Face scanning is only one of the options OSA forces companies to choose from. If that's all they offer, it's on the companies to implement a fallback for edge cases like these.
Anyone that the AI doesn't like is therefore excluded from those services.
Edge cases are fine. Not having simple, easy ways to resolve it should be illegal for any form of ID verification.
One example? Some of these apps require a Google Play account to install. Or an Apple account. This is unacceptable.
Why would anyone be gatewayed to their, for example, government services by having a valid Google account? Or their bank?! Google bans people. Cuts them off.
Doesn't matter why, or how often, all that matters is that it can happen.
ID verification should not rely upon firebase, Google's push notifications, a Google account, and so on. And yes, there are ways to avoid these things for ID verification.
I don't have a Google account. I do have an Android device.
The problem lies squarely with the companies contracting these AI services not adding a "facial recognition doesn't work? click here to try something else" button.
These models are discriminatory for a lot of people, I'd say, and shouldn't be allowed.
The practical problems are all caused by AI companies lying through their teeth and making bold claims and their customers being dumb enough to believe them.
The actual problem that needs solving is the fact that you need to validate your age without a form of solid proof being available in the first place. In cases where everyone has digital ID already there are technical solutions to solve that problem, and until those are available for free, it's idiotic to require the use of such technology in the first place. The UK doesn't have common, accessible digital ID yet they expect digital identification of some kind to just happen.
These news articles and the adjacent online discussion are textbook warfare psyops 'nudging'.
Doesn't matter if you are real/bot, being payed or not. The discourse is now changing the goalposts to focus on the details of OSA implementation, not OSA itself. Mission acomplished.
It's on governments to stop pushing legislation that slow boil us into autocracy. It's on us to not be ok with that.
Everything else is noise.
What the actual fuck is up with this statement? Human faces are complex, there are so many different cultures and all kinds of complex body modifications (including facial tattoos) have a rich history going back thousands of years. Some shitty cobbled together AI not being able to recognize that is the real problem. Not the facial tattoos. And the injured smurf comment was completely uncalled for.
I swear, the quality of some journalism is so shameless.
Perhaps we'll see more people sporting this look in the future.
And this was before the cursed AI timeline we're living in right now
At least for now.
The aide still works for Reform.
https://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-undercover-inside-re...
Falsehoods lawmakers believe about faces.
Conservative politicians tend to be transphobic, because they can't understand that biology makes exceptions.
Posted to HN yesterday at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45667472 . No comments.
I wonder if that is partially because many (like myself) aren't subscribers and can't read the article.
The law does not mandate check via camera.
I have no clue why these "facial age estimation" technologies are being pushed in place of that. They're much worse in terms of privacy and accuracy, and they're easier to trick if you want to bypass them.
It is the vendor supplying the website he is visiting that told him to do that.
n1b0m•1h ago