FTC denies rating board's suggestion for age verification system

[Cal Jeffrey]

Editor's take: The ESRB has one job: rate games by maturity level based on content. So why did it involve itself in a proposal to add a new age verification system for parents to use to provide consent for data collection on their children? All that did was confuse the public about what facial age estimation is and how it would be used, leading to it getting shot down by the FTC.

The Federal Trade Commission has denied a petition to allow companies to use facial age estimation (FAE) technology to obtain parental consent when collecting data from children under 13, a requirement for the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). The FTC dismissed the application without prejudice, meaning the petitioners can re-file.

The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), SuperAwesome (COPPA-friendly youth-based advertising platform), and Yoti filed the petition last year. Yoti developed the facial age estimation platform that the group proposed. However, the public did not take kindly to the recommendation, prompting the ESRB to issue a statement explaining that news outlets misconstrued how the system worked.

Many in the media and public mistakenly conflated FAE software with facial recognition. Facial recognition systems, like those law enforcement sometimes uses, take a face scan from a picture or video and compare it to an extensive database of images to identify a person. These photos are often added to the database regardless of whether the system recognizes the face.

Facial age estimation systems do not try to identify a person. Instead, they scan various areas of the face and score them. The process repeats until it scores all facial traits, and then the final process uses these anonymous numbers to guess the age. Yoti's system isn't even that specific, as it only guesses whether the face is younger or older than 25, as stated on page 5 of the proposal.

Click to enlarge

Another part of the outrage was that people thought they would be required to provide a facial scan every time they bought an M-rated game online. Retailers are supposed to verify that buyers of mature games are at least 17. however, this issue is entirely unrelated to COPPA or the petitioned idea. The ESRB tried to sort out the confusion by denying both assumptions.

"First and foremost, this application is not to authorize the use of this technology with children. Full stop. Nor does this software take and store 'selfies' of users or attempt to confirm the identity of users," the ESRB told IGN when the initial dustup occurred. "Furthermore, this application makes no mention of using age estimation to prevent children from purchasing and/or downloading restrictively rated video games, nor do we intend to recommend its use in that way."

However, the explanation fell on deaf ears. The FTC's Tuesday decision seems primarily based on public commentary.

"After receiving more than 350 comments, the Commission voted 4-0 to deny the application without prejudice to the applicants filing in the future, when the Commission anticipates that additional information will be available to assist the Commission and the public in better understanding age verification technologies and the application."

The ESRB, SuperAwesome, and Yoti must present the proposal clearly and without conflating facial age estimation with facial recognition. The petitioners must also make the public understand that COPPA has nothing to do with the ESRB's rating system or M-rating restrictions. Knowing this, the ESRB should consider excluding itself from the petition rather than getting involved in matters outside its purview, like COPPA.

Permalink to story:

FTC denies rating board's suggestion for age verification system

 

[Theinsanegamer]

How TF did they think people would be OK with this? NOBODY trusts them to not share that data, nor does anyone believe them that it "just estimates your age". Utter BS.

How would this work anyway? Digital purchases are the standard today. You going to put facial recognition in people's homes? How about false positives?

Here's a genius idea, just ask for ID, the way it's been don't for the last two decades.

Friggin nanny states man.

 

[Cal Jeffrey]

How TF did they think people would be OK with this? NOBODY trusts them to not share that data, nor does anyone believe them that it "just estimates your age". Utter BS.

How would this work anyway? Digital purchases are the standard today. You going to put facial recognition in people's homes? How about false positives?

Here's a genius idea, just ask for ID, the way it's been don't for the last two decades.

Friggin nanny states man.

It's not for digital purchases. Did you read the entire piece? It's proposed to COPPA compliance. That's why the ESRB needs to remove itself from the proposal. It only confuses people. Has nothing to do with gaming, except for online and only for data collection on those under 13.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

It's not for digital purchases. Did you read the entire piece? It's proposed to COPPA compliance. That's why the ESRB needs to remove itself from the proposal. It only confuses people. Has nothing to do with gaming, except for online and only for data collection on those under 13.

My complaint still stands. COPPA is for, as you said, data collection when ONLINE. People typically do that, you know, at home? On the train? Usually not in a store is my point. So how would this facial recognition system work, exactly? If a 12 year old wants to log onto roblox and they have to verify age to be COPPA compliant, then how, exactly, are they going to do that? You going to put facial recognition in people's homes? How about false positives?

And BTW, NOBODY buys that load of BS from the ESRB that they dont recommend it for purchases. They have 0 reason to be on this otherwise. They didnt join by accident, this is what we call a trojan move, had the FTC approved this I guarantee you the ESRB would be looking to implement it for purchases down the line.

 

[Endymio]

Here's a genius idea, just ask for ID, the way it's been don't for the last two decades.

We require ID to be shown to buy alcohol and tobacco, to drive a vehicle, or -- in most states -- enter a courthouse. Odd that some people find it outrageous to require an ID to vote, eh?

 

[GodisanAtheist]

We require ID to be shown to buy alcohol and tobacco, to drive a vehicle, or -- in most states -- enter a courthouse. Odd that some people find it outrageous to require an ID to vote, eh?

- Not really. I'm generally against the idea because it allows the government another tool to prevent people from voting.

Remember when Alabama enacted a voter ID law and the.almost immediately closed DMV locations (where most people would get ID) in predominantly poor or black areas?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-voter-id-law-kicks-in?embedded-checkout=true

That is why people are against voter ID laws.

