Age Verification Providers Say Don’t Worry About California Design Code; You’ll Just Have To Scan Your Face For Every Website You Visit

from the this-is-not-a-solution dept

If you thought cookie pop-ups were an annoying nuisance, just wait until you have to scan your face for some third party to “verify your age” after California’s new design code becomes law.

On Friday, I wrote about the companies and organizations most likely to benefit from California’s AB 2273, the “Age Appropriate Design Code” bill that the California legislature seems eager to pass (and which they refer to as the “Kid’s Code” even though the details show it will impact everyone, and not just kids). The bill seemed to be getting very little attention, but after a few of my posts started to go viral, the backers of the bill ramped up their smear campaigns and lies — including telling me that I’m not covered by it (and when I dug in and pointed out how I am… they stopped responding). But, even if somehow Techdirt is not covered (which, frankly, would be a relief), I can still be quite concerned about how it will impact everyone else.

But, the craziest of all things is that the “Age Verification Providers Association” decided to show up in the comments to defend themselves and insist that their members can do age verification in a privacy-protective manner. You just have to let them scan your face with facial recognition technology.

Really.

I’m not kidding:

First, we want to reassure you and your readers generally about anonymity. The purpose of the online age verification sector is to allow users to prove their age to a website, WITHOUT disclosing their identity.

This can be achieved in a number of ways, but primarily through the use of independent, third-party AV providers who do not retain centrally any of your personal data. Once they have established your age or age-range, they have no need (and under EU GDPR law, therefore no legal basis) to retain your personal data.

In fact, the AV provider may not have needed to access your personal data at all. Age estimation based on facial analysis, for example, could take place on your own device, as can reading and validating your physical ID.

First, I want to call out that they said “may not” need access to your personal data. Which is very different from “does not” or “will not.”

Also, they insist it’s not “facial recognition” software because it’s not matching you up to a database of your identity… it’s just using “AI” to guess estimate your age. What could possibly go wrong?

But, more to the point, they’re basically saying “don’t worry, you’ll just need to scan your face or ID for every website your visit.” Normalizing facial scans does not seem particularly privacy protecting or reasonable. It seems pretty dystopian, frankly.

We’ve already just gone through this nonsense earlier this year when the IRS was demanding facial scans, and it later came out that — contrary to claims about privacy and the high quality of the facial verification technology — the technology was incredibly unreliable and the vendor in question’s public claims about the privacy tools were bogus.

Honestly, this whole thing is bizarre. The idea that we need facial scans to surf the internet is just crazy, and I don’t see how that benefits kids at all. (Also, does this mean you can only surf the web on PCs that have webcams, now? Do public libraries and internet cafes have to equip every machine with a camera?)

This morning, they’re in the comments again, trying (and failing) to defend this argument that it’s nothing to worry about. When people point out that such a system can be gamed, they have an answer… “we’ll just make you take a video of yourself saying phrases, too.” I mean WHAT?

For some higher risk use cases, the age check may involve a liveness test where the user must take several selfie photos or record a short video saying phrases requested by the provider. Passive liveness technology has further reduced the effort required by the user – do look into that.

They’re also cautioning against the claims that you’d have to scan all the time. If you’re “low risk,” according to them, you might only have to have your face scanned every three months. What a bargain.

How often you need to prove it is still the same user who did the check is a matter for the services themselves and their regulators. Some low risk uses might only check every three months – higher risk situations might double check it is still you each time you make a purchase.

Also, they’re saying that if Techdirt is going to publish “content that is potential harmful to kids” (as we’ve described, the standard “harmful to kids” is never clearly defined in the bill, and could easily apply to our stories on civil rights abuses among other things), these Age Verification providers have a solution: just redesign Techdirt to put those stories in the “adult section.”

Unless techdirt carries content that is potentially harmful to kids, it woud not need to apply age assurance. If some content is potentially harmful, this could be put in a sub-section of the site where adult users who wish to access it would use an age check – but probabably the same one they did 3 weeks ago when downloading a new 18 rated video game.

