> Working with the UK Government to Protect Children Online
Make me think of one word:
Collaborators
The company is happy to strip people from their privacy, for the sake of children, terrorists, or whatever other excuse governments use to justify their excessive intrusion into people's lives.
It's hard to deny the negative impact that unfettered access to inappropriate material has had on the younger generations. Some sort of verification seems like a net-positive for society.
The problem is that bypassing it whether via VPN's or accessing sites that don't comply will be so easy that the whole thing will be ineffective to a large degree. But maybe a little effectiveness is enough. If it helps prevent very young kids from accidentally stumbling upon inappropriate content maybe that will have a meaningful impact.
That said, since it is still quite possible to do so, I think Bluesky is on the right side of that tradeoff.
It's worth thinking twice about this in a country that is actively censoring mainstream political speech in its media.
So the reality is, assume everything on the internet is being archived, including any scans you do, and adjust the threat model accordingly. The UK government will absolutely be able to access this information and know all about what you've been doing if you're foolish enough to actually submit legitimate information.
OK, but what would the practical conclusion of this be? A lot of services will require those scans to be made. So, just get used to the fact that your face scans will be stored beyond your control?
I believe you can just VPN around this for now because it's not very rigorous too?
Also, I don't know the law in detail, but wouldn't it apply for all online services, no matter how large or small?
So the end result is using tools such as VPNs or fake videos to bypass the system. Or creating new communities which do not have such restrictions (but they won't be able to be big platforms anymore as they will fall into scope).
So you could have 1000's of smaller bulletin boards. Once they get large enough they'd need to shut down and restart in order to not be within scope.
Alternatively there could be some legal challenges on the way to define the scope of their powers (so far there's not been any enforcement conclusions to challenge, although there are some investigations by OFCOM ongoing)
> So you could have 1000's of smaller bulletin boards. Once they get large enough they'd need to shut down and restart in order to not be within scope.
This will work until the moment some actual pedos run some of those small message bords and use it to groom kids and politicians will have the necessary munition to shut down those sorts of exceptions to the law.
Countries have tried to enforce censorship but even places like China have gaps that are exploitable if you have the right tools and knowledge.
Everyone should be learning about how to bypass state overreach, it's an obligation of its people.
https://dev.epicgames.com/docs/kids-web-services/pv-service/...
> Parents in all regions except the USA and the Republic of Korea can verify their age using face scan. KWS prompts the parent to hold their device in front of their face. A machine-learning algorithm estimates the parent’s age using the device’s camera.
> Face scan verification is provided by Yoti (yoti.com).
They have an app:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yoti.mobil...
I installed it but there's no direct interface - it needs to be opened via some intent and I can't be bothered to figure that out.
I would put a lot of money on it not being able to detect you pointing your phone at a Veo3 video of an old person though. Maybe on iPhones where you reliably have a depth camera? Doubtful on Android though.
It only takes one smart kid to beat this, and there are plenty of those.
I'm not familiar with how it works on the implementation side. A ML conference that I attended had a presenter working on this area and beating AI impersonation was their #1 priority (along with other trivial approaches).
For what it's worth, this might also be just a security theater from the banks, though.
Something tells me people who don't look exactly their age are going to get caught up in these automated systems.
I recently had to verify my identity for UK government company registration purposes.
I had to use my phone to scan my biometric passport, then it did facial recognition while flashing the screen between red, green and blue. Presumably doing... something... hoping to detect fake faces.
(as well as the biometric passport and modern phone, it also needed an e-mail address, password, TOTP code, verifying the e-mail address, full name and address, and year I moved into the address, and I had to log in about 5 times...)
I'd assume they were checking that your face reflected the light properly. If you were using a fake face on another screen being held up to the camera, it'd be more emissive than reflective.
Ah that's actually pretty clever. It'll detect reflective surfaces instead of emissive ones. Still possible to defeat but significantly harder. I imagine there are still some smart kids that could do it. Definitely fewer though.
