Live data from Hacker News

Working with the UK Government to Protect Children Online

bsky.social

21–30 of 58 posts

Re: Working with the UK Government to Protect Children Online

#21
post #8

I think the important question here is: once they've got your face or ID, do they store it? Is this effectively forbidding pseudonymity? It's worth thinking twice about this in a country that is actively censoring mainstream political speech in its media.

The claim is that the data is "deleted", but there is no way to actually verify it is in fact being deleted (and the chances are data itself might be stored in say AWS which may have its own way of "deleting" data, such as in backups, caches, multiple regions etc (however they have their own legal process which may not allow data to be deleted in the event of a law enforcement request, and there's no way for anyone using the service to understand who is actually handling the data as it passes by their servers, which could be suspectable to interception etc)). Truth is, the data is much too valuable, and is useful for long term storage to know what somebody looked like or who they were when accessing content online. The UK has the RIPA so they could serve a technology notice for data to be retained and prevent disclosure of that fact. Apple was recently involved in such a request to disable advanced data protection, and the UK government is disgusted by E2EE and the very idea they cannot access every piece of data they like on demand, and wanted the entire thing held in secret.

So the reality is, assume everything on the internet is being archived, including any scans you do, and adjust the threat model accordingly. The UK government will absolutely be able to access this information and know all about what you've been doing if you're foolish enough to actually submit legitimate information.

Re: Working with the UK Government to Protect Children Online

#22

I used to be vehemently against this. But now I really do think we need to reel in the youth having unfettered access to attention grabbing algorithms. I know this isn't really what this is for but it's a step. That being said, I wish these verification services would be provided by the government (with ridged watchdogs for storage) and not by private companies.

Conveniently you're no longer affected by the restriction you want to impose on others. How about you police your kids if you have them instead of trying to police other peoples?

Screw your mass surveillance

Re: Working with the UK Government to Protect Children Online

#23
post #14

I used to be vehemently against this. But now I really do think we need to reel in the youth having unfettered access to attention grabbing algorithms. I know this isn't really what this is for but it's a step. That being said, I wish these verification services would be provided by the government (with ridged watchdogs for storage) and not by private companies.

I think the youth's parents should be reeling them in, not the government or third parties at the expense of everyone else's freedom.

Ideally, sure. In practice, that hasn't worked well. I was a youth fairly recently and I can assure you my mother lacked the knowledge to meaningfully enforce any content restrictions on my devices short of physically going through my phone. Incognito windows and deleting texts isn't exactly out of reach for children.

Re: Working with the UK Government to Protect Children Online

#24
post #9

Here's what you want to know: https://dev.epicgames.com/docs/kids-web-services/pv-service/... > Parents in all regions except the USA and the Republic of Korea can verify their age using face scan. KWS prompts the parent to hold their device in front of their face. A machine-learning algorithm estimates the parent’s age using the device’s camera. > Face scan verification is provided by Yoti (yoti.com). They have an a…

This will be a lot of fun. I regularly get clocked as being a teenager, despite not being one for a long time. I've been kicked out of bars, get carded buying cough medicine, etc. If I'm lucky, the only thing that gets me out of those situations is my government ID with my birthday on it.

Something tells me people who don't look exactly their age are going to get caught up in these automated systems.

Re: Working with the UK Government to Protect Children Online

#25
post #8

I think the important question here is: once they've got your face or ID, do they store it? Is this effectively forbidding pseudonymity? It's worth thinking twice about this in a country that is actively censoring mainstream political speech in its media.

The claim is that the data is "deleted", but there is no way to actually verify it is in fact being deleted (and the chances are data itself might be stored in say AWS which may have its own way of "deleting" data, such as in backups, caches, multiple regions etc (however they have their own legal process which may not allow data to be deleted in the event of a law enforcement request, and there's no way for anyone u…

> So the reality is, assume everything on the internet is being archived, including any scans you do, and adjust the threat model accordingly.

OK, but what would the practical conclusion of this be? A lot of services will require those scans to be made. So, just get used to the fact that your face scans will be stored beyond your control?

Re: Working with the UK Government to Protect Children Online

#26

I used to be vehemently against this. But now I really do think we need to reel in the youth having unfettered access to attention grabbing algorithms. I know this isn't really what this is for but it's a step. That being said, I wish these verification services would be provided by the government (with ridged watchdogs for storage) and not by private companies.

The death of anonymity on the internet is not worth making parents feel better about not parenting their kids.

So your alternative is teaching millions of 40+ year olds how the internet works so they can implement dns blocks on their home routers? Service side age restriction seems much more effective than mandatory parenting classes.

Re: Working with the UK Government to Protect Children Online

#28
post #6

Privacy is very important to me. And having to verify your age/identity in anyway online seems very risky, open to abuse, blackmail etc. The privacy conscious can work-around the verification or decide not to access restricted websites anymore. It's hard to deny the negative impact that unfettered access to inappropriate material has had on the younger generations. Some sort of verification seems like a net-positive…

I also strongly value privacy and honestly this kind of scheme always rubs me wrong. In the physical world, we have IDs, provided by the government, a business is only required to do a brief check and often does not have to retain information. This means that you can retain a fair bit of privacy for the individual, and the burden on the business is fairly low. And yet, for some reason, online we get the worst of both…

We got here because adults cannot stop using the internet to victimize children. Education failed. Enforcement has largely failed. A loss of privacy is the next logical step until adults stop victimizing children. I use my nine year olds accounts fairly regularly and I’ve gotta tell ya mate, the number of dudes I meet who are pretending to be 9 and 10 year olds girls is pretty shocking. A loss of privacy stinks but at some point, society as a whole pays for the actions of very few. It’s the dark side of laws - they restrict freedom for everyone because a select few cannot be trusted with the tools we have at our disposal.

Re: Working with the UK Government to Protect Children Online

#29
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The death of anonymity on the internet is not worth making parents feel better about not parenting their kids.

So your alternative is teaching millions of 40+ year olds how the internet works so they can implement dns blocks on their home routers? Service side age restriction seems much more effective than mandatory parenting classes.

My alternative is not falling head first into a moral panic and destroying the last vestiges of free speech we have because people don't like the idea of other people's kids using the internet.

Even if I was sympathetic to that argument, "let's just let unaccountable companies scan and store your face and sensitive biometrics that they promise they won't lose" is possibly the laziest solution that can be dreamt up and screams ulterior motives to me.

Re: Working with the UK Government to Protect Children Online

#30
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim is that the data is "deleted", but there is no way to actually verify it is in fact being deleted (and the chances are data itself might be stored in say AWS which may have its own way of "deleting" data, such as in backups, caches, multiple regions etc (however they have their own legal process which may not allow data to be deleted in the event of a law enforcement request, and there's no way for anyone u…

> So the reality is, assume everything on the internet is being archived, including any scans you do, and adjust the threat model accordingly. OK, but what would the practical conclusion of this be? A lot of services will require those scans to be made. So, just get used to the fact that your face scans will be stored beyond your control?

Or stop using any large online services, I guess.

I believe you can just VPN around this for now because it's not very rigorous too?

Post reply on HN