Discord says 70,000 photo IDs compromised in customer service breach Communication platform provider Discord has admitted that around 70,000 users had their government IDs stolen as part of its recent data breach. The breach, which Discord insists occurred at an unidentified third-party customer service provider, involved government ID scans that users upload to verify their age. Some …
is why the government's age verification law is bad. You provide ID to prove you are over 18, and then, what happens to it? It only takes one weak link in the "supply chain" - one ID verification service, one vendor, one website, and all that juicy PID is stolen.
Quite apart from a requirement to provide your identity to use a website, which has clear potential for tracking and monitoring.
They ignored the one for a second vote on brexit, despite the obvious irregularities with the advisory referendum, as well as the million people protesting outside parliament, so I wouldn't hold your breath. That one had over 6 million signatures at the point where they "archived" it. Whether you agree with brexit or not (and I know there are people here who still think it was a brilliant idea despite the evidence), this demonstrates exactly how easy it is for government to completely ignore the strongly-held opinions of huge swathes of the population when it suits their purposes.
The one linked above is a little more than 230K off having the record, as at the time of me writing this, it's over 3 million off the number of signatures on the brexit one. Not even half way...
That's interesting.. I was looking at the list of "all petitions" here: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions?state=all
You are right, the brexit one and many others are mysteriously absent from that list. Apparently "All petitions" only shows those submitted to the current government, and there is no single list of all petitions ever, sorted by number of signatures.
But yes, a right stitch-up. Had the "non-binding referendum" been 48/52 the other way, you bet your arse there would've been a second referendum.
But yes, a right stitch-up. Had the "non-binding referendum" been 48/52 the other way, you bet your arse there would've been a second referendum.
Technically, that one was the second one (the first one was in 1975), so another one would have been a third one.
Points of note are:
- it was explicitly advisory in the enabling bill
- if it had not been explicitly advisory, it would have required a 2/3 super-majority for any constitutional change, not a simple majority of votes cast.
- it explicitly excluded a group of people who would have voted strongly against leaving the EU, namely British citizens living overseas in the EU.
>BTW is there any UK Reg reader left who hasn't signed the petition yet? It's 230k away from being the biggest response ever on the government's cylindrical receptacle suggestion box
All this proves is that nearly 3 million people don't understand the point of the petitions website or the way that Parliament works.
The petitions website explicitly calls for the topic to be debated in Parliament if there is sufficient interest. It doesn't - and can't - make the government backtrack (or proceed) on any policy decisions or laws.
Digital ID *must* be debated in Parliament already before it can be implemented. This is a petition signed by nearly 3 million people asking Parliament to do its job - which it will do anyway in the near future when the bill reaches Parliament and the Lords. Parliament will do its job and if a majority of MPs and Peers support it, it will be implemented.
If you don't want digital ID, write to your MP and explain to them why you don't want it. That is the only way that you'll stop it if you don't agree with it - but don't just say "Don't like it, don't want it". Give them reasons that they can use in the debate - preferably backed with cold, hard facts.
Because legislators are too dim to see the cause and effect between a poorly rushed age verification scheme that has been outsourced with zero privacy or security requirements to third party companies. They simply do not understand how the tech landscape works, and the sheer number of chancers in the industry willing to sell businesses a service they cooked up in a weekend for a quick buck.
It's not only age verification. Buy or sell a house, administer an estate, open a savings account, register with a doctor, there's all sorts of activities that cause professionals to need to verify your identity and/or banking details. They all use different third party companies, all of who grant themselves rights to transmit your data abroad, to store it, sell it and share it with whoever they feel like.
It's all very well to say the government shouldn't administer a digital ID, but at the moment there are dozens of companies fulfilling that function for regulatory purposes, all obvious magnets for intruders. I'm coming round to the view that a single, government grade dB is safer than what there is now.
Aye. One that works and it used right is a good idea (though I think it should have a physical piece to it). The idea of an ID isn't the problem, it's the asinine Act that's been passed.
I'm in the process of being evicted and my local authority wants me to send proof of ID by email — if that's the only way they can accept it then they're not getting my passport but rather my provisional driving license that expired 10 years ago. In a world where a safe state-operated digital ID existed I could perhaps satisfy them with a simple key exchange.
"THIS is the reason we don't want an digital ID system."
Most particularly an all-encompassing system that becomes a big phat target whose data is being "shared" all over the place.
Not only is the data vulnerable, there's not a good way to repair breeches which should the an overriding requirement. Does the government issue new ID's for everybody, provide credit monitoring service and take liability to any sort of crime that uses that leaked information?
I see convenience as that antithesis of security in most things digital. Controls are better handled locally. When I was young, getting adult magazines wasn't easy, but with enough dedication, they could be had. Today, there's so much free smut online that requiring age verification is hopeless. The mainstream publishers will have to comply, but the oodles of other suppliers in countries that don't have much enforcement even if there are laws won't bother. One thing politicians forget is that kids have motivation and loads of time as well as a whole school or online group to sort these things out. They also forget that raising children is the job of parents and those parents need to be held accountable to do a good job of it.
