive in thinking so. should we remove all forms of encryption because pedophiles/terrorists use it?

if a child is determined to see naughty things online theyll just find a website that doesnt care about facial recognition laws while our privacy is still stripped away even more. So we lose more privacy as a society and kids still see what they desire just taking them a few minutes/ at most hours longer.

once again being a parent and paying attention to what your child is doing online or just talking to them about it. you choose to be a parent and that does require work to do a good job at it

Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'

#326

Post by eszed »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #144
nonchalantsui wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly how a digital ID system would work, and yet people argue against those all the time as well. Additionally, the corner shop does not have far lower data privacy risks - actually it's quite worse. They have you on camera and have a witness who can corroborate you are that person on camera, alongside a paper trail for your order. There is no privacy there, only the illusion of such.

By data privacy risks I meant the risk of a breach, compromise, or other leak of the database of verified IDs. No information about the IDs are generally collected in a corner shop, at least when there's no suspicion of fraud; they're just viewed temporarily and returned. Not only do online service providers retain a lot of information about their required verifications, they do so for hugely more people than a typic…

Where I live they scan the barcode on the back of the ID into their POS. I don't know what data that exposes, or exactly what's retained, but I suspect it's enough to thoroughly compromise the privacy of that transaction - with no pesky, gumshoe witness-statement and camera-footage steps necessary.

Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'

#327

Post by lupusreal »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #199
ndriscoll wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was, in fact, what COPA mandated in the US in 1998, and SCOTUS struck it down as too onerous in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, kicking off the last 20 years of essentially completely unregulated Internet porn commercially available to children with nothing more than clicking an "I'm 18" button. At the time, filtering was seen as a better solution. Nowadays filtering is basically impossible thanks to…

Despite TLS, filtering is easier to set up now than it was in 1998. You might have to block some apps in the short term, but if you suggest apps can avoid age verification if they stop pinning certificates then they'll jump at the option. Consolidation is the only tricky part that's new.

Filtering has never been easy or practical for the general public. But the situation has become much worse.

In 1998 it was easy for a family to have no computer at all, or to put their single computer in the living room where it could be supervised. Internet use was limited because it tied up the phone line. These factors made it easy for parents to supervise their children.

Today, computers are everywhere, fit in your pocket, and its very easy to get online. Even if you don't buy any computer for your children (which is hard, because your children will tell you that they're getting bullied and socially ostracized, which probably won't even be a lie!) they will probably be given a computer by their school and any filters on that computer will inevitability be circumvented. And even if that doesn't happen, they can trade or buy one of their peers old phones and use that on free WiFi to access the internet without you knowing it. Are you going to thoroughly search their belongings every week? If you do, they'll know and find ways to hide it anyway.

And yes, I know kids used to procure and hide porno mags. What they have access to on the internet is a lot more extreme than a tattered playboy.

Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'

#328

Post by lupusreal »

stavros wrote: post #285
aaaja wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not synonymous but a vast amount of pornography available online constitutes violence against women. The commercial sex trade, including both porn and prostitution, is a multi-billion dollar industry that seeks to normalize extreme acts and promotes the dehumanisation of women and girls.

So why would the solution to dehumanising women be "minors shouldn't be able see it"?

The first ammendment, as presently interpreted, makes banning violent pornography virtually impossible. Restricting access to it is a far more tractable solution.

Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'

#329

Post by lupusreal »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #317
shortrounddev2 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point here is to prevent impressionable children from growing up watching videos of women being treated like objects, so that they don't grow up to view women as objects

Has there been some outbreak of this? Genuinely confused. My impression is that sort of behavior has been decreasing my entire life while access to porn has been increasing.

My impression is that parents are increasingly alarmed at young boys becoming bitter misogynists. Maybe that isn't happening and it's just a moral panic? Or maybe those boys watching lots of pornography and coming to believe that women are whores are two entirely unrelated phenomenons?

Media diet shapes what we are, and kids are more impressionable than most. It is therefore natural and reasonable for parents to want some control over what media gets fed to their kids.

Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'

#330

Post by wiseowise »

jasonlotito wrote: post #322
mrbigbob wrote: post #319

I am getting sick and tired of the thinly veiled excuse of "we need to strip away more of your privacy in order to protect the childen" we all know they are doing it because they want to surveil/track you more easily. and for those that think they are actually doing this to protect the children and you are concerned about what your children sees online this might sound a bit harsh but why dont you actually parent. St…

The fact that you think that anything you suggested would prevent or hinder a child from seeing things you don't want them to see online, or that it would affect a child's ability to be affected by what is online is indicative of the bigger problem. To put it into terms you might understand, you are storing your passwords in plaintext and the traffic isn't encrypted. Basically, you're ignorant. This isn't to say that…

> To put it into terms you might understand, you are storing your passwords in plaintext and the traffic isn't encrypted.

What?

Post reply on HN