All of this is nonsense.

Once again, everything about this bill assumes everyone providing internet services is inherently up to no good, and that every kid who uses the internet is damaged by it. That’s not even remotely true. There are ways to deal with the actual problems without ruining the internet for everyone. But that’s not the approach California is taking.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: age verification providers association

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Age Verification Providers Say Don’t Worry About California Design Code; You’ll Just Have To Scan Your Face For Every Website You Visit”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
179 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

I’d rather not use the Internet at all if I need to have my laptop’s camera on all the time so some shady-ass company that I don’t trust can scan my face to make sure I’m not a kid every time I visit a given website. And if someone at that shady-ass company has a problem with my saying that, I got two words for ’em:

🖕 Fuck. 🖕 You. 🖕

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Well, from an AC-hole cheapseats, I suppose that–unlike yourself who is one day on about me being “the evil Chinese,” posting from Singapore, Wuhan–Tokyo–wherever “the evil Chinese” in your imagination live–it wouldn’t matter much for your dossier who or what I am or am not.

One day, you are all webterrogating some inocent victim online–delusional and convinced I am a gormeh sabzi guzzling Iranian or even a UAE spergbot, maybe one of your late night cruising victims in some dark alley full of desperate gay men (West Hollywood, lol)–what would be the point of telling you that I live in Boyle Height’s, just behind the county coroners office–that I can see the Spring Stret building from my front windows?

THAT would ruin your oh-so-Silverlake gaytard hipster fantasy.

Pro-tip, just for YOU: All the Dickcheese guzzler’s like yourself, can be found to YOUR hearts content in We-Ho. EAT YOUR DICKCHEESE HEART OUT, bruh!

And, Try to be nice to others, should get out of prison, you convicted pedophile. In the real world, you would not only get bitch slapped into oblivion, eat your teeth and cry, but might find yourself the prey, not the online predator that you are.

Seriously–grow a personality or something, and stop worrying about where real people live, AC-hole-bot. “real life” isn’t half as exciting as they make it oit to be.

Ok, I was lying–real life beats the shit out of your stick-dry kindle of a “life” lol.

MATCH

Anonymous Coward says:

If the facial scan and age estimate is carried out only n the users P.C. then programs that simply say over 18 will become popular. If the provider scans the image, image how do they know they are seeing the person using the computer, rather than an save image or video.

The hole in the system the critical step of seeing who is actually using the computer, and even detection when that changes. Also, its biggest failure in terms of child protection will be that an adult can bee showing a child inappropriate material, and with two monitors it is easy to have the child outside the view of the camera being used for age validation.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

If the facial scan and age estimate is carried out only on the users P.C. …

Let me stop you there.

1) There are much easier ways of verifying ID than facial scan, if you’re going to have the user submitting something. That include the ever-unpopular “give me a credit card number”

2) And as with the above-mentioned credit card numbers, anything client-side will be broken and hacked in hours, not days. (q.v. software ‘piracy’).

3) Even if the client isn’t gaming the system, malware may be. … as always.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

That include the ever-unpopular “give me a credit card number”

Knowing the number does not prove the ownership or possession of a card. Indeed that would be easiest check for teenagers to bypass. Indeed, anything based on a text based identifier, such as an age proof card, is a proof that is easily shared or obtained.

Anonymous Coward says:

If some content is potentially harmful, this could be put in a sub-section of the site where adult users who wish to access it would use an age check – but probabably the same one they did 3 weeks ago when downloading a new 18 rated video game.

So they are saying to lockup the comment section?
Like Mr Stone above[1].

Also, I’m afraid that, like Stone, I would refrain from using the internet. There is no sane reason for me to allow random website (or even normal website like Techdirt) access to a webcam. If that’s required, then I’d had have to reluctantly (and “silently”) say goodby to Techdirt.

