4 ms·

The facial recognition thing seems unlikely to me, nobody likes it except tech companies that want a magic AI to solve their compliance problems. If you care ab

by _23sd 4y ago

The facial recognition thing seems unlikely to me, nobody likes it except tech companies that want a magic AI to solve their compliance problems. If you care about privacy then biometrics is a no-go, if not then actual ID verification is more accurate. The point is that facial recognition is not the actual requirement, anyone trying to tell you it’s the requirement is probably trying to sell you a facial recognition system (and the author of the article fell for it).

mlyle 4y ago
> The point is that facial recognition is not the actual requirement The requirement is doing something horribly invasive to determine age. We all know it doesn't have to be facial recognition (though this is probably cheapest and least invasive, even though it's still gross). It's also worth noting that while the bill prohibits entities with significant child audiences from retaining the information, it doesn't appear to extend that limitation to service providers providing age verification services.
- _23sd 4y ago
  The requirement is to do something to estimate the age of users, nowhere does it say that would always need to be more invasive than asking the user if they're over 18. If we do all know that it doesn't have to be facial recognition that's great, but the title of the post suggested that the law requires you to "scan your face on every website" and I was taking issue with that.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > The requirement is to do something to estimate the age of users, nowhere does it say that would always need to be more invasive than asking the user if they're over 18. No, it doesn't say that it would always need to be more invasive than that. I doubt a prompt asking the age would generally be seen as "Estimate the age of child users with a reasonable level of certainty..." Having to deal with invasive means of validating your age is a reasonably anticipatable consequence of this law. And it shouldn't be a big surprise that the data ends up misused, even if the law makes a token (very weak) effort to prohibit that.

by _23sd 4y ago

mlyle 4y ago

> The point is that facial recognition is not the actual requirement The requirement is doing something horribly invasive to determine age. We all know it doesn't have to be facial recognition (though this is probably cheapest and least invasive, even though it's still gross). It's also worth noting that while the bill prohibits entities with significant child audiences from retaining the information, it doesn't appear to extend that limitation to service providers providing age verification services.

_23sd 4y ago
The requirement is to do something to estimate the age of users, nowhere does it say that would always need to be more invasive than asking the user if they're over 18. If we do all know that it doesn't have to be facial recognition that's great, but the title of the post suggested that the law requires you to "scan your face on every website" and I was taking issue with that.
- mlyle 4y ago
  > The requirement is to do something to estimate the age of users, nowhere does it say that would always need to be more invasive than asking the user if they're over 18. No, it doesn't say that it would always need to be more invasive than that. I doubt a prompt asking the age would generally be seen as "Estimate the age of child users with a reasonable level of certainty..." Having to deal with invasive means of validating your age is a reasonably anticipatable consequence of this law. And it shouldn't be a big surprise that the data ends up misused, even if the law makes a token (very weak) effort to prohibit that.