Yoti has received £26 million in VC funding, most recently £10 million from Lloyds Banking Group in March. SuperAwesome was purchased by Epic Games for an undisclosed amount in 2020....
Exemplary
The ESRB, along with digital identity company Yoti and Epic Games-owned "youth digital media" company SuperAwesome
SuperAwesome’s business model appears to be showing ads to kids:
SuperAwesome’s Kids Web Services (KWS) platform is a parental consent management toolkit that makes it easier for developers to build great experiences for users of all ages. Today the SuperAwesome products and services are GDPR compliant and have been certified through the KidSAFE and ESRB COPPA Safe Harbor programs. With AwesomeAds, developers can offer kid-safe monetization inside their products.
seems pretty clear that's the ultimate goal here. they want as few barriers as possible between the ads and the kids' eyeballs. as part of that, they want the government to give its stamp of approval to this privately-developed age verification algorithm, which will allow Epic Games to make more money selling ads, and Yoti's VC backers to profit from their investment.
here's the actual proposal filed with the FTC: 38 page PDF
the thing that sticks out to me the most is that they're not verifying if you're over 18, they're verifying if you're over 25:
If the person is estimated as being 18-25, or there is some other uncertainty about whether the person is an adult, the person is returned to the beginning of step 5, where they can choose an alternative verification method that uses additional personal information, such as a payment card, driver’s license or SSN.
if you're a 20 year old who wants to play Grand Theft Auto or some other game that's marked 17+, this proposal is not about you.
Moreover, children cannot easily circumvent Facial Age Estimation, which requires the live participation of an adult who is old enough to be the child’s parent to submit to the process. A child’s 14-year-old sibling or 18-year-old babysitter, for example, would not be able to pass the Facial Age Estimation process. This makes it more likely that the person going through the age estimation flow is the child’s parent.
...
It protects and promotes children’s privacy by providing a reliable, accessible and simple method for operators to obtain VPC, so they can deliver appropriate experiences to users under the age of 13.
saying that a 14 year old sibling or 18 year old babysitter wouldn't pass the verification check gives the game away.
the goal of this proposal is to make it easier to show ads to children younger than 13.
they set 25 as the minimum age because they're verifying parents, who will then grant consent for their children (younger than 13 is the age defined by COPPA where parental consent is required for most online services).
The article mentions it, and I threw it in the comment in the form posted, but as a minority, this statement: seems really privileged and tone deaf?
The article mentions it, and I threw it in the comment in the form posted, but as a minority, this statement:
The ESRB dismissed concerns about the "fairness" of the system, however, saying that "the difference in rejection rates between gender and skin tone is very small."
it gets even dumber than that: their claimed error rate is double for women compared to men and depending on skin tone the error rate can be 3.5 times higher (they don't explicitly say lighter...
it gets even dumber than that:
"The data suggests that for those between 25 and 35, 15 out of 1,000 females vs 7 out of 1,000 males might be incorrectly classified as under-25 (and would have the option of verifying using another method)," the filing states. "The range of difference by skin tone is between 8 out of 1,000 vs 28 out of 1,000. While bias exists, as is inherent in any automated system, this is not material, especially as compared to the benefits and the increase in access to certain groups of parents."
their claimed error rate is double for women compared to men
and depending on skin tone the error rate can be 3.5 times higher (they don't explicitly say lighter skin tones have a lower error rate, but I have little doubt that's what they actually mean)
The hand wringing over bias in error rates really isn't warranted here, because we're talking about fractions of a percent. In scientific terms, if you normally see 1 PPB of a contaminant and...
The hand wringing over bias in error rates really isn't warranted here, because we're talking about fractions of a percent.
In scientific terms, if you normally see 1 PPB of a contaminant and suddenly detect 100 PPB, that's a hundredfold increase but it's still a tiny, tiny trace.
For what it's worth I think this is a terrible idea and can't wait to see it fail, but because it's invasive to all humans - we should be objecting to this on principle, not because of some bias measured.
Bringing up bias makes it seem like that's what makes this concept objectionable. It's already something every living human can object to as a breach of privacy. Further, declaring something is...
Bringing up bias makes it seem like that's what makes this concept objectionable. It's already something every living human can object to as a breach of privacy.
Further, declaring something is biased from fractions of a percent is thin at best - if this were a scientific study that amount of deviance would be thrown out as not statistically significant.
