US standards agency reports back on just how good age verification software is The US National Institute of Standards and Technology has examined age estimation software and concluded that it has improved but still needs work. It is the agency's first report on the topic in ten years. After examining six algorithms, NIST concluded that none clearly outperformed the rest. However, NIST acknowledged the …
I like Oglaf's start page (safeish for work unless you've already accessed it, in which case you know why it isn't):
"Please click on the button below to certify that you're over eighteen. Of course, if you're under eighteen, you can't legally certify anything. So if you're a minor, please get a parent or guardian to click the button which says you aren't."
It doesn't need to be an older friend, it could be the parent. If parents are already fine with handing their kids an expensive bit of kit and paying a monthly fee so it has unlimited access, they could be fine with sitting any test of age so their kids can sign up for something. One tier down, a bit of social engineering on the kid's part might also get the job done.
It's the Parents responsibility not governments!
There are many parental control apps for phones/tablets, they are not that expensive.
Every ISP in the developed world offers parental controls.
Nothing is 100% bullet proof, neither will be this government intrusiveness!
Problem is western governments are extremely keen on age verification as a means to protect minors from unsafe internet content. This happening even in the US at the state level where things like the First Amendment & Section 230 don't seem to deter state legislatures from passing internet safety laws. Age verification will be everywhere online in the next decade.
This technology is a "no" technology. Designed to tell you "Computer says No", with an implied "... and there is no appeal". This leads me to think of the quote, which I cannot remember the attribution for:
> When rulers need such extreme security measures, one has to wonder: why is their conscience so heavy? What have they done wrong to dread their own peoples so much?
Where is the "yes" technology, the technology that enables, rather than disables?
"NIST noted: "There is no single standout algorithm, and a given algorithm's accuracy is influenced by [among others] the age of the person in the photograph,"
Isn't that the entire point of the system?
If its confused by different ages it has failed at step one.
Meanwhile actual problems effecting real people, with actual loves, are underfunded, under researched and ignored. But we can drum funding for an age verification system that by their own admission is confused by the age of people in the photo.
[My own shortening of text]
Camera off! "Sorry <your OS name here> cannot allow you to sign in."
Microphone off! "Sorry <your OS name here> cannot allow you to sign in."
Camera on! Zoom session in progress. "Sorry Zoom does not allow profanity in Zoom sessions. Session terminated."
Browser active! "Sorry this website does not allow registerd Democrats to browse. Session terminated."
.....and so on.............welcome to the future....................
P.S. Does the reporter actually believe ANYTHING coming out of NIST???!!!!!
Mean error of 3.1 years - so not that great.(assuming key aim is to exclude under 18s from "adult" content)
It never will be good enough at under 18 detection as there is so much variation in younger people, as anyone who can vaguely remember their schooldays will be aware - if you picked a class of kids approx. 14 years old, some would look like they should still be in infant school (infants = UK schools until kids 11), whilst others could easily get served in a pub on looks alone.
Its why UK shops that sell alcohol operate a challenge 25 system (if someone looks 25 or less ask for ID)
.. I was one of those lads who got lots of strong growing facial hair at an early age (think far more hirsute (but far less rotund) than Like Litter when he made headlines as a 16 year old darts prodigy with people saying he looked much older), which was handy back in the day when no ID needed in pubs and looking old enough was usually sufficient to get served.
Yep. I'm 50+ and still can't grow a full beard, and one of my 15 year old friends had, at the time, a full beard and could have easily bought his own beer if he had only been old enough to have a drivers' license...
On a separate note:
"NIST noted: "There is no single standout algorithm, and a given algorithm's accuracy is influenced by image quality, gender, region of birth, the age of the person in the photograph, and interactions among these factors."
Does NIST not understand that 'region of birth" has only tangential bearing on physical attributes, like skin colour and hair type? I presume they would like to have said 'race', but are not allowed to use race as a classification because its usually the easiest to get right*.
* - most of the time**.
** - for the wrong reasons.
one of my 15 year old friends had, at the time, a full beard and could have easily bought his own beer if he had only been old enough to have a drivers' license
Why would he have needed a driver's license? If they thought he looked old enough they wouldn't ask to see a license. If they asked and he presented them with a driver's license showing he's underage they wouldn't sell to him regardless of how old he looks.
"Does NIST not understand that 'region of birth" has only tangential bearing on physical attributes,"
It doesn't matter. If you put region of birth into your analysis and it points out that accuracy is different on that basis, that indicates a problem. Whether that problem is due to a racial difference or if there is some other regional factor is important if you're the writer of the thing wanting to improve it, but as a user wanting to know if it's good enough, you don't need to care, because either way the answer is that it is not good enough.
@tiggity "Its why UK shops that sell alcohol operate a challenge 25 system (if someone looks 25 or less ask for ID)"
In my experience a lot of shops don't know how to apply challenge 25 scheme correctly, as that's exactly how they operate challenge 25. That's very different from, The Challenge 25' scheme; anyone attempting to buy age-restricted goods who looks under the age of 25, will be asked to produce ID.
"and can be an important part of efforts to protect children online."
i.e. from porn, which for some reason they try to pretend minors never had access to before the internet and that any enforcement measures could actually stop minors from viewing it. "Adults only" should only ever be a content warning to push away viewers who don't want to see it.
And there's the real solution.
Just stop this nonsense. I'm over 50, but I don't want ANYBODY who doesn't absolutely need it to have my real birthday. Any random website asking gets a fake date. And no, I will not take the cover off my camera, and my browser isn't allowed to access it even if I did.
i.e. from porn, which for some reason they try to pretend minors never had access to before the internet and that any enforcement measures could actually stop minors from viewing it. "Adults only" should only ever be a content warning to push away viewers who don't want to see it.
I was thinking more of a task based age verification scheme. eg on Porntube the verification page could display a tasteful picture requiring the browser to accurately label the (intimate) anatomical parts shown. :)
I suspect there are logical or linguistic tasks that would challenge an under 14 yo male (or 12 yo female) but between 18 yo and those ages I think its nigh impossible. Hypothetical moral or ethical questions posed to limit access to social media accounts would exclude those media enterprises' owners let alone most of their subscribers (of any age.)
Australia is going through this now and the idea of foreign internet sites capturing images etc for age verification leaves a lot of people cold. Not surprising after the theft of so much private data from AU organisation in the last year or so.
I can vaguely see that trusted third party age attestation might work.
You roll up to Porntube and the verification page requires you to create an identity which then generates a token encoding your identity, the domain, age requirements etc needing attestation, date/time etc. eg (nemo@example.com, porntube.su, >=18, 20240604)
You then take this token to verify-age.gov.au site which on your authenticating has your (gov.au) authoritative dob and can verify porntube token age requirement, add its domain of authority, date/time, expiry etc and sign it.
This signed token can then be presented to porntube and verified to allow access now and in future until the attestation's expiry.
This should have a modicum of privacy but the verify-age.gov.au site would be able to log your more prurient browsing interests and potentially identify you from subpoenaed porntube logs. :)
The obvious weakness is the access token could be copied and (unwisely) passed around.
Why do we expect computers to be able to?
I know several people who do indeed look really young, and get demands for their ID every time.
"I appreciate the compliment, but can I have my !#@#^ beer now?"
It's funny. When I was 14, nobody had any problems with me buying cigarettes for my mother. However, when I was 20, people would still throw a shitfit if I asked to buy a Playboy.
And no, I have never smoked.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
