Why not more online facial age estimation to distinguish children from adults?

I bet the technology could be improved!

As a safeguard, facial age estimation ought to be clearly separated from personal identification or login requirements! This could be achieved by e.g. third party providers who do nothing else but facial age estimation.

There are other means of age verification available too in the digital age. Why is e.g. my Google account not age verified! Google are you paying attention!

I bet privacy concerns (like the article below) are overblown here! Why would a selfie video be necessary? Does not a close up photo of your eyes/face suffice.

For example, porn websites could use it to keep children away, but not adults.

"Online facial age estimation is moderately reliable for broad categories like telling adults from children, but it is imprecise for guessing exact numbers. Top algorithms from groups like the National Institute of Standards and Technology have a mean absolute error rate of about 2 to 3 years, making them much better than average human guesses, but still prone to error based on lighting, skin care, and camera quality." (Google Search)

"... However, this is quickly shifting a broad policy problem into a biometric one, where access to ordinary online services can depend on literally showing your face [???]. ...

While facial age estimation may offer platforms a convenient way to respond to youth online safety demands, that convenience comes with serious privacy costs. Required facial scans lower the baseline of privacy for everyone, especially teens, and create a regime where access to everyday social spaces depends on individuals surrendering sensitive information about their faces and, in many cases, their identities. ...

Meta’s implementation of Yoti, a digital identity and age assurance company, on Instagram and Facebook shows how this works.

If Instagram believes an account holder is under 18 years old and the user tries to change that, it can send that user to Yoti for analysis of a selfie video [???].Yoti then estimates whether the person appears to be over 18 and sends that result back to Meta.

Its tests have expanded across the United Kingdom, Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan, and similar flows have begun appearing on Facebook in Australia. Yoti also presents facial age estimation as part of a broader age assurance system that can include document-based checks, while highlighting that it estimates age rather than identifying the person. ..."

Protecting teens online shouldn't require mandatory facial scans for digital users "While facial age estimation offers a convenient way to respond to youth online safety demands, the tool comes with serious privacy costs [???]."

Google’s ad tools enable marketers to target sensitive and other user data

Nothing new! Google has been doing this for how many years?

Munich terrorist attack by Afghan asylum seeker with 28 injured taken over by extremism and terror prosecutors

Had the terrorist used a heavier car with more horsepower, the casualty count would have been much higher including deaths! Glück im Unglück (blessing in disguise)!

Excessive data protection laws in Germany are ridiculous!

The German government run DW news service euphemistically called the terrorist attack a "case". Can you believe it!

Data Protection Frameworks Of India And The US: Data Sovereignty Vs Market Flexibility – Analysis

Could be an interesting article, but I did not have the time to read it.

However, this article seems to imply that a more centralized approach is preferable or beneficial over federalism, which may not be convincing!

Data Protection Frameworks Of India And The US: Data Sovereignty Vs Market Flexibility – Analysis – Eurasia Review "The key differences between India and the US as regards data protection frameworks relate to their approaches to consent mechanisms, cross-border data transfers, breach notifications and children’s data protection, with India taking a more centralised, stringent approach compared to the US’s distributed, flexible system."

California Passes Law Protecting Brain Data with Palki Sharma

Recommendable! Definitely food for thought!

Colorado passes first US brain activity data privacy law

Is it perhaps too premature to pass such laws? It may curtail or delay opportunities, advances etc.

"US tech companies that make neurotechnology gadgets — such as the headband that aims to make you a better meditator — will soon face more restrictions in how they collect, store and sell people’s brain-activity data. On 17 April, Colorado passed the country’s first law protecting consumers’ neural privacy. Users will now have the right to prevent companies from selling their brain data or using it for advertising. “We just think that there should be some guardrails in place for people who aren’t intending to have their thoughts read,” says Colorado legislator Cathy Kipp. Privacy advocates praise the bill’s passage, but some private universities are concerned it will prevent them from using such technologies for research and teaching."

Nature Briefing

First law protecting consumers' brainwaves signed by Colorado governor

New Travesty Of Data Protection In The European Union

Posted: 12/24/2014

Trigger

Just read this German article “Auch für private Überwachungskameras gilt der Datenschutz Wer an seinem Haus zum Schutz vor Einbrechern eine Kamera anbringt, muss sich sehr genau mit dem Datenschutz auseinandersetzen. Denn eine grundsätzliche Ausnahme gibt es nicht - hat der Europäische Gerichtshof in Luxemburg nun entschieden.” This article is about a recent judgment by the European Union Court of Justice (link to press release dated 12/11/2014; Case C-212/13).

Please read the comments as well by readers of the above article! Readers have overwhelmingly expressed how absurd this judgment is and how it defies common sense!

Brief Background

A homeowner installed surveillance cameras around his property after he and his families suffered several attacks on their property. Next time, these cameras caught the perpetrators in the act. The homeowner handed the videotapes over to the police, which apprehended the criminals.

Criminals claimed it was illegal under European data protection laws to shoot these videos without their consent. The appropriate data protection authority of that country agreed and fined the homeowner for illegally taping the event, because one of the cameras also filmed a “public footpath”.

Common Sense

Clearly, these surveillance cameras in this case served primarily the purpose of passive self-defense from bodily harm or property damage. There was apparently no indication of any kind that the homeowner used the video footage for any other purpose. One would think that such self-defense would trump excessive data protection laws.

If you read the press release of the EU Court of Justice you begin to think these judges are far removed from any reality.