Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.com

311–320 of 448 posts

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

#311

How do we fight back against this? I don't want my face scanned on a smartphone to use goods and services. Kyc checks for banks are bad enough. I miss the internet of the early 2000s.

This is probably difficult, but if everyone collectively didn't use services that had such egregious requirements it would likely die quickly. The companies being requires to do such things would have to start pushing back against government policies that are killing their business.

Considering everyone currently and without a second thought lets Apple scan their face just for the convenience of unlocking their phone I think this is a lost cause.

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

#312
post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn’t realistic, it’s pessimistic. If the government, the system, is your opponent, there is no other outcome than subversion, everything is futile anyway. That leaves no room for democratic participation, for any kind of peaceful change, if you’re being earnest with it. And that seems very cynical and ideologically driven to me. There’s a lot of room for improvement that doesn’t involve tearing everything down be…

I am not advocating tearing everything down, as that will make things worse, especially if done violently. > That leaves no room for democratic participation I think there is very limited room for democratic participation and it has become far to difficult to change anything. If I vote and I do not care which of the parties that have a chance of winning wins because their policies are so similar it does not matter, w…

> If I vote and I do not care which of the parties that have a chance of winning wins because their policies are so similar it does not matter, where is my democratic participation?

In joining a party that represents you better—or founding one if no such party exists—and campaigning for it. Democracy doesn't end with casting a ballot, especially in trying times like these. Nobody is going to come and save us; if we don't stand up, nobody will.

I can wholeheartedly recommend the book "The Germans: They thought they were free" by Milton Mayer[1]. It very thoroughly describes how a society ends up asking how the holocaust could possibly have happened while nobody did anything about it while it did.

[1]: https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

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

#313
post #253

This is never about protecting the children. This is always about government overreach. People are less likely to criticize the government, or even participate in political debate, if their online identities are know by the government. Governments like obedient, scared citizens. The only ethical response to laws like this, is for websites and apps to terminate operations completely in countries that create them. Citi…

Providing identity and access services at scale is certainly a few people's next big plan, and it appears they've managed to sell the representatives of their own states on it first.

This sort of thing can't happen except through the largest tech companies in the world, who are coincidentally already poised to be the world's official providers of digital identity, and private internet enclaves.

Look at what Microsoft has done with Windows - mandatory minimum TPM to install and a Microsoft account registration for a local user. Try using an Apple iPad or iPhone without an iCloud account or adding a payment method. Google wants you to sign in with them, everywhere, aggressively. Cloudflare has been the web's own private gatekeeper for the last decade. Facebook's whole product is identity. IBM has sold surveillance, IAM, and facial recognition services for decades.

Instead of a clunky IP-based Great Firewall, imagine being able to render VPNs ineffective and unnecessary everywhere on the planet by a person's (verified national) identity. Click. Block and deactivate all members of group "Islamic State" on your platform. Click. Allow IDs registered to this ZIP Code to vote in this election. Click. CortanaSupreme, please dashboard viewer metrics by usage patterns that indicate loneliness, filtering for height, last assessed property values, and marriage status, and show their locations.

Currently, laws don't require age verification, just that ineligible parties are excluded. There's no legal requirement to card someone before selling them alcohol, and there's no reason anyone would need a depth map of someone's face when we could safely assume that the holder of a >5 year old email account is likely to be 18 if 13 is the minimum age to register with the provider.

Shifting the onus to parents to control what their kids do on the internet hasn't worked. However, that's a bare sliver of what's at stake here.

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

#314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why would the solution to dehumanising women be "minors shouldn't be able see it"?

Perhaps because as an adult you understand we understand this can influence them when its not supervised?

Perhaps it would be a better solution to ban the dehumanising kind of porn for everyone.

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

#315
post #243

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?)

> Is card verification a lesser form of surveillance? It's not just about which is worse surveillance, it's also simply that everyone has a face but not everyone has a credit card. I'm not deemed creditworthy in this country I moved to (never had a debt in my life but they don't know that) so the card application got rejected. Do we want to upload biometrics or exclude poor and unknown people from "being 18"? I reall…

>everyone has a face

Does everyone who is 18+ have a face that passes for 18+ (and the inverse as well)?

