On-device face scans and cross-platform age keys decrease privacy risks, but trust issues abound.
See full article...
See full article...
After Discord fiasco, age-check tech promises privacy by running locally. Does it work?
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Especially now with the animus towards transgender youth. There's bound to be a lot of them who need to find ways to escape home, or for parents to find access to things that they're not allowed anymore through their governments - or for them to find a way to escape their states.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
This wouldn't have changed the outcome much. Telling people upfront would have simply pushed the backlash sooner. Discord knew it was going to be controversial so they didn;t tell anyone (or delayed whatever announcements they did make to the last minute) because they knew.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
This is partly easy > Discord leaglly would have to disclose this information to Europeans under the GDPR and to citizens of California under the CCPA > so they might as well open the same data options up to all users.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Interesting, I only use Discord on my desktop gmaing rig. Which has zero camera hardware or functionality available. So if the platform ever flags me to run some bullshit age check I suppose I'll need to stop using the platform.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I started college at age 20 in NY state and most dorms had a beer-and-wine-only small lounge in the basement. My freshman year Reagan threatened all the states about highway funds (hmmm) if they didn't rais the drinking age to 21.
The next year the dorm bars were gone and drinking went way up.
Maybe youthful human behavior has changed. But I think raising the drinking age to 21 was one of the most socially destructive things we have ever done. We ensured college would become an alcohol management and supply environment as something very much front and center, in loco parentis etc..
That was not something that automatically occurred to you if you were 20 years old before Reagan and going to college. One did not say, "Cool, college = beer!" You already had been drinking on and off -- and pretty easily getting into bars -- since 16. See how it works?
Good luck, Australian youth.
The next year the dorm bars were gone and drinking went way up.
Maybe youthful human behavior has changed. But I think raising the drinking age to 21 was one of the most socially destructive things we have ever done. We ensured college would become an alcohol management and supply environment as something very much front and center, in loco parentis etc..
That was not something that automatically occurred to you if you were 20 years old before Reagan and going to college. One did not say, "Cool, college = beer!" You already had been drinking on and off -- and pretty easily getting into bars -- since 16. See how it works?
Good luck, Australian youth.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Will need a minium spec for camera phones. My bank app always rejects by phone image. Too bright, too dark, too out of focus etc. No opportunity to manually tweak. All under the camera auto control but clearly not adequate for such a selfie.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
The age verification should be providing nothing more than a yes/no or a number representing age. Any other data is an unauthorized intrusion.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
There is no such thing as an
age-aware camera, and the marketing term should be quoted to indicate that.I'm assuming a program is downloaded (how else would it magically appear on the device) and executed. Said program probably takes a photo using a camera and analyses it returning... something.
Next nonsense term, which is at least quoted:
vector. I hope it's not a picture of the user converted to a vector graphic... A C++ resizable array? A nickname for a domain specific perceptual hash?
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Let's not forget that Meta did this in secret while astroturfing a "grass roots" movement, spending over $2 Billion with a B! While I'm sure it was technically legal, talk about manipulation, sheesh.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
I can think of at least four major use-cases for internet anonymity, in the United Sates alone:
1) Shitbirds in GOP states insist on making medical decisions political, and outlawing often-times life-saving procedures in an effort to control women. Ask for advice online about what to do post-miscarriage? Straight to jail, apparently.
2) Shitbirds in GOP states targeting trans people with harassment over what should be a private medical decision between the trans person and their doctor.
3) Shitbirds in GOP states trying to make speaking out against their golden calf a legal problem for both non-citizens with legal visas and even some naturalized citizens, and get ICE involved.
4) Shitbirds in GOP states doxxing and harassing anyone speaking ill of Mango Mussolini, creating potential safety issues surrounding individuals exercising their 1st amendment rights.
I'm sure there's more, but that's a quick 5-minute pull off the top of my head.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
My thoughts on the organizations and people promoting these measures are best summed up by one word: [REDACTED]
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
None of those are actually arguments for being anonymous though, not really.
They're arguments against shitbirds.
Now from a practical standpoint I of course get your point, we live in the world we live in. But if we're striving for ideals I'd rather live in a world where you were free to speak your truths, about being trans, or wanting an abortion, or telling Trump to go fuck himself or whatever.
Having to hide isn't what I want to fight for, at least as a more end game goal.
Upvote
-2
(5
/
-7)
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
I don't think i am anonymous at all when i speak about the US regime. Many people must know, legally or not, what i think of this regime, the people who supported it and the people who refused to vote against its candidate for stupid reasons.
I don't care.
But i don't want random bozos on the net knowing my real name. I talk about my medical history elsewhere and it is not the business of a prospective employer, for example. Or simply strangers on the net. Or even worse those multitudes of witch hunters. Or others groups of morons who want to rid the world of evil. This is also why i am not on social networks.
Few of the people whom i talk to on the net know my real name. And i don't want to be reachable by people i consider stupid.
I don't care.
