Facebook Offers a Verification System Certifying to Other Users That You're a Real Human

Facebook announced Friday they're launching a badge "that verifies there's a real person behind a profile". "You record a short video selfie, which we check against your existing profile photos to confirm a match. The process is free and typically takes just a few minutes. Accounts must meet our trust and safety standards to qualify for verification...." Once verified, your badge will appear across the places on Facebook where it matters most: Marketplace, Dating, Groups, and Profile to start. Over time, we'll add badges in Feed posts as well. There's no subscription fee — you verify once, and the badge travels with you across Facebook... [Y]ou'll see the Verified badge on accounts that have completed the verification process... It's a quick, visible signal, before you respond to a listing, accept a date, or join a conversation, that there's a real person on the other end.
"We're rolling out Facebook Verified in phases, starting in select markets with plans to expand globally..." their announcement adds. "As AI makes it easier to do more on Facebook, a clear signal that distinguishes real people becomes essential. That's what Facebook Verified is for: keeping the moments that matter on Facebook grounded in real people."

Lifehacker shares their reaction: Facebook says it will store your selfie video for "up to 30 days" after verification, which is a one-time process. It's not entirely clear what happens with that video in the meantime, and it's worth noting that Meta has relied on user data to train its AI. Meta AI (and Meta more broadly) is a terrible offender when it comes to privacy and security, so you should consider whether the tradeoff of a verification mark is worth handing over more of your data and read the privacy policy before you agree.

Google also launched a video selfie verification feature this week, though its purpose is to prove your identity should you get locked out of your account. Unlike Facebook Verified, which is meant to be a trust signal to other users, Google's selfie verification allows access to your entire Google account, bringing with it some additional security considerations.

Re:

[Moryath]

Precisely. Fuckerberg is a nazi who bans people for posting links to the British Holocaust Memorial Day Fund, he's a Nazi and his whole fakeass trash site needs to die. I'm 100% sure that they're actually going to USE these videos to train their shitty AI products.

Re:

[arglebargle_xiv]

Is Fecebook's verified sign a blue checkmark?

Re:

[Baron_Yam]

That is why this was always destined to fail as an authentication mechanism. And anyone smart enough to code it already knows this - which is why you know the real reason is to collect training data for AI, not to create a robust and secure authentication system.

Re:

[Narcocide]

I'm concerned that point has already been achieved and this verification system is going to be insufficient.

Much better way to verify you're human

[dskoll]

A much better way is not to use any Meta services.

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

Agreed, but the worry is that eventually so many things will require age verification that unless you do it, you will end up excluded from large parts of society or even the economy.

Actually the transition away from cash is another example of people being economically excluded, because they can't get a card for whatever reason (the main one being that they are a child).

Re:

[ambrandt12]

Don't worry... in the future (as in, like 10-20 years), even joining Netflix is gonna require this.
But, it'll be simple, because with AI baked into literally everything, it'll already know the kid's face and a quick AI-powered search of all records from forever shows that kid is under the allowable age to view Facebook.
And, the same thing will apply to your toaster and stove and hair dryer and everything... the kid is too young, their phone won't let them take a selfie.

Economically excluded would really onl

Re:

[jenningsthecat]

Agreed, but the worry is that eventually so many things will require age verification that unless you do it, you will end up excluded from large parts of society or even the economy.

That sounds like a job for Open Source. We could have the equivalent of Linux in the realm of ID and age verification.

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

Interesting but how would it work? Some kind of crypto token?

Racist!

[gurps_npc]

How dare they discriminate against us lizard people!
: )

Re:

[antdude]

And ant people like me! :(

Translation

[Baron_Yam]

"We have your photos, but we really need multiple angles with consistent lighting and background to train our AI. Also, as per company policy, fuck you, you're all morons."

-Zuck

Re:

[sinij]

fuck you, you're all morons

Seeing how people are still knowingly on FB, is he wrong?

Re:

[Baron_Yam]

I didn't say he was wrong. I should be more specific and say that he is not incorrect.

He's still 'wrong' as a human being.

Re:

[fafaforza]

Err, facebook already has 3 billion active users.

And they only rolled this authentication sometime this week.