[1] Stone I’m assuming (or maybe just making a blind leap of faith) that you’ll find that funny, and not offensive.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous AC-hole Problem says:

Re: Re: Re:4

And now there are four! SCHISMOGENESIS FTW!!!

Gaytarded Top Troll who endlessly searches for it’s lost foreskin online, finding only bits and bytes of code, and then, its life-companion troll who obsesses over posts about “dick-cheeses” as if its a connoisseur, and then, standard issue Thing 1 and Thing 2.

That’s enough for a gaytarded Monkey Pox spit-swapping party in their world, no kidding.

Now go flag, bitches. You are all my bitches now….here’s a few miliseconds of your life tat you will NEVER get back———->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Are they even listening to themselves?

‘This law doesn’t stand to be a huge hassle and privacy problem, you just need to jump through all these super simple steps to comply with it which may include pictures and videos of your face provided on-demand.’

Nothing like an argument that shows that even the bill’s defenders can’t defend it on it’s merits.

Anonymous Coward says:

We really need to require a passing score on an intelligence test before a person can run for public office.

Ooops, people who could pass a real intelligence test would be smart enough to NOT run for public office 🙁 So it would have to be dumb intelligence test, so we’d be back where we are now.

Also need a basic intelligence test for voters, say able to read at the above the sixth grade level (which half the adults in this country can’t do).

Well, the open internet was a great idea. We all knew that someone would find a way to destroy it…

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re:

The worst leaders are the ones who want to lead. The best leaders were forced into it by public fiat.

ORLY? America’s first disabled* president would beg to differ.

*Used deliberately. ‘With (a) disability/ies’ implies that the needs are separable from the person, whereas ‘disabled’ recognises that disability most often comes from inaccessible environments, especially in FDR’s time.

Anonymous AC-hole Problem says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Thanks for your view from the hasbara seats troll. Have you found that missing foreskin of yours yet? Rumor has it your “bris-gone-wrong” has left you bitter, and searching. Don’t worry–that happens a lot to your types of “people.”

I have linked to hundreds of articles in the Israeli press over the decades I have dealt with your types here.

Problem is, you are really stupid, and exceptionally lazy–you seldom read them, or you fall back on your usual hasbara/IDF/schismogenetic schtick.

I have no feelings one way or the other about “Israel”as a world confabulation any more than London in the fifth century A.D., or Manhattan in 1619.

Lot’s of animosity for people who don’t play fair though. People LIKE YOU. And, lots of THOSE people/bots/delusional trolls live in Israel.

It’s no coincidence, considering that the Greater Zion-British-Israel world confabulation has the Jews do all of their dirt for them. I mean–whoever “the Jews” actually are these days, lol. You saw that train wreck of ThorsProvoni.

Wow! The Svengali can really ruin folks for life….

Eric says:

I trust them..

Wait so to keep my child safe I’m supposed to give random 3rd parties the capability to take pictures of my children every time they navigate to a website…yes, I definitely trust them to do this – I assume these people proposing this will allow me to come to their house and take pictures of their kids, I mean I’ll just delete them later so its ok! And if they have nothing to hide about their age…they have nothing to worry about!

Johnny Depp's Shade says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Great question, queef-quaffer, but you are not worth an answer to anything, schismogenetic troll Thing 2

Instead, here’s a free ride on the Anonymous Coward loppedy looper!

Feedback Loops Create Autism

It could be the case that this condition can be clearly evidenced to be a disorder of stress-fuelled and co-reinforcing vicious and virtuous cycles whose components are all the known associated symptomatic traits; which themselves arise initially as a response to external stressors (which can still further promote them); but whose implementation promotes even more stress, thus making them seem more “necessary” to the afflicted individual (a feedback loop).

Apply the entire Covid script under these protocols and we can see the highest level controlling factor at play, they are creating feedback loops and thus a form of Autism in the populations through the presentation of events via the media, in all its forms. This is inclusive but not limited to, art, music, film and theatre.

