Google is Using AI Age Checks To Lock Down User Accounts (theverge.com) 73
Google will soon cast an even wider net with its AI age estimation technology. From a report: After announcing plans to find and restrict underage users on YouTube, the company now says it will start detecting whether Google users based in the US are under 18.
Age estimation is rolling out over the next few weeks and will only impact a "small set" of users to start, though Google plans on expanding it more widely. The company says it will use the information a user has searched for or the types of YouTube videos they watch to determine their age. Google first announced this initiative in February. If Google believes that a user is under 18, it will apply the same restrictions it places on users who proactively identify as underage.
Age estimation is rolling out over the next few weeks and will only impact a "small set" of users to start, though Google plans on expanding it more widely. The company says it will use the information a user has searched for or the types of YouTube videos they watch to determine their age. Google first announced this initiative in February. If Google believes that a user is under 18, it will apply the same restrictions it places on users who proactively identify as underage.
Upload fake pictures (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Which will have the added benefit of blocking pedophiles? I'm surprised they're not talking that aspect of it up.
Re: (Score:2)
(Score:5, Hilarious)
Re: (Score:2)
Naa, pedos will only be able to watch underage creators now!
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, is this because Google intends to start serving pr0n/Adult Content or something and they need to restrict access to something that's coming?
Re:Upload fake pictures (Score:4, Interesting)
"The question I have is...WHY?"
For practice. The ability to discriminate against anyone for any reason could be profitable. Here's a good example that we can justify, let's do it. Then when the government requires us to report women using birth control, we will have the technology.
Apparently bias against individuals is only bad when it is "unintended".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't based on that. This is based on a user searching for or watching content that caters to underage people.
So if I let my kids watch videos on my YouTube premium account, I'll get locked out.
Re: (Score:2)
Very likely, yes.
Re:Upload fake pictures (Score:4, Insightful)
So if you want to not be detected as underaged, search for and watch adult content.
This might not work out as they planned.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to curse more so AI thinks I'm a grown-up. Fuckin' A, man.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
just wait till some adults profile gets restricted because their kid searched up a bunch of dumb shit.
Re: (Score:2)
I submitted Epstein's ID, and got a kid-chat frequent visitor discount.
Re: (Score:2)
Must have been some other check, because YouTube is requiring a government ID or credit card to remove the age restrictions.
this is better (Score:2)
Re:this is better (Score:4, Insightful)
The party's over. We brought this on ourselves. Mostly through tolerance of bad behavior.
Anything that needs security on the internet is now a war zone, if anything needs busting up, it is the abusive participants' continued access to the internet.
Re: (Score:1)
Is that you, Al Gore? How're ya doin'?
Still pushing that Information Superhighway Driving License to keep drunks off the Information Superhighway?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not drunks, it's serial killers. Is that you?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Would have stopped Pete Hegseth.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the right way to look at it. The internet needs a giant enema, followed by reasonable approaches to protect people while providing accountability, just like the rest of society.
Re:this is better [than what]? (Score:1)
Better than the FP thread, but not that great. How about if you specifically consider better approaches to solutions?
On one hand I mostly agree with you, but in the other hand I have a giant can of worms...
But first a detour on the scenic route. I think your premise is broken. The Internet has never been anonymous. Just because the resources to nail people were out of your reach does not mean it was impossible to find you. Even if you were making deliberate technological efforts to hide, you can eventually
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the best counterexample of your premise is the Unabomber. Yes, not on the Web--but I think that was half because of the timing and half because he understood the lack of real technology-based anonymity. But he tried quite hard to stay hidden. And died in prison..
Theodore Kaczynski was caught because of poor Operational Security (OPSEC). He let his ego get the better of him, delivering a 35,000 word manifesto and insisting that it be made public.
He was caught only because he thought he was smarter than everybody else, leaving clues with each bomb and in his manifesto. Ultimately the Washington Post's publication of his writings caught the eye of researchers, and more importantly, his younger brother David, who turned him in for the $1M reward.
Re: (Score:2)
leaving clues with each bomb
Rewriting history, are we? He was caught because his brother recognized his writings. That's it.
In fact, you are so wrong,
He purposely left misleading clues in the devices and took extreme care in preparing them to avoid leaving fingerprints; fingerprints found on some of the devices did not match those found on letters attributed to Kaczynski
Re: (Score:2)
But he tried quite hard to stay hidden. And died in prison.
I am not sure not getting caught and anonymous are the same thing. The Unabomber was outed by his brother. But the real problem is that you didn't list all the crimes that are unsolved and the criminals are still "anonymous".
Which doesn't mean you aren't right about the end of anonymity on the web. I am not sure any civilized institution can survive with anonymity the norm. And the web seems to be indicating it can't survive with even the current level.
The simplest solution would be to require people have
Re: (Score:2)
Re: this is better (Score:1)
who cares about someone's definition of nice, puritan snowflake?
Re: (Score:2)
What will the voter id people say about this? (Score:1)
Re:What will the voter id people say about this? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, these people will be flagged as undesirables and targeted for removal. Age verification is just a trial run.
You don't otherize by mislabeling them as children, you otherize by accusing them of molesting children.