So there's no point to bringing it up. It doesn't add to the conversation, and even if it did it isn't meaningfully present here.
People have been arguing for privacy for how many decades now? How has that turned out? The truth is that the overwhelming majority of population simply doesn't care about privacy and doesn't mind...
People have been arguing for privacy for how many decades now? How has that turned out?
The truth is that the overwhelming majority of population simply doesn't care about privacy and doesn't mind their faces being scanned for age verification. Especially when you throw in the bit about doing it to "protect the children".
If you want to stop stuff like this, you need to use arguments that people are susceptible to and that have power in politics. Discrimination against race and gender is something a lot of people feel EXTREMELY passionate about and is potent in the voting poll.
You say the breach of privacy i something "every human can object to", but in your experience is that something that they actually do? Maybe in your small circle.. but in the wider world, taking selfies and sending them to Zuck is everyone's favorite past-time.
I disagree that just because bias is a hot issue, this means everything must now be discussed in terms of bias. Not only does this continue carrying the level of discussion on issues further...
I disagree that just because bias is a hot issue, this means everything must now be discussed in terms of bias.
Not only does this continue carrying the level of discussion on issues further forward, it still carries the creeping connotation that if there were no bias, there should be no objection.
Further, doesn't this sound like manipulation to you? "Discuss things in terms people are most sensitive to" is getting pretty close to social conditioning and I don't like the idea that it should be a standard part of how you choose to present an argument.
I never said it was. People can care about more than one thing at a time, especially if it does get implemented, it affects one group of people more unfairly than another.
I never said it was. People can care about more than one thing at a time, especially if it does get implemented, it affects one group of people more unfairly than another.
They can, but in this case it's a strawman. I'm having a hard time coming up with comparisons that are as ridiculous as the proposal itself to put it into perspective. Imagine if your bank decided...
People can care about more than one thing at a time
They can, but in this case it's a strawman. I'm having a hard time coming up with comparisons that are as ridiculous as the proposal itself to put it into perspective. Imagine if your bank decided that it would collaborate with your web browser to scan your entire web browsing history and close your account if it finds porn, and you're like "Oh what about the false positives". Sure, you can care about the false positives, but why oh why would you, in such a context? Even discussing false positives gives a sense of legitimacy to the entire bullshit. Don't fall for it.
can't we object to it for multiple reasons? if you don't think a 2x bias between men and women and a 3.5x bias between light-skinned and dark-skinned people is a problem, how large would it have...
we should be objecting to this on principle, not because of some bias measured.
can't we object to it for multiple reasons?
if you don't think a 2x bias between men and women and a 3.5x bias between light-skinned and dark-skinned people is a problem, how large would it have to be before you do think it's a problem?
would 10x be enough? that is, a 0.1% error rate for one group of people and a 1% error rate for a different group.
(also, bear in mind these numbers are provided by the company themselves, and they only published the end results and not their testing methodology or anything else that would allow independent verification...I suspect real-world tests by a 3rd party would show a higher overall error rate, and probably a higher degree of bias as well)
You describe it as a 2x and 3.5x bias, but that's really only a good way to describe bulk properties. When describing changes in a portion, the more important description here is as fractions of...
You describe it as a 2x and 3.5x bias, but that's really only a good way to describe bulk properties. When describing changes in a portion, the more important description here is as fractions of the overall group.
Think about it like this: you have three bananas. Bananas contain potassium, which is very mildly radioactive. One banana gives you a single click on a Geiger counter, while another gives you three clicks. Would you throw the banana away because it's three times as radioactive as the other? That would be ridiculous, because you're measuring something so small their deviation isn't significant.
We can get into the weeds here about statistical significance and t-testing but the simple answer is that not everything is a bias issue.
Yet another invasion of privacy that seems entirely motivated on removing the average person's ability to just live their life. At this point, I'm waiting to hear that I'm only allowed to buy...
Yet another invasion of privacy that seems entirely motivated on removing the average person's ability to just live their life. At this point, I'm waiting to hear that I'm only allowed to buy brands X, Y, and Z. UGH!
Putting it here for visibility for those who haven't read the article: Please comment and encourage others to comment.
Putting it here for visibility for those who haven't read the article:
The ESRB actually made its request to the FTC back on June 2, but it's only come to light now (via GamesIndustry) because the FTC is now seeking public comment on the plan. If you'd like to share your thoughts, you've got until August 21 to do so atfederalregister.gov.