So the existing users didn't have to go through this. Hell, if you're an old enough account, you never even had to have a phone number with them.

I have been disappeared.

[Skjellifetti2]

After a decade or so on FB, I was booted off. They told me I had to prove I wasn't a bot by sending them a video. I declined. I was on FB because it was a convenient way to keep in touch with old friends now scattered across the globe. My friends knew who I was. There is no reason I would need to prove anything to anyone. FB seems to have deleted my account and 10 years worth of posts. None of my friends can find me anymore and I cannot log in. I have been disappeared. Oh well.

Re:

[Baron_Yam]

I don't have a lot of friends, but I tend to doubt most people do. Many people have a lot of friendly acquaintances.

My friends are people I keep in touch with and don't need social media for each of us to remember the other exists.

Re:

[fafaforza]

Blah blah blah. The same old arrogant retort. "I'm better than you because I maintain close relationships with my friends".

People have varying levels of friends and acquaintances, old friends from "the old country", former co-workers. Facebook was a good enough place to keep in touch. Only socially awkward people hold strict definitions of what a friend is.

Re:

[antdude]

Same here after I signed up like over a decade ago. They didn't like my fake name and wanted proofs. Oh well.

This is Extortion

[sinij]

FB: Give us all your data or you won't be able to browse Internet.

Think about this for a minute.... seriously...

[MikeDataLink]

They know who the bots are and yet hey are letting them stay on the platform. Let that sink in.

Re:

[bill_mcgonigle]

One of their partners wants a comprehensive biometrics database, perhaps.

Flock, perhaps.

A certain foreign military, perhaps.

They could make this all local in their app with cryptographic attestation but for 'some reason' they want the data on their servers for 30 days.

Ten percent of the population will be highly skeptical.

A high trust society is quite valuable but it trains people to not look out for parasites.

"Verified"

[sound+vision]

So they verify that a human was involved in creating the account. (They told me they already did that, though?) That doesn't say anything about the content that account goes on to post.

It works out well for Facebook, giving the impression that their site has real users. But I feel bad for people seeing the checkmarks and thinking that indicates some kind of legitimacy.

Tell us AI slop has overwhelmed your site.

[Fly Swatter]

..without telling us AI slop is overwhelming your site.

"Privacy" risks

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

To me, they are overstated. If you have already published your profile photos on such platforms, would you really care if Facebook saw a short clip of your face? You lost your privacy ages ago when you uploaded the photos in the first place.

Re:

[martin-boundary]

What if someone took your photo without your consent, and uploaded it claiming you're one of their "friends"? Still fair game? No.

You people who claim that these predatory anti-privacy practices are all self-inflicted have no answer to the true problem: Most of the information available "publicly" and shared "freely" on the internet and social media sites is not actually "available" and is not "shared" by anyone who owns the information.

There's no putting the genie of stolen data in the bottle, you're

Re:

[fafaforza]

And what if you didn't post photos of your face?

And some blurry photos are much different than a 180 degree scannable model of your face, in the same lighting, at one point in time, versus random photos from random cameras and situations.

Re:

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

And what if you didn't post photos of your face?

What will you verify in this case? And why? I don't understand you. Did you read the news piece?

a couple of things

[roc97007]

First, if the method is a video selfie, couldn't an AI video be used to fake it?

Second, do I care if people believe I'm real or not?

badges?

[guygo]

We don need to show you no steenkin badges!

Coming for the other half of your data

[HnT]

You already gave them half of all your data, now they are coming for the other half that actually matters even more and is deeply personal and private and critical.

Just identify the squares with a traffic signal

[Tony Isaac]

If that's how they're doing it, I'm in trouble, I always get those wrong!

Google "selfie for sign-in"

[NotEmmanuelGoldstein]

Facial biometrics are not stored on one's phone anymore. Google is recommending they save your facial biometrics in 3D. The police (and other kidnappers) get more than access to one's phone, they get access to every account one has 'secured' with 3D biometrics.

The second problem, will be a paradox of Google's creation: Google will feed 3D biometrics into their AI, which will then be able create fake 3D authentication videos: Which is pointless when Google already has your data. The problem arises whe