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

171–180 of 448 posts

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

#171

Post by Mountain_Skies »

nixpulvis wrote: post #168

Identity verification remains unsolved and likely will remain that way. Any attempts at improvement are authoritarian. And the status quo leave massive room for circumvention. Personally, I grew up in an era before there was any expectation of validation, and enjoyed the anonymity of message boards and forums. But when people are posting blatantly illegal activity online, I can see the appeal for more validation. Jus…

Which makes one wonder how much of the illegal activities are by people who really are interested in engaging in that illegal activity and how much of it is from those who see it as a means to destroy anonymity online.

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

#172

Post by rkagerer »

Of all the terrible, dumb-headed ideas. I would not want my kids scanning their face into who-knows-what third party's service.

I already decline this technology when finance companies want to use it for eg. KYC verification ("Sorry, I don't own a smartphone compatible with your tool. If you want my business you'll have to find another way. Happy to provide a notarized declaration if you'd like" has worked in the past).

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

#173

Post by stego-tech »

chatmasta wrote: post #169
stego-tech wrote: post #164

A long, long time ago (within the past ten years), I had to verify my age with a site. They didn't ask for my ID, or my facial scan, but instead asked for my credit card number. They issued a refund to the card of a few cents, and I had to tell them (within 24hr) how much the refund was for, after which point they'd issue a charge to claw it back. They made it clear that debit and gift cards would not be accepted, it…

Is card verification a lesser form of surveillance? And there’s a good chance your card issuer (or your bank, one hop away from it) has your biometrics anyway. I don’t like either of them… (And why does YouTube ask me to verify my age when I’m logged into a Google account I created in 2004?)

Oh, make no mistake, I hate both of these. I loathe this forced surveillance of everyone because parents can't be bothered to supervise and teach their children about the most primary of human animal functions (sex), regardless of their reasons for it.

I take great pains to keep minors out of my adult spaces, and don't have to resort to anything as invasive as biometric surveillance or card charges. This notion that the entire world should be safe for children by default, and that anything and everything adult should be vilified and locked up, is toxic as all get-out and builds shame into the human animal over something required for the perpetuation of the species.

The adult content isn't the problem, it's the relationship some folks have towards it that's the issue. That's best corrected by healthy intervention early on, not arbitrary age checks everywhere online that mainly serve as an exercise of power by the ruling class against "undesirable" elements of society.

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

#174

Post by michaelt »

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…

Unfortunately, no amount of blockchains and zero-knowledge proofs can compensate for the fact that 15 year old has a 18 year old friend. Or the fact that other 15 year old looks older than some 20 year olds. Or the fact that other 15 year old's dad often leaves his wallet, with his driving license, unattended.

Over the next five years, you can look forward to a steady trickle of stories in the press about shocked parents finding that somehow their 15 year old passed a one-time over-18 age verification check.

The fact compliance is nigh-impossible to comply with is intentional - the law is designed that way, because the intent is to deliver a porn ban while sidestepping free speech objections.

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

#175

Post by YurgenJurgensen »

fny wrote: post #41
hedora wrote: post #33

Like many other people here, I'm wondering what we'll end up having to do at work do deal with this. We don't have the resources to put a full time person on this, and the UK's not a huge market. For unrelated reasons, we already have to implement geoblocking, and we're also intentionally VPN friendly. I suspect most services are that way, so the easy way out is to add "UK" to the same list as North Korea and Iran. A…

You'll likely end up paying someone else to do it for you.

…as will everyone else. The same company. Who will have all that data in one convenient database just waiting to be leaked.

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

#176

Post by pezezin »

red-iron-pine wrote: post #83
zehaeva wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a good thing to think about. I knew a guy in high school who had male pattern baldness that started at 13 or 14. Full blown by the time he was 16. Dude looked like one of the teachers.

i went to school with a guy who had serious facial hair at like 14. dude was rocking 5 oclock shadows by the end of the school day

I had a friend who had a serious beard by the age of 15; he would order whisky and cola at the bar, and nobody ever asked him for any kind of ID xD

I myself have a mighty beard but took a couple more years to develop...

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

#177

Post by Edmond »

blibble wrote: post #165
Edmond wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The app allows for self-revocation using the private key or a revocation code given when cert is issued, this is useful if a certificate is compromised...there is also an admin interface a trust anchor can use to revoke certificates they issue, a rogue trust anchor chain can also be revoked.

how does rogue anchor revocation in practice? say if an anchor has issued tens of thousands of legitimate ids, and also ten to career fraudsters who gave them $10000 each as you've outsourced the trust you have no idea which are legitimate, and if you revoke the lot you're going to have a lot of refunds to issue (ultimately this is why countries only allow people who can be banned from their profession to certify doc…

Each trust anchor gets issued a single certificate that can have delegation ability, ie the ability to issue new trust anchor certs to others.

So if say a UPS store is issued a cert and they go rogue, we can just revoke the trust anchor cert that was issued to the store, all certs issued further down are also automatically revoked...the revocation check is done either in the app or in the case of a third-party performing the verification they will recognize that there is a cert on the issuing chain that is revoked and reject the cert.

This is how TLS certs are handled too, if a CA goes rogue, all certs issued by that CA are revoked once the CA's root cert is revoked.

As for refund issues, that's a problem for the cert issuer to deal with.

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

#178

Post by ndriscoll »

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…

At least the US laws I've looked at have all specifically mandated that data shall not be retained, some with rather steep penalties for retention (IIRC ~$10k/affected user).

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

#179

Post by plsbenice34 »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #103
plsbenice34 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I see a lot of comments here arguing age requirements are overreach and these decisions should be left to the parents. To those presenting such arguments, do you think that applies to other activities as well? What about smoking/drinking/firearms? Pornography? Driving? Yes. The state has far, far too much involvement in everybody's lives.

This is a great stance to have if consequences have zero value. Every time we shrug and say "let the parents decide," we gamble with the most vulnerable: the kids who don’t yet know how to refuse a cigarette, who don’t yet grasp the weight of a loaded weapon, who don’t yet understand that porn isn’t a harmless curiosity. We gamble with the soul of childhood—and when we lose, those children don’t get a second chance.…

I can't express strongly enough that arguing about how to raise children is an incredibly deep, contentious topic. Over and over i see that the state terrifies me deep into my soul, as does the power that a parent has over shaping its children. You're gambling either way and there will always be disturbing consequences. You do not know the optimal way to raise a child - nobody does. It is subjective. Parents NEED to take on massive responsibility and raise their own children rather than leaving it up to the state or letting the state dictate how children are raised. Do you trust Donald Trump to shape your child? Who knows who could be elected next wherever you live

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

#180

Post by blibble »

Edmond wrote: post #177
blibble wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how does rogue anchor revocation in practice? say if an anchor has issued tens of thousands of legitimate ids, and also ten to career fraudsters who gave them $10000 each as you've outsourced the trust you have no idea which are legitimate, and if you revoke the lot you're going to have a lot of refunds to issue (ultimately this is why countries only allow people who can be banned from their profession to certify doc…

Each trust anchor gets issued a single certificate that can have delegation ability, ie the ability to issue new trust anchor certs to others. So if say a UPS store is issued a cert and they go rogue, we can just revoke the trust anchor cert that was issued to the store, all certs issued further down are also automatically revoked...the revocation check is done either in the app or in the case of a third-party perfor…

> As for refund issues, that's a problem for the cert issuer to deal with.

no, it's your problem, as it's your brand slapped over everything, and now you've got tens of thousands of innocent people angry that you've revoked the IDs they paid for in good faith

this would translate into lawsuits, against you

Post reply on HN