This is a prime example of why Tencent's influence on the gaming industry is utterly toxic. Not just the hyper-aggressive monetization and microtransactions they bring to every IP, but Tencent is...
This is a prime example of why Tencent's influence on the gaming industry is utterly toxic. Not just the hyper-aggressive monetization and microtransactions they bring to every IP, but Tencent is one of many faces of a totalitarian state. I think people have a lot of difficulty understanding how a gaming company can be a threat to democracy and individual freedom, but this is a great example of how the CCP has been very deliberately normalizing the next level of techno-fascism.
Hopefully this wakes people up to the fact that they're sleeping walking us all deeper and deeper into a dystopian nightmare with their negligence, but I doubt it.
The government, mainly. Per the article, this is an alternative to requiring photo ID to be compliant with COPPA laws. The ESRB has a vested interest in getting more children to be able to play...
The government, mainly. Per the article, this is an alternative to requiring photo ID to be compliant with COPPA laws.
Almost 20 years ago, Congress enacted the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. COPPA prohibits online services such as websites, apps and games from collecting personal information from children under the age of 13 ("children") without first providing notice to parents and obtaining their verifiable consent.
The ESRB has a vested interest in getting more children to be able to play games, so they're trying to come up with alternatives to photo ID checking.
It seems to be more specifically about ads, actually. COPPA heavily restricts what ads you can show to children under the age of 13 and without parental consent. It's a disgusting tactic to get...
It seems to be more specifically about ads, actually.
COPPA heavily restricts what ads you can show to children under the age of 13 and without parental consent.
It's a disgusting tactic to get around the spirit of the law, tbh. The idea is to protect children from a lot of the shit modern online experiences are. So now the companies are looking for a way to get around that as good as they can, and this seems to be one idea they are pushing onto the government on how to do this. Always keep in mind the ESRB is the industries, not the government.
But on a completely different note: What would be a better alternative?
We will always have situations that require age verification. And Germany already ruled that someone just clicking "Ayup, I'm 18+" is not a legally verifiable way of checking age. We need some way of doing that without - ideally - having to selfie-film ourselves, but I'm not sure what a good way would be.
I'm thinking maybe our ID cards? If there was some way to use a reader to encrypt a token that just gives some hashed ID + a verification that confirms the user is in age group XYZ, then that could be used to ensure age without releasing any other information. 🤔 But it's hardly a convenient technology, even with the ability to read these cards with our phones.
I will confirm that when I wanted to watch something rated 18+ (or whatever the equivalent is) on Amazon Prime here in Germany, I had to verify my age with photo ID. I only had a passport rather...
I will confirm that when I wanted to watch something rated 18+ (or whatever the equivalent is) on Amazon Prime here in Germany, I had to verify my age with photo ID. I only had a passport rather than a German ID card at the time though, so it's possible they would've used the existing electronic ID system that goes with official German ID cards if I'd had that.
What's stopping them from taping up a picture of Tipper Gore on a stick in front of the camera? Other than not knowing who she is in reference to banning things for silly reasons.
What's stopping them from taping up a picture of Tipper Gore on a stick in front of the camera? Other than not knowing who she is in reference to banning things for silly reasons.
What you're mentioning has been done a long time ago with vending machines in Japan. I would assume some combination of: They would use a video not a still shot. A face morphs in a predictable way...
They would use a video not a still shot. A face morphs in a predictable way with a mild turn that a photo does not.
Even as a flawed technology it can be a deterrence. It may be only a small fraction of underage kids would go to the effort to hold up a photo.
They don't care if it works and the motivation is courting votes, getting funding to a favored company for the verification, or another way to collect data.
For reference, the TSA in the past was found to fail 95% of audits.
That was largely my thoughts too. It has a margin for spoofing that kids will quickly pass around via TikTok or whatever exists in its place in the future as "legitimate" workarounds. As well I...
That was largely my thoughts too. It has a margin for spoofing that kids will quickly pass around via TikTok or whatever exists in its place in the future as "legitimate" workarounds. As well I can imagine this mostly only being a parental control vs full implementation.
I did a bit of netsec myself and always loved reading about Bruce Schneier and the TSA too. I have always loved the low level hacks to silly high tech things him and so many others have done over the years.
I only skimmed through the proposals PDF(it's on the FTC site) but it looks like there are method to prevent that. even if it doesn't totally work, this ain't something we should accept as normal....