But now I really do think we need to reel in the youth having unfettered access to attention grabbing algorithms. I know this isn't really what this is for but it's a step.
That being said, I wish these verification services would be provided by the government (with ridged watchdogs for storage) and not by private companies.
Even if I was sympathetic to that argument, "let's just let unaccountable companies scan and store your face and sensitive biometrics that they promise they won't lose" is possibly the laziest solution that can be dreamt up and screams ulterior motives to me.
Screw your mass surveillance
Just like the Ashley Madison leak, data will be leaked, and companies hide behind "third party" to limit their own liability. I would like to know who these third parties are however, and they should be required to identify themselves (with their names, addresses, photos being made public).
However, I actually welcome changes like this. And they are healthy and good for the internet.
Because when draconian laws such as these are passed it's our obligation to express our displeasure and disobedience. So we'll use proxies, VPNs and other tools we may not have even invented yet just to make it clear they are not welcome to control access to content, they can try, but must never succeed.
They will try to block such tools, and we'll need to make new ones, and, as a community of hackers, it's vital free access to information is protected at all costs.
So we need more of this, it should be the law in every country, because only then will there be a motivation to ensure such laws are not enforceable on a technical level.
"PM announces national inquiry into grooming gangs"
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7872pngj2qo
Note that the PM eventually bowed and launched a national enquire due to pressure: it's not as if he's a white knight here.
For it was all covered up by local politicians and police (some of which whom, for sure, also abused the girls) for fear of showing certain communities in a bad light (that's the official statement of several police officers as to why the countless reports of rape weren't followed).
It's great to "think about the children" but the UK should first look into why the number of rapes in the UK went 10x from 2000 to now. Ten fold. 10x. In a quarter of a century. What happened to the UK?
So the UK protecting children: remains to be seen.
As a sidenote there feels like there's an hint of posing here by BlueSky too: many call that social network "PedoSky" and the reason for it is many people with very dubious behaviour who couldn't silence their critics on Twitter/X moved to BlueSky. You know which kind of people: those who'll say it's acceptable to be attracted by children as long you don't physically do anything to them, those men wearing women outfit and dancing salaciously under the pretext that it's "art". They are on BlueSky, that's a fact. Hence, maybe, the posturing by BlueSky now.
I see that announcement as a safe haven for pedos teaming up with a government actively involved in the coverup of massive rape rings operation.
But I take it we should all applaud because it's all done in very good faith?
It's Orwellian stuff.
Protecting the children in the UK would actually be pushing for less wars, lowering taxes and improving healthcare and education. Providing good community centers and paths to economic independence.
These "think of the children" excuses are the same as "oh no the terrorists/drug kingpins" and all those other threats.
The threat is plutocracy and concentration of power.
Governments are very dangerous institutions. They hold a lot of power and can abuse it.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. /s
Sovereign power is scary af, but in theory also kept in check by voters. The problem is that no matter what form of government you have, it is still downstream from culture, and if this kind of policy is what UK voters want or can be talked into wanting, then this is what the King’s subjects shall get.
If you don't think this technology will be used to keep kids from connecting with peers like themselves, or learning or reading about themselves, because of some trans panic, you haven't been paying attention.
Politicians all over the world have put forth legislation like this with the explicit purpose of preventing LGBT kids from connecting with peers or learning anything related to their identities[1]:
> A co-sponsor of a bipartisan bill intended to protect children from the dangers of social media and other online content appeared to suggest in March that the measure could be used to steer kids away from seeing transgender content online.
> In a video recently published by the conservative group Family Policy Alliance, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said “protecting minor children from the transgender in this culture” should be among the top priorities of conservative lawmakers.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/sena...
Could be.
Having said that US culture vs the rest of Western Nation culture mindset imho.
Majority of Europeans and Canadians don't see Governments as a Monster.
zimpenfish•6h ago