Anonymous AC-hole Problem says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Well, engage with the evidence if you so choose, let’s go toe to toe, shall we?

But yor types don’t engage in any factual matters whatsoever. You are a schismogenetic troll, of the Hegelian type.

  • strawman arguments
  • ad hominem ad nauseum
  • and…..

This:

Dr. Bateson claimed that we human beings define ourselves and each other through schismogenesis.

Remember: Bateson was an anthropologist. He was describing schismogenesis as something endemic to the human mind. Professor Bates was not attempting to fix the world with his idea of schismogenesis. He was trying to describe the world and how it works so that we can better see ourselves.

Schismogenesis is our method of self-differentiation and group identification.

We humans tend to find polar opposites and then attempt to define things by examining them in that frame of opposites. This is a way that we have learned to think about our concepts and a way we have found to create solutions to our challenges.

Think of all the ways we human beings create difference: gender, race, age, ethnicity, social class, urban-suburban-rural . . . and the list goes on.

Schismogenesis is a feedback loop that functions in two directions: continually feeding us differences or continuously feeding us similarities, with each iteration amplified by the last iteration, and forever escalating: “I have nothing in common with those people” or “I’m exactly like those people. Or, tragically: “I am alone and no one understands me.”

So, yeah, wutever, Israeli troll, wutever. Mabe eat some dickcheese and stave off your craving for live children to sacrifice to your g-d Moloch.

Educate yourself–written words are like food for the brain. Or, wutever type of “intelligence” your types have there with the AI these days. Certainly, artificial anything has to get better than what you are, but who knows? Poor Thing 1, lost in a time warp, searching for its lost foreskin every day…..

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Well, engage with the evidence if you so choose. Let’s go toe to toe, shall we?

  • strawman arguments
  • ad hominem ad nauseum
  • just like the following…

But yor types don’t engage in any factual matters whatsoever. You are a schismogenetic troll, of the Hegelian type.

BTW, your mother contacted Mastercard to get a chargeback on her abortion fee from American Family Planning.

Anon says:

easy to circumvent

step 1: goto http://www.thispersondoesnotexist.com
– generates a face of a person that has never exited and will not exist with perfect rendering.
– Use an app to graphically animate the face to speak a phrase – many exist

Bonus step: Create a synthetic macro to do the above steps and automate it and flood their database with fake faces, just for the hell of it.

People will always figure out a way and there will exist sites that don’t require this and they will capture all of the business.

Kind of like stores that still require masks compared to those that don’t. Guess where 90% of business goes?

This is hilarious.

Age Verification Providers Association (profile) says:

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good

Thanks for all these comments.

The aim of the Age Appopropriate Design Code Act is to reduce the amount of harm suffered by children when they go online. That may be through contact, content, conduct or even contracts they sign.

This does not require perfection – a solution which ensured a user was AT ALL TIMES over 18, for example, would require permanent monitoring, with minute-by-minute checks they’d not gone for a glass of water and been replaced by a 4 year-old.

Literally no-one is advocating for that.

Policy makers are simply looking for ways to reduce the currently unmitigaged risk to minors of exposure to harms. That will require some friction in the process – just as it’s annoying to have to find your license before you can buy a six-pack. But the store owner does not then follow you home to check you don’t hand a can to your daughter – that check at the point of sale is considered enough by society to stop her simply buying the beer herself.

So yes there will be some inconvenience to adults. But the alternative is to treat everyone online as if they might be a child, and that’s not a great outcome.

TheCentralScrutinizer (profile) says:

Re:

I never have to show my license when buying alcohol, so what’s your point?
Storing people’s images on a server somewhere is a disaster just waiting to happen, or don’t you read the news?
My online viewing habits will remain “frictionless” because I will never willingly provide my image to some random third party.
Not.Gonna.Happen.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
m says:

Re: Don't Let Perfect...

That will require some friction in the process – just as it’s annoying to have to find your license before you can buy a six-pack.