I only skimmed through the proposals PDF(it's on the FTC site) but it looks like there are method to prevent that. even if it doesn't totally work, this ain't something we should accept as normal.
The sad part is that this is one of the least intrusive age verification proposals in the US, Utah has a plans to give out "digital IDs" to residents for "age verification." ....
I think it's important to remember the context for this. COPPA requires that online games get permission from adults to be able to store the data of any child players. This involves the parent...
I think it's important to remember the context for this. COPPA requires that online games get permission from adults to be able to store the data of any child players. This involves the parent submitting their photo ID to.
The ESRB wants to get as many people playing games as possible. They probably don't really care if there's false positives or false negatives, it's just something in addition.
I doubt it'll work all that well but they're just shotgunning stuff at the FTC to see what sticks.
That would surely suck for baby faced individuals. Before I grew my beard people were always mistaking me as someone 18 or younger and I was 36 at the time
That would surely suck for baby faced individuals. Before I grew my beard people were always mistaking me as someone 18 or younger and I was 36 at the time
There aren’t even a fraction of official comments, at the time of me leaving mine, that are in this thread. Please go register your protest officially. This is an egregious invasion of privacy...
There aren’t even a fraction of official comments, at the time of me leaving mine, that are in this thread.
Please go register your protest officially. This is an egregious invasion of privacy when Congress has still yet to pass any significant legislative protection.
Comments only get posted up there after they get approved, so there are probably more in the pipeline. But yeah, please Americans comment officially on the issue in a calm and intelligent manner...
Comments only get posted up there after they get approved, so there are probably more in the pipeline. But yeah, please Americans comment officially on the issue in a calm and intelligent manner so that they must listen.
Can't see this being an issue for most people, seeing how it's optional. Though, I'm curious what parents have to say about this. If it works, will this be of any use to you or do existing methods...
Can't see this being an issue for most people, seeing how it's optional. Though, I'm curious what parents have to say about this. If it works, will this be of any use to you or do existing methods work fine?
Pretend whatever game company it is will not be secretly saving photos and also pretend it won't end up being easily defeated by something like a fake nose.
Even if I don't personally pirate games anymore, I'm glad piracy still exists. Could you imagine the hellscape that gaming would be if that nuclear option for some customers wasn't there?
Even if I don't personally pirate games anymore, I'm glad piracy still exists. Could you imagine the hellscape that gaming would be if that nuclear option for some customers wasn't there?
They always cry foul about games piracy, but the rates of piracy are so low. Like you say, this just drives people more and more to piracy. When you inconvenience the masses so much that it's...
They always cry foul about games piracy, but the rates of piracy are so low. Like you say, this just drives people more and more to piracy. When you inconvenience the masses so much that it's easier to pirate a game, they will do it. Look where the Music and Movie industry were at in the 90s/00s? That could be the games industry in a few years if something like this was to come in, I imagine.
Yoti has received £26 million in VC funding, most recently £10 million from Lloyds Banking Group in March.
SuperAwesome was purchased by Epic Games for an undisclosed amount in 2020.
SuperAwesome’s business model appears to be showing ads to kids:
seems pretty clear that's the ultimate goal here. they want as few barriers as possible between the ads and the kids' eyeballs. as part of that, they want the government to give its stamp of approval to this privately-developed age verification algorithm, which will allow Epic Games to make more money selling ads, and Yoti's VC backers to profit from their investment.
here's the actual proposal filed with the FTC: 38 page PDF
the thing that sticks out to me the most is that they're not verifying if you're over 18, they're verifying if you're over 25:
if you're a 20 year old who wants to play Grand Theft Auto or some other game that's marked 17+, this proposal is not about you.
saying that a 14 year old sibling or 18 year old babysitter wouldn't pass the verification check gives the game away.
the goal of this proposal is to make it easier to show ads to children younger than 13.
they set 25 as the minimum age because they're verifying parents, who will then grant consent for their children (younger than 13 is the age defined by COPPA where parental consent is required for most online services).
The article mentions it, and I threw it in the comment in the form posted, but as a minority, this statement:
seems really privileged and tone deaf?
And completely wrong too.
There are also just tons of people with baby faces this would also discriminate against.
This is braindead from every angle.
