Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?)
Why/how would my bank have my biometrics?
Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'
201–210 of 448 posts
Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
> confiscate the equipment if the child breaks the rules. Even you acknowledge this plan is flawed and that the child can break the rules. And it's not that difficult. After all, confiscating the equipment assumes that they know about the equipment and that they can legally seize the equipment. Third parties are involved, and doing what you suggests would land these adults in prison. I know you thought you were being…
You keep saying it's flawed but I don't see how or why. What exactly is wrong with the idea that parents should look after their kids?
Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'
#203A 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…
The card providers share your identity in monetary transactions, but I don't think this data does & should include birthdate.
Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'
#204A 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?)
Yeah those checks are super annoying. The internet has been around long enough, mechanisms for this should exist.
And even in the smaller term, if I had to be 13 to make this account, and it has been more than 5 years, maybe relax?
Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'
#205Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'
#206I suspect the endgame of this campaign is to have mandatory ID checks for social media. Police would have access to these upon court orders etc and be able to easily prosecute anyone who posts 'harmful' content online.
Good! Why is the Internet any different than say, a porn or liquor store? Why are we so fuckin allergic to verification? I'll tell ya why- money. Don't pretend it's privacy.
Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'
#207Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'
#208Earlier 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.
Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'
#209Earlier 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.
We never needed everyone to filter, just parents busy lobbying the government to impose crap onto every possible service and website across the entire world.
Instead, they should purchase devices for their kids that have a child-lock and client-side filters. All sites have to do is add an HTTP header loosely characterizing it's content.
1. Most of the dollar costs of making it all happen will be paid by the people who actually need/use the feature.
2. No toxic Orwellian panopticon.
3. Key enforcement falls into a realm non-technical parents can actually observe and act upon: What device is little Timmy holding?
4. Every site in the world will not need a monthly update to handle Elbonia's rite of manhood on the 17th lunar year to make it permitted to see bare ankles. Instead, parents of that region/religion can download their own damn plugin.
Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…