Having to send photos or similar sensitive information to arbitrary and untrusted third parties on the internet is not remotely the same thing as showing your ID to a human cashier, and the legit concern of some sketchy company holding onto and misusing your personal info is just a little bit more than an “inconvenience”.

Additionally, there are plenty of places more analogous to the internet where no such restriction applies — a kid can go to the library and browse the adult section, and the librarians don’t give a damn, yet somehow libraries are not exactly dens of child-corrupting sin and horror.

But the alternative is to treat everyone online as if they might be a child, and that’s not a great outcome.

It sure isn’t! But treating everyone as a child is not the sole alternative. Basic checkboxes, landing pages, and warnings are plenty to deter minors who aren’t intentionally seeking out mature content, and if a kindergartener is accessing mature content on a site clearly labeling it as such, the issue isn’t “why isn’t the site stopping them from checking the I’m-over-18 box” but “why the hell was a kindergartener left unsupervised with unfiltered internet access”.

(Meanwhile, a minor who knows what they’re doing and wants access to adult content will simply find new and exciting ways to lie about their age. Even in this site’s own comments section, people are pointing out the obvious tools like AI-generated faces and deepfakes — workarounds that will probably become popular with teens and adults alike, because this solution is desirable for pretty much nobody but preachy moralists, privacy lawyers, and sketchy data-gathering companies.)

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Naughty Autie says:

Re:

The aim of the Age Appopropriate Design Code Act may be to reduce the amount of harm suffered by children when they go online, but the actual effect of the Age Appopropriate Design Code Act will be to increase harm to children as well as force Internet-based businesses out of California. I’d accuse you of lacking foresight, but… Actually, you do lack foresight. Gormless wazzock.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

You, like many politicians, are suffering from harm thinking about what children may run into online. Indeed age verification will do little to prevent the more damaging things online, like pressure to be thin, being befriended by adults pretending to be kids etc. Those problems are difficult to solve, and have require content analysis rather than age verification.

Unadulterated Poppycock says:

Re:

Pure bullshit-good parenting solves all these problems, not better tech.

simply looking for ways to reduce the currently unmitigaged risk to minors of exposure to harms

Said no one actually concerned about child welfare, ever.

No child ever died from seeing boobies and weinies, but the US-FVEY’s social media and other propaganda delivery systems are LOADED with war porn and police brutality–what exact message is it that you professional concern trolls have for children, exactly?

And

there will be some inconvenience to adults

Understatement of the year, in the total surveillance society built by and over-run with British white knights and their false equivalencies of child safety.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Nice try at getting a peek at my dick there, truckstop lurker-perv.

You’re the one that’s a pervert because AC never asked for a dick pic at all.

But your sympathy or how the American herd was mismanaged in the last century along those lines of ritual castration is appreciated.

*hisses through teeth* You do indeed have my sympathy. How do you cope? Implants and testosterone injections?

genghis_uk (profile) says:

Re: Where are the Parents

So because a lot of parents do not monitor and assist their children with online activities – all adults must be inconvenienced?

Ironically, these are the same parents who worry about letting their children outside because ‘paedos and traffickers’ but have no problem with letting their little darlings loose on the internet, unsupervised.

AC-hole Identity Management says:

Re: Re: Re:2

It really bothers you that China doesn’t have the British-Israel Abrahamic Trifecta internet brainwashing problem doesn’t it? No one there cutting the weinies of little boys, and teaching girls that boobies are burdens.

There’s no way for people like you to slip religion, pornography and tranny education to the kids there, ay?

Cuz kids need what you are selling, right? Rules based world order something something, bioweapons-for-health and bombing nuclear plants something, as UN inspectors arrive…. and our values something or other….

You are seething, like that rainbow meme with the crying pink haired girl.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
WarioBarker (profile) says:

Re:

The aim of the Age Appopropriate Design Code Act is to reduce the amount of harm suffered by children when they go online.

No, it’s not, and you know it’s not.