But i don't want random bozos on the net knowing my real name. I talk about my medical history elsewhere and it is not the business of a prospective employer, for example. Or simply strangers on the net. Or even worse those multitudes of witch hunters. Or others groups of morons who want to rid the world of evil. This is also why i am not on social networks.
Few of the people whom i talk to on the net know my real name. And i don't want to be reachable by people i consider stupid.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Oh, I agree. In an ideal world, all 4 of those arguments wouldn't have to be even a remote thought in anyone's mind.
However, where I grew up on Long Island, and where I live now, bad actors have made the need for anonymity an unfortunate reality. And because I'm not the best communicator in the world, let me put it this way: It's an optimization problem. You have to optimize for the parameters that exist, not the ones we wish existed.
I wish autism weren't vilified to the point where certain subsets of people would prefer their child die of a horrifying disease than end up being a "person like [me]." I wish being part of the LGBTQ+ community wasn't getting so viciously attacked that denying ones' own perception/reality and living in the closet was the "safe" option. I wish women and minorities could be treated like fellow human beings, being granted all the same rights/protections/doctor-patient-confidentiality/access to the Bill of Rights as old white men.
But in America in 2026, none of those wishes are presently a reality. And the fact that "Think of the Children" is being an excuse to whittle away at the one bit of anonymity that affords all of those vulnerable people a chance to communicate without fear of reprisal should be pretty obvious by now.
Do children need to be protected? Yes, as kids we were all bloody stupid. We lacked life experience, we lacked a fully functioning prefrontal cortex. We lacked a lot of things. That's what parents are for. Parents should be protecting their kids. Not the rest of us. We shouldn't be handing over our last bastions of sanity to a cabal led by a 34-time-convicted felon with further allegations of pedophilia against him. And we certainly should not be handing over further biometric data to data brokers that will further profit off an ever-increasing surveillance state.
Should there be basic gates in place to prevent a minor from accidentally stumbling over something potentially permanently-scarring or damaging? For sure. But the proposed methods are untenable and far overreaching.
Let me get an anonymized one-time-use credit card number from my financial institution that can be recycled/thrown away after its one-time use, instead.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Online age checks will forever be illogical and inherently worthless because there's no way to prove that the current user of the device on the other side and the ID they're providing for that check are actually the same person. None. Zero. Nada.
Like I don't even understand how people don't see this. It seems like the most basic logical reasoning to me.
Like I don't even understand how people don't see this. It seems like the most basic logical reasoning to me.
Last edited:
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Here's a great post on a Debian mailing list of what an absurd can of worms this is to open. https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2026/03/msg00018.html
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
It's kind of a false choice. If all your communications are signed with your name, aggregating them is trivial, and associating them with your other data is trivial. In that scenario, you could have laws protecting your privacy but they would be largely performative; in reality, you have lost significant privacy there.
I get where you are coming from, and acknowledge the point that anonymous speech can do considerable harm. That might be better addressed by taking threats and slander more seriously than the legal system currently does.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
I think it's more about scope and context. For instance, walking down a street you might be recorded—you're in public, that's probably something reasonable to expect. But there's imo a world of difference between walking in front of my neighbor's doorbell camera and being on their personal recording vs being recorded everywhere I go by Flock cameras that are compiling and cross referencing all my movements.
My expectation of privacy is about data collection, not being masked in public in other words.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Perhaps somewhere in the 7 pages someone already mentioned: but it looks like Meta is behind this, presumably to gather more private information?
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rshc1f/i_traced_2_billion_in_nonprofit_grants_and_45/
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rshc1f/i_traced_2_billion_in_nonprofit_grants_and_45/
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
I've used Yoti in the past for ID/age verification. It was very cumbersome and time-consuming, with multiple failed efforts. In fact it took me weeks to make it work; it would not accept my oldish National ID or work via my laptop's 720p webcam. Eventually I managed to do it, again after failing a few times, via my mobile phone's high res camera and my newly issued passport.
I've used a few other ID/age verification systems too, such as (Twitter)X's, Meta Verified (FB, IG and Threads) and Stripe (to get paid). The simplest system I've used, and the only one that worked with the very first try, was that of LinkedIn. If you have a passport with an NFC chip (like all modern EU passports and I believe US passports) all LinkedIn needs to verify your ID and age is to install its mobile app and pair your passport with your mobile. That's it.
I don't recall being asked for a face scan by LinkedIn (unlike Yoti and Meta), nor did i need to send a photo of my passport. The NFC chip contains all the required data. And, last but not least, unlike X Premium and Meta Verified, LinkedIn's verification is fully free. It has a Premium plan too, but that's distinct from its verification.
I've used a few other ID/age verification systems too, such as (Twitter)X's, Meta Verified (FB, IG and Threads) and Stripe (to get paid). The simplest system I've used, and the only one that worked with the very first try, was that of LinkedIn. If you have a passport with an NFC chip (like all modern EU passports and I believe US passports) all LinkedIn needs to verify your ID and age is to install its mobile app and pair your passport with your mobile. That's it.
