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

211–220 of 448 posts

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

#211

Post by xphos »

I don't think the problem is that young people are finding porn on the internet. There is a problem, though, and it has to deal with psychological warfare on attention

Formats like shorts or news feeds to you algorithmically with zero lag are the problem. It makes for the zombification of decision making. Endless content breaks people down precisely because it's endless. I think if you add age verification but don't root out the endless nature, you will not really help any young person or adult.

When you look at people with unhealthy content addiction, it is always a case of excess and not necessarily type of content. There are pedophiles but honestly, we have had that throughout all time, with and without the internet. But the endless feeding of the next video robs people of the ability to stop by mentally addiciting them to see just one more. And because content is not really infinite, endless feeds invariably will feed people with porn, eating disorders, and other "crap" in quantities that slowly erode people.

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

#212

Post by subscribed »

chatmasta wrote: post #201
zoklet-enjoyer wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why/how would my bank have my biometrics?

They almost certainly have a photo of your passport or other identification.

For the purpose of KYC checks.

That doesn't mean every service provider (discord, roblox, pornhub) should have the same.

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

#213

Post by YetAnotherNick »

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…

A lot of these shops have cameras which could similarly be compromised. In fact the camera is likely to be more vulnerable and probably already had been hacked by DDoS orgs.

I hate sites asking for photo verification, but I think it is more about convenience/reliability for me. My bigger fear is that if AI locks me out with no one to go for support.

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

#214

Post by oalae5niMiel7qu »

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…

Credit cards are trivially traceable to your legal identity, since anti-money-laundering and know-your-customer laws require that credit card companies keep this information. The government can subpoena this information just as easily as they could with pictures of your face or ID.

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

#215

Post by sandspar »

pezezin wrote: post #184
numpad0 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Korea is a democratic Western nation, they host US military bases and fly F-35. Korean made phones are trusted enough that American special forces use it for some parachute jumpings.

Since when is East Asia considered "Western"? I live in a Japanese city with a US military base and trust me, the only Western thing here are the few bars that cater to them.

If the world splits into a China bloc and an American bloc, Japan would almost certainly join the American bloc, right?

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

#216

Post by chatmasta »

subscribed wrote: post #212
chatmasta wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They almost certainly have a photo of your passport or other identification.

For the purpose of KYC checks. That doesn't mean every service provider (discord, roblox, pornhub) should have the same.

No, but the original thread was about providing your credit card number to these service providers. I’m saying that’s one hop from your bank, who has your biometric information.

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

#217

Post by rapind »

Terr_ wrote: post #209
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> trying to get everyone to filter 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 h…

There's a peer / social issue at play as well though. If you believe that smart phones are disastrous for kids (I happen to think so), and don't allow your 13yo daughter to have one, you are pretty much forcing her to be the odd one out. Maybe that's OK for some parents, but you can't deny that this cost exists.

Preventing your son from playing certain video games that all of his friends enjoy also has a social cost.

This is why I think it's great when schools ban phones in class. When left up to the parents individually it's an absolute disaster.

These are just some specific examples of where I the nanny state can be beneficial. For most things in general though I'd also prefer people govern themselves (and their kids) whenever possible.

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

#218

Post by Terr_ »

rapind wrote: post #217
Terr_ wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> trying to get everyone to filter 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 h…

There's a peer / social issue at play as well though. If you believe that smart phones are disastrous for kids (I happen to think so), and don't allow your 13yo daughter to have one, you are pretty much forcing her to be the odd one out. Maybe that's OK for some parents, but you can't deny that this cost exists. Preventing your son from playing certain video games that all of his friends enjoy also has a social cost.…

> This is why I think it's great when schools ban phones in class.

Agreed on the classroom angle, there are many reasons (e.g. cheating, concentration) to treat the availability of devices in a uniform way there.

> If you believe that smart phones are disastrous for kids

A focus on the handheld device also makes it easier to handle other related concerns that can't really be solved any other way, like "no social-media after bedtime."

Post reply on HN