Not well. "When Face Recognition Doesn’t Know Your Face Is a Face An estimated 100 million people live with facial differences. As face recognition tech becomes widespread, some say they’re getting blocked from accessing essential systems and services." https://www.wired.com/story/when-face-recognition-doesnt-kno...

Posted to HN yesterday at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45667472 . No comments.

Especially when firing up a VPN and not providing anyone their ID is so trivial.

Then they supply govt. ID.

The law does not mandate check via camera.

It's truly saddening that we have to solve this problem technically, whereas it should have been solved politically (or better, this absurd thing should never have been considered). The fact that it can be slightly contained by more technically capable people is worse, because instead of shocking everyone all at once it allows you to boil the frog as a politician.

I can't tell if it's a sarcastic joke, but just in case it isn't and you want a bit of free anxiety with your coffee: the future is now, old man!

Also: Falsehoods lawmakers believe about bodies.

Conservative politicians tend to be transphobic, because they can't understand that biology makes exceptions.

I think the pretty reliable method of biometrics are fingerprints, right? Not great online, but can't really be altered in real life.

I'm not proposing to use them online, just thinking that they work really well with borders/passports. Very difficult to beat these checks.

Countries with internet age verification don't have ICE.

At least for now.

Good time to put money into neck gaiters

That's not new though.

That part of the title is in quotes. It’s paraphrasing how the guy expressed it to point out the absurdness of being asked to remove a face mask when you’re not wearing a face mask.

The face mask was his face.

The journalism here is fine.

> The UK's Online Safety Act requires website owners to verify ages but it doesn't prescribe specific methods for doing so.

... and just ignores the fact that there are no sane or remotely appropriate ways to implement that. As well as the fact that it's a silly goal to begin with.

> It is the vendor supplying the website he is visiting that told him to do that.

... after making a guess as to what would be the least bad way of implementing this foolish mandate.

[flagged]

CV Dazzle? If so, what are the real implications for the legality of CV Dazzle or equivalents? The 'most tattooed man' example obviously can seem like not much of a real problem for everyday people that haven't gone to that extreme, but I worry that any outcome from this will transform into other areas such as deliberate camouflage for, say, activists and protestors.

A few years ago, i think 2018, i was in munich and as usual i went to see the mueum of technology. They had this exibition about the future of surveillance as seen by cyberpunk artists and there was this part about hair style and makeup that would confuse face detection algorythms. It was brillant, but i never managed to find it again. I hope the hivemind here remembers or can point me in the right direction

https://xkcd.com/1105/

God forbid someone lives a different life than you, has to have some mental problems right?

But the law doesn't force them to have a fallback.

Anyone that the AI doesn't like is therefore excluded from those services.

> If that's all they offer, it's on the companies to implement a fallback for edge cases like these.

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.

I've personally been unable to pass AI 'liveness' detection (which was a high-stress situation when it related to something my new employer asked me to do after I already resigned from my previous role) despite repeated attempts and all I have is alopecia areata affecting my eyelashes / eyebrows (a relatively common condition).

These models are discriminatory for a lot of people, I'd say, and shouldn't be allowed.

> "doesn't work on a man that looks more like an injured smurf than a human"

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.

[flagged]