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

151–160 of 448 posts

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

#151

Post by Edmond »

csomar wrote: post #149
Edmond wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a solution and I am the developer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40298552#40298804 Talking about it or explaining it is like pulling teeth; generally just a thorough misunderstanding of the notion....even though cryptographic certificates make the modern internet possible.

I don’t get it. What is to prevent a 9 year-old from buying a certificate and using it?

This video addresses that:

https://youtu.be/92gu4mxHmTY

All certificates are cryptographically linked to an identity-anchor certificate, meaning buying a certificate would require the seller reveal the private key tied to the identity-anchor certificate, a tall order I would argue.

In the case of stolen identity certificates, they can be revoked thus making their illegitimate utility limited.

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

#152

Post by mvdtnz »

doublerabbit wrote: post #121
blibble wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sending any reasonably sized jpeg as base64 text will take you several minutes with typical server flood protection

You could chunk it, compress it with gzip. Usenet uses yENC. Public servers sure, may have protections in place but your own server and with IRCd's being easy configurable makes it non-trivial.

And this is somehow better than a "gimmicky" service which handles images natively? Interesting.

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

#153

Post by m463 »

gertrunde wrote: post #125

I would like to think there there is a solution that can be engineered, in which a service is able to verify that a user is above an appropriate age threshold, while maintaining privacy safeguards, including, where relevant, for the age-protected service not to be privy to the identity of the user, and for the age verification service to not be privy to the nature of the age-protected service being accessed. In this…

A humorous age verification quiz for the Leisure Suit Larry game.

My boss is a. a jerk. b. a total jerk. c. an absolute total jerk. d. responsible for my paycheck. Correct answer: d.

dated, and very politically incorrect...

https://allowe.com/games/larry/tips-manuals/lsl1-age-quiz.ht...

(scroll down past answers to questions and answers)

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

#154

Post by strangecasts »

gertrunde wrote: post #125

I would like to think there there is a solution that can be engineered, in which a service is able to verify that a user is above an appropriate age threshold, while maintaining privacy safeguards, including, where relevant, for the age-protected service not to be privy to the identity of the user, and for the age verification service to not be privy to the nature of the age-protected service being accessed. In this…

The problem is that it is much easier to implement such a check in a way which lets the verification service link the site to the user, with no discernable difference to the end user

e: I get the same feeling as I do reading about key escrow schemes in the Clipper chip vein, where nobody claimed it was theoretically impossible to have a "spare key" only accessible by warrant, but the resulting complexity and new threat classes [1] just was not worth it

[1] https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8GM8F2W

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

#155

Post by rlpb »

joeyh wrote: post #76
jjice wrote: post #2

Aside from the privacy nightmare, what about someone who is 18 and just doesn't have the traditional adult facial features? Same thing for someone who's 15 and hit puberty early? I can imagine that on the edges, it becomes really hard to discern. If they get it wrong, are you locked out? Do you have to send an image of your ID? So many questions. Not a huge fan of these recent UK changes (looking at the Apple E2E sit…

Wise (nee Transferwise) requires a passport style photo taken by a webapp for KYC when transferring money. I was recently unable to complete that process over a dozen tries, because the image processing didn't like something about my face. (Photos met all criteria.) On contacting their support, I learned that they refused to use any other process. Also it became apparent that they had outsourced it to some other comp…

> On contacting their support, I learned that they refused to use any other process.

I suspect this won't help you, but I think it's worth noting that the GDPR gives people the right to contest any automated decision-making that was made on a solely algorithmic basis. So this wouldn't be legal in the EU (or the UK).

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

#156

Post by monkeywork »

exe34 wrote: post #111
threeseed wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is over-reach. Both in the UK and Australia 2/3 of Australians support minimum age restrictions for social media [1] and it was in-particular popular amongst parents. Putting the responsibility solely on parents shows ignorance of the complexities of how children are growing up these days. Many parents have tried to ban social media only for those children to experience ostracisation amongst their peer group l…

that sounds quite puritan. my god says I can't, is one thing. my god says you can't either, is very different. now replace god with parent.

You realize that is how EVERY law works right... The person your replying to says the public overall supports the idea/law. If following that law is a deal breaker for you you either need to persuade thos ppl to your view or move

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

#157

Post by Retr0id »

someNameIG wrote: post #95
zevv wrote: post #12

So, what will be the proper technology to apply here? I have no problem with verification of my age (not the date of birth, just the boolean, >18yo), but I do have a problem with sending any party a picture of my face or my passport.

Discord got me to do this about 2 weeks ago (I'm Australian so they seem to be rolling this out here too), at least for the face scan the privacy policy said it occurred on device, so if you believe that you're not sending anyone images of your face.

Fascinating. If it really isn't sending the face images, spoofing the verification could be as simple as returning a boolean to some API.

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

#158

Post by Retr0id »

I'm in the UK and discord has asked me to complete this check (but I haven't, yet). I can still use discord just fine, it just won't let me view any media it considers "adult".

I am an adult but refuse to let them scan my face as a matter of principle, so I've considered using https://github.com/hacksider/Deep-Live-Cam to "deepfake" myself and perform the verification while wearing a fake face. If it works, I'll write about it.

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

#160

Post by jasonfarnon »

exe34 wrote: post #111
threeseed wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is over-reach. Both in the UK and Australia 2/3 of Australians support minimum age restrictions for social media [1] and it was in-particular popular amongst parents. Putting the responsibility solely on parents shows ignorance of the complexities of how children are growing up these days. Many parents have tried to ban social media only for those children to experience ostracisation amongst their peer group l…

that sounds quite puritan. my god says I can't, is one thing. my god says you can't either, is very different. now replace god with parent.

maybe it's "puritan" or maybe it's a normal view and it looks puritan from where you stand. how do you know which? One bit of evidence is the 2/3 to 1/3 split.
Post reply on HN