The ESRB wants to start using facial scanning technology to check people's ages

[Humbaba]

You're right, just remove all laws and regulations because they may be used improperly.

Strawmanning are we? Right, let me know if you got real arguments for supporting surveillance software, I'll get back to you then.

[rusty_shackleford]

You're right, just remove all laws and regulations because they may be used improperly.

Strawmanning are we? Right, let me know if you got real arguments for supporting surveillance software, I'll get back to you then.

How is it any more of a strawman than "this is a bad idea because it could hypothetically be used improperly"?
Every single law and regulation can be misconstrued to be used improperly, it's a ******** argument.

[rusty_shackleford]

going to add mandatory retinal scanning as a requirement to post on the hq

[Gunnar]

Pointing out that this particular law would be ripe for abuse and certainly would be abused given what we all know and have seen in the tech space isn’t an argument against the use of laws in the first place. You’re saying that we should all be okay with slapping chains and manacles on (because it’s comfortable and fashionable i guess?) as long as creeps we know are pure evil promise not to lock them on us. Even if this were true of other laws already on the books, that is not a good argument why we should add more obviously bad laws when we don’t have to. There is no safe way to implement this, we don’t need it, so why? Where is your sense of self preservation?

[rusty_shackleford]

Pointing out that this particular law would be ripe for abuse and certainly would be abused given what we all know and have seen in the tech space isn’t an argument against the use of laws in the first place. You’re saying that we should all be okay with slapping chains and manacles on (because it’s comfortable and fashionable i guess?) as long as creeps we know are pure evil promise not to lock them on us. Even if this were true of other laws already on the books, that is not a good argument why we should add more obviously bad laws when we don’t have to. There is no safe way to implement this, we don’t need it, so why? Where is your sense of self preservation?

I struggle to see how a feature that is optional and used on the client-side would harm the rest of the users, because it's something that could exist right now without any laws.

[Gunnar]

That’s because you’re refusing to engage with the arguments already presented itt, I haven’t seen any serioys rebuttal.

[A12]

I'd support this as long as it was required, by law or regulation, to be optional. Like a more advanced form of parental control chips in TVs.

If an X-rated site detects that the user requires facial authorization, then it uses it, for example.

Are you ********? Our so called free speech paladin is defending authoritarian surveillance tech "if it's optional" and by optional he means if companies are allowed to freely utilise it. No moral hazard there, nope not at all. Holy ****.

I'm not sure if you guys even bothered reading what I typed before picking up your torch and pitchforks.
I favored it as an opt-in on the client side. If a device has such a feature, it must be required to be used.

Altho the entire thing could be avoided just by having a security mechanism that blocks content deemed adult-only on devices that are flagged as protected.

thats the issue dawg, what starts as a mechanism to block "adult content" can easily be extended to other **** like "political incorrectness" and piracy in a slippery-slope type of ****.

either way i dont like my devices access/features being policed by some ****** half way across the world in Silicon Valley or some ****, and the big tech "trend" of exporting "control" from client side to server side is pretty faggy, even if it was "opt-in"

[rusty_shackleford]

That’s because you’re refusing to engage with the arguments already presented itt, I haven’t seen any serioys rebuttal.

But you keep referring to it as something the servers would control rather than the client.
Can you explain exactly why a company would want you to enable something that would simply … stop you from visiting their site? Rather than just blocking you?