Re: (Score:2)
Pedo party is at it again. https://ktla.com/news/gop-lawm... [ktla.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably but this would most likely extend mostly to dissidents who don't want to be personally known.
I briefly looked into Twitter 2 verification and you had to give your biometrics to an unaccountable Israeli company. Big no for any of that, same as Google.
Fortunately perhaps my Google account dates to "Don't be Evil" and is old enough to buy a beer.
That and the most childish thing I watch is DDoI.
They probably have a highly significant statistical dataset based on people who identified as underage.
If th
schizophrenic parents (Score:2)
Seems like this would false positive on any parent that tees up videos for their kids to watch.
Before Netflix supported multiple profiles they probably thought I had schizophrenia, watching a mix of dora the explorer in the mornings and john wick.in the evenings
Given that it is an AI system (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The whole point of this system is to fail so the Normies will demand a government-issued Digital ID to prove they're allowed to watch Youtube videos.
The "Vaccine Passport" failed to create a persistent Digital ID, so now they've switched to "Save The Children From Pron".
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, you're such a victim. The call is coming from inside your house. Normies are the target, government issued ID is your side's weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That unfortunately makes a lot of sense. Funny how scientifically sound proof porn is even really harmful to children is still missing. The only solidly proven aspects I am aware of are "body confidence issues" (as many normal ads and other content can create) and "unrealistic ideas about sex" (which parents need to take care of by explaining things to their kids). That is not enough to justify what these people are doing.
Re: Given that it is an AI system (Score:2)
Funny you say that. Porn site age checks kicked in the UK last Friday. Today I was asked on the street by a random teenager if I'd allow them to have my passport for 5 minutes for 10 quid. Hilarious.
and Lawsuits Galore (Score:1)
If it keeps a person with a disability that makes them seem younger, they can sue bigly under Federal ADA laws.
Re: (Score:2)
But it will be easy to contact Google support and have them correct any mistake. They do have support, don't they?
Re: (Score:2)
This is think of the children bullshit (Score:2)
In a few years it might come out that they have been using that data to Target children for product advertising of some kind. I say might because we aren't really doing any kind of regulation anymore and corporations basically run America on behalf of the heritage foundation.
Re:This is think of the children bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
The ability to do this is predicated on already having the ability to target children with advertising.
Google IS the predator, this is just projection.
Older than Google (Score:2)
How many people who are older than Google but like allegedly-for-kids stuff like Anime or video games are going to get told they aren't old enough to consume media with a boob or an f-bomb in it?
Re: (Score:2)
Google doesn't care, if any of theme complain Google can add their names to the El Salvador list.
Re: Older than Google (Score:2)
Well, if your GMail account is old enough to drink, I doubt it's going to be a problem.
It's hard to imagine how... (Score:2)
...this could be accurate
It might come close, but it seems implausible that this approach will ever be perfect
Online age verification is very nearly impossible
It reminds me of an old cartoon, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had this problem with Facebook once. (Score:2)
I typed a message saying that I'm not that desperate to get an account, and I'm not uploading any photos. Turned the text into a jpeg, submitted as my photo. Got approved within 1 hour and I've never had a problem since. ðYZ
Adblockers (Score:2)
Why I think this? I was early adopter and joined invite-only gmail, so when they demanded I provided my ID "for age verification purposes" my account was older than that. I believe they asked for age verification because they couldn't track me well (I DNS b
Re: (Score:2)
The primary goal is appeasing politicians, since lately they've taken to banning minors from the platforms altogether. That specifically, but also regulation more generally. They need these kind of PR moves to pretend they're doing right by people.
It's also designed to improve the quality of their data trove, definitively linking your G account to a government ID, without having to say outright "We are now requiring ID".
And yeah, if they can use this as cover to implement any kind of ad-blocking-blocking,
I like classic Sesame Street (Score:2)
Which is still often set as a 'kids' setting (no comments, no playlists). So will it decide that I'm 10 years old, or will it realize I'm in my 50s and just waxing nostalgic at a show's better days...
My 13-year-old sense of humor (Score:2)
. . . is going to lose me my Google account.
Stupidest thing I've heard this week... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tip: you can make a lot of money by selling access to accounts over 18 years old to those under 18 years old.
Hell, charge $5/month. Get 1000 subscribers nationwide. That's $60K/year. Not a bad little passive income stream you've got there.
Only problem is what to do with all those $5 bills getting mailed to your P.O. Box every month.
Re: (Score:2)
Tip: If the account itself is over 18 years old, then its owner is likely over 18 too.
Tip 2: Its not likely Google is going to fully disclose how they make their evaluation.
It will likely involve a bunch of different tests. I am sure how old the account is will be one of them. But I suspect there are a lot of other things that most kids don't do that most adults do. They can both rule people in - this is definitely an adult, and rule people out - this is definitely not an adult.
The real problem will likely be distinguishing 17 year olds from 19 year olds. But even that might not be so hard
The real problem (Score:2)
The real problem is trying to control people.
Controlling what is available to view.
Controlling who has access to view.
Controlling who you can market to.
Give up the incessant desire to control people and you don't need a mechanism to control people.
Might some harm come from it? Sure.
Is there harming from trying to control everyone? Absolutely.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that people should be able to post what they want online, let the chips fall where they may.