271–280 of 561 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
most banks using faceid won't accept you go to a branch. because they contract with a provider who makes more money from building and selling a database than to fulfilling the contract with the banks.
Do you have proof of this? This comes off as conjecture.
all banks contract with fly-by-night faceid providers who have zero oversight or provide no governance info anywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that the answer when even parents don't have the right tools for this. are parents supposed to surveil their kids 24/7 and monitor their internet traffic? Why is the internet special, do you also believe physical stores shouldn't check for ID for cigarettes and alcohol, because the solution is better parenting?
I think minors shouldn't be in any store period unless accompanied by their parent or guardian.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> keeping that alternative clanker-free which brings you right back to verification...
Would be nice to see something referral based. If you don't like X, block them. If X invited Y and Z and their invites behave poorly, you can block the whole tree. Kinda like lobste.rs referrals but for wider internet I guess the correlary would be like how you can block an entire ASN if you find a lot of abuse from it, but at the human-network level.
Aside from social dynamics, a chief issue is that if you're relying on this as a mechanism for content filtering, personal relations have low predictive value.
E.g., I may really like a person's content, but not their curation or referrals to other accounts. Conversely, I might not care for a person, but their recommendations may be excellent. More common might be the case that a given account produces little or no content of their own, but makes reliably predictable (either good or bad) recommendations, which would be useful for further filtering. Or the highly verbose individual who emits a constant stream of near-drek, but an occasional diamond.
Content production, content curation, and talent spotting are all distinct skills. Success or lack in any one says little about the others. This is where Bayesian indicators (including relationships and referrer / invite relations) would probably be more robust.
That said, tainting an entire invite tree is likely useful, with a caveat that if a particular invitee has an independent, untainted, relation, they might be worth following.
In practice what I've found most useful is to have a pretty tight primary list of follows, ~50 or fewer, and a slightly broader secondary list. Allow recommendations be default (that is, re-shares / boosts), but curtail those too if problematic. Be quite liberal in blocking / muting anything in the least bit annoying or problematic.
Or participate in a selective group with excellent moderation. HN isn't quite there, but it approaches this ideal more closely than any other major forum I'm aware of presently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that the answer when even parents don't have the right tools for this. are parents supposed to surveil their kids 24/7 and monitor their internet traffic? Why is the internet special, do you also believe physical stores shouldn't check for ID for cigarettes and alcohol, because the solution is better parenting?
I never had to get my ID checked to be able to talk to strangers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bank's security camera feed isn't likely to be sold to dozens of companies. It is all but guaranteed for Internet-based facial recognition services. Hacked facial recognition data already is reportedly being used by scammers to not only bypass bank security but also to impersonate people to target their loved ones. There is no lasting security gain by providing a selfie. There is a lasting security and privacy loss…
So that's the concern? But GDPR solved this, just don't consent to them selling your likeness for AI training purposes.
Even back in 2014, malware was coming out that steals facial recognition data directly from smart phones themselves.
https://www.theregister.com/security/2024/02/15/stolen-ios-u...
The GDPR isn't a silver bullet.
Additionally - furtherance of facial recognition technology would impact travelling to foreign jurisdictions.
One of the most common ways foreign travellers get flagged when travelling internationally is for social media posts made under their own name that their destination country's government may not like. Traditionally if you've kept yourself pseudo-anonymous, you've largely been safe. But if we get to a point where pseudo-anonymous accounts are associated with pictures of people's faces, it will become significantly less pleasant to travel internationally for a lot more people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asinine requirement by whatever risk management firm they use. A selfie provides nothing in terms of lasting security while simultaneously adding permanent risk.
Have you ever considered that it’s a front? You may think that store that never has customers is just run incompetent business people, but in reality the real objective is not the one you believe it to be, and it’s actually great if you were to refuse understanding that.
As always, the goal in convincing others is to take someone from their current understanding and bring them closer to yours. You can't get there if you don't start the topic at their current understanding of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you have to declare your accounts to border police prior to international travel.
Are you referring to financial accounts or social media accounts? (If social media accounts, I'm guessing you're referring to the US specifically, and during advance visa processing rather than at the border.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's nothing sinister going on here There absolutely is you're just not aware of it. This whole thing is meta financially backing right wing conservative groups that want age verification because meta wants to avoid liability for the harms their platforms cause. In addition, this is the beginning of the end of any sort of anonymity on the internet, which has disastrous consequences for politically minded individ…
> There absolutely is you're just not aware of it. Can you show here that you understand how privacy-preserving age verification works? I mean the rest of your message really, really sounds like you don't. Don't get me wrong: I do agree that identity verification is bad. But it is not okay to say "I know of a system that is bad, and I don't know the nuances of how it could be implemented in a better way, so I will ju…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have proof of this? This comes off as conjecture.
ask you ai chatbot or do 5second google search. all banks contract with fly-by-night faceid providers who have zero oversight or provide no governance info anywhere.
Maybe we'll get there eventually? But you should be more wary about making such absolute claims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never had to get my ID checked to be able to talk to strangers.
in real life people can see you and determine your age at a rough estimate and be able to tell if you're an adult or not. Do you support having to turn on your webcam and show your face in real time then, to talk to strangers on the internet? many age verification sites are doing just that.