The aim is to let a whole bunch of people to say “Look everybody, we’re Doing Something!” The aim is to get political points just before the midterms. The aim is to “stick it to Big Tech” while letting Big Telecom get away with its usual bullcrappery (so basically a content moderation bill). The aim is to tell the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to go f-ck themselves. The aim, especially with your suggestion of using facial identification/recognition, is to make all us proles become used to having little to no privacy online.

George Orwell’s 1984 was a warning, not a how-to guide. How in the high holy hell do you people not get that?!

Chairman of the Bored says:

Re: Big Tech has already destroyed trust

The entire business model of Facebook, Google, et al is to collect information about the people who use their services. They claim to protect your privacy by associating all of that data with a “non-identifying” token. What better token than a PICTURE OF YOUR FACE?

A picture or video of my face provides a lot more data than just my estimated age. Racial profiling (or just racial data collecting)? Easy. Gender data collecting? Celebrity spotting?

When I buy alcohol, I’m dressed appropriately. Why would I trust big tech or any anonymous internet data collector to limit the analyzing to “just the face?”

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

This does not require perfection – a solution which ensured a user was AT ALL TIMES over 18, for example, would require permanent monitoring, with minute-by-minute checks they’d not gone for a glass of water and been replaced by a 4 year-old.

And what then will you say when perfection is, in fact, demanded? There’s been far too many oversteps in a bid to supposedly protect children that involved massive penalties or limitations, foisted upon otherwise innocuous acts, like a child chewing a Pop Tart in the shape of a gun or a couple getting prosecuted for putting their child’s pictures online.

You might not ask for perfection now, in the same way that people demanding for stricter copyright enforcement and mechanisms insist they’re not looking for “perfection”; they’re just asking for possibly infringing material to be automatically identified before it even appears on YouTube with no room for error.

But the store owner does not then follow you home to check you don’t hand a can to your daughter

Neither does the store owner make a copy of your license for future reference, or just in case.

Unadulterated Poppycock says:

Re: Re:

China has a strict ID-to-phone policy, forcing anyone with a phone to register name, ID, and face with the telecoms. After that, the internet is so limited in western terms of “access” that its a non-issue: there simply isn’t the same social structure to cause the concerns we see in CA and elsewhere.

The real work-around is the computer bars where anyone can get access to ID, and as you noted, using a big brother or sister’s ID, and everything else; VPN’s are everywhere.

But the reality is that no one gives two shits what you do, as long as it doesn’t enter the realm of “public safety” or cause “disorder,” and Chinese culture simply does not encourage or tolerate internet use by kids-the general rule being that “it’s bad for your eyes.”

In other words, Chinese internet is full of loopholes, and too big to police effectively in ANY way, and kids are not under the same or even similar pressures described herein.

Emburii says:

Re:

Your analogy doesn’t make sense. You need to show an ID to a cashier to buy alcohol, sure, but not to enter the grocery store at all which is actually what your bill wants. The closer example would be having to show a currently valid ID just to enter the grocery store premises because it could stock some form of alcohol or brightly colored cleaning agent (given how loosely ‘harmful to kids’ is defined).

Naughty Autie says:

Re:

But the alternative is to treat everyone online as if they might be a child, and that’s not a great outcome.

So are you going to buy me a webcam. If not, then you’re either compelling me to buy something I shouldn’t need to access the Internet, and treating me as if I might be a child if I refuse to spend money I shouldn’t have to.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

cabalpaul90 (profile) says:

We Need to Keep Kids Safe Online: California has the Solution

Every day children are using a digital world that is designed by and for adults, where they are nudged to give up their privacy, offered harmful material, and exposed to risky contacts and behaviors.

To protect Californian children’s privacy and safety online, California State Assembly members Buffy Wicks (D) and Jordan Cunningham (R) have introduced the bipartisan California Age Appropriate Design Code Bill (AB 2273).