 

[Endymio]

- Not really. I'm generally against the idea because it allows the government another tool to prevent people from illegally voting.

Fixed it for you.

Remember when Alabama enacted a voter ID law and the.almost immediately closed DMV locations (where most people would get ID) in predominantly poor or black areas?

An utter falsehood. The "almost immediately" was more than four years later, and came in response to statewide budget cuts. Nor were the offices in "predominately poor or black areas" -- they were the 31 lowest-usage offices across the state -- the busiest of those served less than 2,000 people. All were already part-time only, not full-time locations.

Furthermore, at the same time AL also enacted a "photo voter ID" law, allowing individual to apply via mail for a voter photo ID in lieu of a drivers license. And it's totally free, which a driver's license isn't. To vote in AL, one can also use a passport, a military ID, or even a student ID from any college or university in the state.

The notion that anyone -- ANYONE -- was prevented or even hindered from voting by this law is baseless propaganda of the lowest level.

 

[BobHome]

I've looked young for my age most of my life. In my 30's, some still thought I was a teenager. In my 50's I went to one of those Vegas 'Guess Your Age" and he said 35.
So, in my 30's I most likely would've failed the "younger or older than 25" test.

Ain't tech great? Make a reason and fill it!

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Fixed it for you.


An utter falsehood. The "almost immediately" was more than four years later, and came in response to statewide budget cuts. Nor were the offices in "predominately poor or black areas" -- they were the 31 lowest-usage offices across the state -- the busiest of those served less than 2,000 people. All were already part-time only, not full-time locations.

Furthermore, at the same time AL also enacted a "photo voter ID" law, allowing individual to apply via mail for a voter photo ID in lieu of a drivers license. And it's totally free, which a driver's license isn't. To vote in AL, one can also use a passport, a military ID, or even a student ID from any college or university in the state.

The notion that anyone -- ANYONE -- was prevented or even hindered from voting by this law is baseless propaganda of the lowest level.

- The law went into effect a year before the offices closed. Signed in 2011, enforced in 2014, DMV offices closed in 2015.

Also, if there is one word we should ditch from the English language, its the word "free". There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. There is a cost to everything, and sometimes that cost isn't money.

To get one of these supposedly "Free" ID's, you still have to have official supporting documentation, like a birth certificate. To get one of those you often have to travel to our county registrar's office, potentially take time off work or pay bus fare, pay a fee to obtain an official copy... then go through the process of obtaining a "Free" voter ID (which involves dropping the form off in person at a location, so there is a time and often travel cost associated with that as well).

Further complicating things, in 2017 and onward, you need an ID to get a birth certificate... to get the ID to vote if you don't have an ID

Birth Certificates | Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH)

Everyone knows you cannot just say "I don't want people of a certain persuasion voting" nowadays, so there is always an intricate network of barriers set-up that some people can get passed that provides plausible deniability.

With even national elections often being decided often times by tens of thousands of votes in a handful of competitive counties, its no wonder one group of people wants the barriers and another doesn't.

 

[Endymio]

there is one word we should ditch from the English language, its the word "free". .... There is a cost to everything

Yes, the 'cost' of this photo ID is one US postage stamp. And if fifty cents is too high a burden, you can request online that a MOBILE Voter ID unit come directly to your home.

To get one of these supposedly "Free" ID's, you still have to have official supporting documentation, like a birth certificate.

More disinformation. You can use a birth certificate. Or a marriage certificate. Or a hospital or nursing home certificate, an official school record or transcript, a state or federal census record, a military record, a social security card or other document, a Medicare or Medicaid document, or a certificate of citizenship. Or ANY photo or non-photo document that contains your full legal name and date of birth.

In short, you need at least **some** minimum degree of proof you're legally entitled to vote. Which explains why a certain class of people so vehemently oppose it. The right to bear arms is, by the Bill of Rights, even more fundamental than universal voting -- would you support removing all requirements to display photo ID when purchasing an AR-15?

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Yes, the 'cost' of this photo ID is one US postage stamp. And if fifty cents is too high a burden, you can request online that a MOBILE Voter ID unit come directly to your home.


More disinformation. You can use a birth certificate. Or a marriage certificate. Or a hospital or nursing home certificate, an official school record or transcript, a state or federal census record, a military record, a social security card or other document, a Medicare or Medicaid document, or a certificate of citizenship. Or ANY photo or non-photo document that contains your full legal name and date of birth.

In short, you need at least **some** minimum degree of proof you're legally entitled to vote. Which explains why a certain class of people so vehemently oppose it. The right to bear arms is, by the Bill of Rights, even more fundamental than universal voting -- would you support removing all requirements to display photo ID when purchasing an AR-15?

- The Voter ID card form must be submitted in person, its on the form itself. No mailing in the form. Disinfo indeed.

Here is the form right from the Alabama Sec of State's website:

https://www.sos.alabama.gov/sites/default/files/voter-pdfs/candidate-resources/ApplicationForFreeALPhotoVoterIdCard.pdf

- And yes, the free ID requires not free documentation, pretty disingenuous no?

I agree that there needs to be a system to verify voters, but like all of America's original sins this one is birthed from the fact that we were never intended to be a democracy, more of an oligarchy for a very specific subset of Americans. So many of our rights are built on top of an inherently flawed foundation, and so solutions evade us.

I am also powerfully pro-second amendment, so that last bullet point might not be the slam dunk you think it is.