261–270 of 494 posts
I don't understand why (mostly) young people put so much effort into remaining customers of a service that is actively hostile against them and that they do not like. Does the convenience of remaining on a service you don't like the management of outweigh the mild effort to find an alternative solution?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And lose every user in the process
I think you massively overestimate how many people actually care. My guess is that 95% or more of all Discord users do not care and simply upload their selfie or ID card and be done with it. I know I will (although they did say that they expect 80%+ to not require verification since they can somehow infer their age from other parameters)
I've already cancelled my Nitro account. I'm quite active on a ~5k member programming server and we're giving Zulip another try. I think it's unlikely we'll stay on Discord.
Obviously anecdotal, but eventually this adds up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not how they work. They emit structured light in the form of an array of infrared dots and they measure the time of flight to where the dots strike something. Maybe new ones are different but that’s how they used to be. Little Kinect devices, really, for sensing faces instead of whole people.
You are exactly right. There's a description here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/de... These cameras are considered a "secure biometric" device and AFAIK nobody has faked them. I've flagged the poster who said "try two flat images"
The real and robust method will be generating artificial video input instead of the real webcam. I really don’t think any platform will be able to counter this. If they start requiring to use a phone with harder to spoof camera input, you will simply be able to put the camera in front of a high resolution screen. The cat and mouse game will not last long.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not how they work. They emit structured light in the form of an array of infrared dots and they measure the time of flight to where the dots strike something. Maybe new ones are different but that’s how they used to be. Little Kinect devices, really, for sensing faces instead of whole people.
You are exactly right. There's a description here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/de... These cameras are considered a "secure biometric" device and AFAIK nobody has faked them. I've flagged the poster who said "try two flat images"
Hello there! It appears you are misapplying the flagging system. While the suggestion may be incorrect, it is not an "egregious comment".
In addition, your comment doesn't follow the Hacker News Guidelines:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
Have a great day!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personal Identity Verification (PIV) and Common Access Card (CAC) credentials used by US government & military via NFC already work on web browsers. States should just move to digital IDs stored on smartphones, with chain of trust up through the secure element...
This is extremely dangerous, and would only work with hardware/software that is nonfree (i.e., not under the user's control, or any attestation could be spoofed).
It’s less like a TLS handshake and more like OpenID for Verifiable Presentations (OID4VP). The "non-free" hardware requirement serves as Remote Attestation—it allows a verifier to cryptographically prove that the identity hasn't been cloned or spoofed by a script. The verification happens offline or via a standard web flow using the DMV’s public key to validate the data signature, ensuring the credential is authentic without requiring a phone-home to the issuer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should anyone inclined to want to buy beer have to show ID to do it?
I don't know how it works where you live, but in many jurisdictions around the world (including the one I live in), you have to provide ID to prove that you're of drinking age.
Three problems with this: 1. Removes the pain of age verification, encouraging some people to stay in the proprietary walled garden when everyone would be better served by open platforms (and network effects). 2. Provides a pretext for more invasive age verification and identification, because "the privacy-respecting way is too easily circumvented". 3. Encourages people to run arbitrary code from a random Web site in…
> everyone would be better served by open platforms Oh cool, which ones?! …aaaand there's the problem.
There are multiple open-source tools that do everything Discord does. There are few-to-none that offer everything Discord does, and certainly none that are centralized, network-effect-capture-ready.
Short term:
* Small group chats with known friends: Signal, whatsapp, IRC, Matrix
* Community chat: Zulip, Rocket.chat
* Community voice: Mumble, Teamspeak
* Video / screen sharing and voice chat: Zoom, BigBlueButton, Jitsi
I've heard about Stoat but haven't read up on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do all EU countries have that? I know our (German) ID works that way, using the FOSS AusweisApp, but I hadn’t heard of it being EU-wide (it should be, though).
Spanish ID cards have had an X. 509 cert inside them for more than 10 years, I use it all the time to sign documents and access government sites. There is already legislation and a push for an EU-wide digital identity wallet that should be up and running this year, look up eidas 2.0 and the EUDI wallet. That looks like it should make things like privacy compatible age verification "trivial".
Anyone got a clue what that means?