Overall it seems like a bad idea, but one demanded by what sounds like a good idea with not reasonable way to fully implement it, leading to a tangled network of bad ideas patching other bad ideas patching other bad ideas all the way down.

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

#316
post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but if the goal is to minimise access to violence, why did the GP say "they can access porn" instead of "they can access violence"? I doubt the two are synonymous.

They're not synonymous but a vast amount of pornography available online constitutes violence against women. The commercial sex trade, including both porn and prostitution, is a multi-billion dollar industry that seeks to normalize extreme acts and promotes the dehumanisation of women and girls.

This framing trades nuance for moral panic. The assertion that pornography inherently constitutes violence against women is not an argument but a slogan. It is ideological posturing, not analysis. The so-called ‘commercial sex trade’ as you put it is complex, and your narrative is not intellectually serious.

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

#317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why would the solution to dehumanising women be "minors shouldn't be able see it"?

The whole point here is to prevent impressionable children from growing up watching videos of women being treated like objects, so that they don't grow up to view women as objects

Has there been some outbreak of this? Genuinely confused. My impression is that sort of behavior has been decreasing my entire life while access to porn has been increasing.

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

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> take great pains to keep minors out of my adult spaces, and don't have to resort to anything as invasive as biometric surveillance or card charges. What sort of spaces are these (online or in person), and how do you enforce this? I have an online space where such non invasive measures could be useful.

Mine are rooted in the 90s/00s internet: I know the people I allow into my spaces, and extend to them a degree of trust to let others in who are also of legal age. I rotate the credentials every so often at random, forcing everyone to request the new password from me. Other spaces I inhabit also operate off this sort of "community trust" system, only letting in folks we already know ourselves. It's how we keep out mi…

> I'd personally like to see more sites (in general, not just adult) contribute their domain names and CDNs to independent list maintainers (or published in a help article linked via their main footer)

This would be so useful. I once tried to get this information from a company you've all heard of, so that we could reliably whitelist their services on our corporate firewall, and the answer was "they're dynamic, so that's impossible". I said "but you know them, you could dynamically make that information available to your customers", but got nowhere. I'd like this to be a regulatory requirement, but the people who make the rules aren't sufficiently technically competent to identify technical solutions, and don't seem to listen to people who are.

[Edit to add: I really like your old-school approach to building online community for yourself. I don't know your interests, or if I'd like yours, but I wish more spaces with your approach were around. The world in general (not only the internet) is a better place when we interact with each other in ways that aren't commercially determined.]

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

#319
I am getting sick and tired of the thinly veiled excuse of "we need to strip away more of your privacy in order to protect the childen" we all know they are doing it because they want to surveil/track you more easily.

and for those that think they are actually doing this to protect the children and you are concerned about what your children sees online this might sound a bit harsh but why dont you actually parent. Stop giving your kids unlimited access you tablets/computers etc. back in my day there was the option of having a single computer for the child in a public room that could not be moved. you could create whitelist only sites nowadays very easily even for laymens.

i understand it is a bit harder nowdays because more parents are both working to support the family but i rather not loose what little privacy we have left as a society because its requires more work for you to parent

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

#320

Earlier 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…

These are not 20 something college students with jobs and rented apartments, doing stuff without their parents knowing. These are kids younger than 13, they don't have jobs, they live with their parents, no internet/data planes outside of control of their parents, no nothing. The goal of these laws is to get ID checks on social networks for everyone, so the governments know who the "loud ones" (against whatever polit…

>These are kids younger than 13, they don't have jobs, they live with their parents, no internet/data planes outside of control of their parents, no nothing.

Yes they do. If all that is preventing them from having a job is depending upon their parents to stop that behavior, there are enough parents who aren't going to intervene that I will reasonably be able to staff my coal mine. Sure, the parents should do a better job, but history shows us that many don't (be it choice or be it other factors). So are we willing for the kids of those parents to effectively be treated as adults by everyone else or are we going to keep laws that protect kids even when parents aren't doing so?

Post reply on HN