>track everyone's location and perhaps even what people talk about.
Wow, it's libel to point out that's exactly what demon rectangles are all about (location tracking is inherit to the workings of the network and you'd be kidding yourself to think silent call functionality was about debugging only)?
There are probably no plans to do location tracking or listening with the digital ID software - but there seems to be a reason the software is only available for iOS and non-root Android.
Currently it appears that the UK government does not have access to such information, but I'm sure all governments will love to gain access to such information.
All governments abuse their citizens just as hard if they get a chance to do so, whether that's a "far-right", or "far-left" or "middle" government.
Yvette Cooper defends children as young as 13 needing digital ID
Remember it was just for right-of-work checks.
> (which I now can't find anywhere and neither could chatgpt
"Kyle refused to back down after Farage's criticism, saying on social media: "If you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. It is as simple as that." "
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgery3eeqzxo
2 minutes with google, most of which was scrolling down to the BBC. I note that Google says "Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe", but not who might have been doing that. Chatgpt's probably better if you just want to make things up, rather than find sources.
I haven't seen any apology or retraction from Kyle.
Govt demand you use age verification. And your details get leaked.
Would be nice if at least one politician was forced to take responsibility for this and resign, but that never happens. We are just cannon fodder for their political theatre.
So how many leaks before they cancel the whole idiot scheme and go back to the optional ISP blocks and mobile blocks that actually worked, without feeding your ID to hackers.
you're forgetting that takes effort on the part of pa"THINK OF THE CHILDREN"rents, and they taking responsi"THINK OF THE CHILDREN"bity for their kinder, and anyway if y"THINK OF THE CHILDREN"ou're against the online safety "THINK OF THE CHILDREN"act then you're on the side of the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" of the perverts and weirdos out to "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" corrupt our precious innocent children "THINK OF THE CHILDREN"
Anyway , any dissent will be met with our trump card
"THINK OF THE CHILDREN"
"THINK OF THE CHILDREN"
"THINK OF THE CHILDREN" etc etc etc
Censorship like site blocking does not stop people from accessing websites they really want to access - as VPNs and tor exists.
Hackers are too busy with playful cleverness - you are thinking of crackers.
Usually no cracking or hacking is even required - often the database simply has no authentication at all; https://mag212.com/data-breaches/inside-the-tea-app-hack-how-weak-api-security-exposed-thousands-of-users/
With "age verification", it seems the result could inadvertently be a complete record of what sites someone has visited (simply by collecting the IDs when those leak), which could be an issue for that person if it is found out that they previously accessed a site now deemed to be "terrorist" or something.
Imagine the flood of brown envelopes, once Digital ID is implemented, to give employers location data in real-time of each employee, even on time off.
Or future salary negotiations. Employer scans Digital ID and has view of all your finances, where you go, what you eat etc then types in to Copilot: "Does this scrote need this extra money he came cap in hand for?" and then copilot crunches the data and spits out money saving plan headed with a "NO".
It needs to be instil in businesses from the board down and governments from the head of government down that personal data is toxic. If you don't really need it then it's toxic waste. If it has to be handled at all then handle it as carefully as you'd handle a strongly radioactive biohazard.
But how to achieve that?
Find out who in the company/government decided that it was necessary to keep all that data instead of just the relevant parts, and jail them. Make it clear that whoever collected the data is responsible for keeping it safe. It's no good saying "one of out sub-contractors leaked it." It's the collecting party's responsibility, government or corporation.
On another tack, why should I have to provide age verification via two (or more) different age verification "authorities" just because the sites involved don't allow me to pick who verifies my age? Two sites, two different age verification methods is not acceptable.
Discord are keeping quiet about who this third party actually is and where they are even based? No doubt they went with some off shore company that promised to do it for the lowest price and now its coming back to bit them in the arse for cheaping out. But the question is are they STILL using that company for age verification?
- Digital ID
- Comprehensive car number plate scanning
- Comprehensive CCTV and facial recognition
- Comprehensive mobile phone scanning (two and three tower correlation)
- Comprehensive tracking of credit card use
- Comprehensive tracking of ATM use (with CCTV support)
- DVLC has direct access to the Home Office passport records
- Demands for Signal and Meta to provide "backdoors"
- Age verification
Do we need any more evidence that the STASI has arrived in Blighty?
Look at the list above.......is it REALLY because someone is "thinking about the children"?
Absolutely NOT!!
Quote (William Burroughs): "The paranoid is a person who knows a little of what is going on."
Apparently...
- this Digital ID is being pushed by the Tony Blair Institute and associated Labour cronies ( TB having failed to get it implemented when PM )
- it has been proposed the system be implemented by Oracle
- Larry Ellison has donated half a billion dollars to the Tony Blair Institute
- Ellison and Blair are supporters of the current US government
( ref: https://www.thenerve.news )
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