I don't recall being asked for a face scan by LinkedIn (unlike Yoti and Meta), nor did i need to send a photo of my passport. The NFC chip contains all the required data. And, last but not least, unlike X Premium and Meta Verified, LinkedIn's verification is fully free. It has a Premium plan too, but that's distinct from its verification.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
all because Meta is lobbying it's ass off so that THEY don't have to implement it.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
If Meta pushes ID/age verification, apart from private data collection they have a direct monetary gain. Meta Verified costs from $15/month per profile up to an audacious $500/month.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
They already have, and they charge $15 - $500 / month for it. It's just not mandatory (yet).
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Indeed, there's no way to prove that via ID alone. Which is why Yoti and similar systems do not rely just on an ID/passport. To get ID/age verified via Yoti et al you need a gov ID, passport or driver's license and a live scan of your face matching your ID picture.
Some verification systems additionally even ask for a video where you need to speak your name, the current date, and mention the service you apply for verification.
If your current face does not match your ID picture the verification will fail. If your ID is old, wrinkled or expired it will also fail. If your webcam is low res, your ID document is glossy, and your lighting's glare obscures anything in the document, the verification will, again, fail - particularly with Yoti.
If you go through a modern age verification system you'll understand intimately how it works, and why it's virtually impossible to fool them. I have gone through many, or else I couldn't get paid. Yoti was the worst by far; it was designed by sadists. LinkedIn's system was the direct opposite. It was a piece of cake to get verified, since they do it via NFC and their mobile app.
Last edited:
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Which is probably why it’s being pushed. And us.gov will buy all that data to “protect” Americans from content that doesn’t fit their worldview.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Time to start Raging Against the Machine...
I for one will be gratuitously showing people how to defeat this.
I for one will be gratuitously showing people how to defeat this.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Of course it isn’t, never said it wasn’t.
If someone doxxed me I’m fortunate enough our police don’t shoot first and ask questions later.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
First, thanks for not jumping on the tiresome blame-the-parents bandwagon.
My point was that any such system is doomed to fail (a popular line unless you bring parents into it apparently), and in fact will do worse than fail because it might provide a dangerous false sense of security.
All the tech, all the good parenting, is NOT going to keep kids from eventually finding 4chan, porn, climate denial nonsense, NONE of it.
The only way is to prepare them for when they do.
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
"In a world with sensible and enforced data privacy laws for instance that wouldn't be an issue."
Upvote
2
(4
/
-2)
Pfft... that requires:
1 - actually following the law(s). With this (mal)Administration? Good luck; and
2 - no "workarounds" completely neutering the intent, like how the USA circumvents the 'no spying domestically' by leveraging their Five Eyes partners to do it for them, or just buying data that the Constitution says they need warrants for (so can't have wholesale, but need a judge's sign off on a case-by-case basis).
Bottom line, if the data exists, someone, somewhere — lots of someones, most everywhere — will abuse it.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
I'm not finding any direct matches, but in general, a vector is a direction and a magnitude. One might encode the age and the other the certainty level.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
“Age verification tech is coming” not if we fight it. And we must fight it. Because it’s bad for everyone.
It doesn’t protect children, it actually makes them more vulnerable by exposing their ages
It exposes everyone else to hacks of our most sensitive information. And they will get hacked because there’s no such thing as perfect security
And even worse, it’s going to be used by repressive governments like the one currently in power in the US
It’s insane to give governments this kind of power during a global crisis with fascism and authoritarianism.
And it’s insane to think the same government that continues to cover up the Epstein files cares about the safety of children. If anything, they’ll use it to find the children online and target them
It doesn’t protect children, it actually makes them more vulnerable by exposing their ages
It exposes everyone else to hacks of our most sensitive information. And they will get hacked because there’s no such thing as perfect security
And even worse, it’s going to be used by repressive governments like the one currently in power in the US
It’s insane to give governments this kind of power during a global crisis with fascism and authoritarianism.
And it’s insane to think the same government that continues to cover up the Epstein files cares about the safety of children. If anything, they’ll use it to find the children online and target them
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Phone image capture is never a single iteration. So frustrating and will drive customers away! It depends on the camera/software capability (optics, sensor resolution, near focus, low light sensitivity, contrast, image stabilisation, image processing etc). For instance, where the contrast is low or you shake too much and the detection algorithm is very prescriptive or has to err on the side of caution.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
This is pure gold. Also skin-crawling. Maybe satire isn't dead after all.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
No, that's like saying "we don't have to worry about AI because it's bad so no one will use it" and then AI got good enough that too many people use it.
Or like "It's okay that Microsoft makes you sign up for an account in Windows 10 because it's easily bypassed" but then they made it harder in Windows 11.
What we need is strong protections AGAINST identity verification. Age verification, imo, is technically okay because if I only have to prove my age, not my identity. But it's one small step away from your real identity being tied to your all your online activity, which is a terrible for privacy and free speech.
Saying "well the evil system doesn't work very well so don't worry about it" assumes the evil system can't be improved.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)