With this Bill, California has the chance to lead the way in making the digital world safe for American children.If the California Age Appropriate Design Code were passed into law, companies would have to consider the privacy and protection of children in the design of any digital product or service that children in California are likely to access.

We know the practical impact this can have on children, because the Bill is based on a UK law that has already prompted Silicon Valley’s biggest names to innovate in the best interests of UK children. For instance:

Google have made SafeSearch the default browsing mode for all under 18s.
YouTube have turned off autoplay for under 18s and break and bedtime reminders are turned on by default.
TikTok and Instagram have disabled direct messages between children and adults they do not follow. You can learn the full details from https://enterprise.affle.com/mobile-app-development
The Google Play Store now prevents under 18s from viewing and downloading apps rated as adult-only.
These are just a handful of changes that will make children’s experience online safer.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Johnny Depp's Shade says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Well, thanks for your homosexual analogy/gay sex obsessed view from the Angry Flaming Globo-Homo seats there at GCHQ-JTRIG–what was that bit of yours about dickcheese, sheitfartface?

Seriously, your mother must have dropped you on your ead a time too many cupcake. In case no one told you, that ruins the frosting.

Chinese Dick's says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Techdirt, why do you allow such blatant racism on your forum?

As if sucking Chinese dicks (not that there’s anything wrong with that!!!) is somehow a lesser evil than AC’s corn holing swine( and each other) in an ADL boardroom, as JTRIG-CIA-Mossad flips the bird to the entirety of “free speech” online?

Free "Speach" says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Eeeew. Too much information! That part about your pig’s head fantasy! I wanna ask–did it hurt when mean Mr. Cameron did that to you? I bet your head still hurts.

But now that baseless conspiracies theories are your thing, I do have the inside skinny on you, Epstein, and Comet Pingpong.

You always ordered the word salad.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Eeeew. Too much information!

That part about your pig head! I wanna ask you–did it hurt when mean Mr. Cameron did that to you? I bet your head still hurts. Show me on the butcher block where he touched you?

But now that baseless conspiracies theories are your thing, I do have the inside skinny on you, Epstein, and Comet Pingpong.

You always ordered the word salad with a side of dickcheese, right? Confirm for publication?

Kevin P. Neal (profile) says:

Re: If the UK law is already working...

If the UK law is already working to make children in the United States safe then why do we need this California bill to become law? There are huge downsides to this bill, and we need to suffer those huge downsides because of something existing UK law is already addressing because…. why exactly?

And I noticed that you didn’t address any of the downsides to the bill. Instead you just restated why you think the bill is needed. That’s hardly convincing.

Anonymous Coward says:

I draw the line at handing off my ID, or showing my face with my ID, or scanning my ID to send it to a third party provider. Or the government.

Scanning my face, providing video clips of me moving my head around, or anything that requires me to show my face, is straight out of the question. And I don’t care if you’re an investing firm, crypto broker, or whatever company.

I’ve been bitten once and had my identity stolen, not letting that shit happen again.

mechtheist (profile) says:

“ramped up their smear campaigns and lies — including telling me that I’m not covered by it (and when I dug in and pointed out how I am… they stopped responding).”

This kind of BS makes me ill, I experience it all the time and it’s unforgivable. You tell someone they’re wrong and why they’re wrong and they reply with a kinda snide contempt, demeaning and maligning you and then, you demonstrate they’re full of shit with proof and all they can do is disappear. They’re craven weasels, profoundly dishonest cowards without a shred of integrity. In any future discussions with or about the assholes, their lack of character should always be made a big part of the conversation.

George says:

As with everything else in CA the govt will figure out how to screw it up

There is a simple solution which is the most likely to happen. 1) if site is in CA it will have to relocate costing CA tens of billions 2) if site is outside of CA it will have to actively block CA residents. 3) if you as a visitor come upon a site that requires face recognition to use, go elsewhere – the sites that require it will quickly go out of business and thus there wont be revenue for the facial AI idiots.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...