People with conditions that affect how they age as well.
it gets even dumber than that:
their claimed error rate is double for women compared to men
and depending on skin tone the error rate can be 3.5 times higher (they don't explicitly say lighter skin tones have a lower error rate, but I have little doubt that's what they actually mean)
The hand wringing over bias in error rates really isn't warranted here, because we're talking about fractions of a percent.
In scientific terms, if you normally see 1 PPB of a contaminant and suddenly detect 100 PPB, that's a hundredfold increase but it's still a tiny, tiny trace.
For what it's worth I think this is a terrible idea and can't wait to see it fail, but because it's invasive to all humans - we should be objecting to this on principle, not because of some bias measured.
This is a weird distinction. Why isn't it warranted if people are being biased against? This isn't about contaminant, this is about people.
Bringing up bias makes it seem like that's what makes this concept objectionable. It's already something every living human can object to as a breach of privacy.
Further, declaring something is biased from fractions of a percent is thin at best - if this were a scientific study that amount of deviance would be thrown out as not statistically significant.
So there's no point to bringing it up. It doesn't add to the conversation, and even if it did it isn't meaningfully present here.
People have been arguing for privacy for how many decades now? How has that turned out?
The truth is that the overwhelming majority of population simply doesn't care about privacy and doesn't mind their faces being scanned for age verification. Especially when you throw in the bit about doing it to "protect the children".
If you want to stop stuff like this, you need to use arguments that people are susceptible to and that have power in politics. Discrimination against race and gender is something a lot of people feel EXTREMELY passionate about and is potent in the voting poll.
You say the breach of privacy i something "every human can object to", but in your experience is that something that they actually do? Maybe in your small circle.. but in the wider world, taking selfies and sending them to Zuck is everyone's favorite past-time.
I disagree that just because bias is a hot issue, this means everything must now be discussed in terms of bias.
Not only does this continue carrying the level of discussion on issues further forward, it still carries the creeping connotation that if there were no bias, there should be no objection.
Further, doesn't this sound like manipulation to you? "Discuss things in terms people are most sensitive to" is getting pretty close to social conditioning and I don't like the idea that it should be a standard part of how you choose to present an argument.
It makes it sound like this is a good idea if you fix the error rate.
It’s not.
I never said it was. People can care about more than one thing at a time, especially if it does get implemented, it affects one group of people more unfairly than another.
They can, but in this case it's a strawman. I'm having a hard time coming up with comparisons that are as ridiculous as the proposal itself to put it into perspective. Imagine if your bank decided that it would collaborate with your web browser to scan your entire web browsing history and close your account if it finds porn, and you're like "Oh what about the false positives". Sure, you can care about the false positives, but why oh why would you, in such a context? Even discussing false positives gives a sense of legitimacy to the entire bullshit. Don't fall for it.
can't we object to it for multiple reasons?
if you don't think a 2x bias between men and women and a 3.5x bias between light-skinned and dark-skinned people is a problem, how large would it have to be before you do think it's a problem?
would 10x be enough? that is, a 0.1% error rate for one group of people and a 1% error rate for a different group.
(also, bear in mind these numbers are provided by the company themselves, and they only published the end results and not their testing methodology or anything else that would allow independent verification...I suspect real-world tests by a 3rd party would show a higher overall error rate, and probably a higher degree of bias as well)
You describe it as a 2x and 3.5x bias, but that's really only a good way to describe bulk properties. When describing changes in a portion, the more important description here is as fractions of the overall group.
Think about it like this: you have three bananas. Bananas contain potassium, which is very mildly radioactive. One banana gives you a single click on a Geiger counter, while another gives you three clicks. Would you throw the banana away because it's three times as radioactive as the other? That would be ridiculous, because you're measuring something so small their deviation isn't significant.
We can get into the weeds here about statistical significance and t-testing but the simple answer is that not everything is a bias issue.
By fractions of a percent you mean multiple percents for some people?
Yet another invasion of privacy that seems entirely motivated on removing the average person's ability to just live their life. At this point, I'm waiting to hear that I'm only allowed to buy brands X, Y, and Z. UGH!
Putting it here for visibility for those who haven't read the article:
Please comment and encourage others to comment.
I thought the ESRB existed to label content appropriately. Since when have they become charged with purity law enforcement?
They're a self-regulation agency, they'd sell their own grandmothers if they think it'd get the stock price up.
Here is the FTC page they are asking for public comments on the plan.
This is a prime example of why Tencent's influence on the gaming industry is utterly toxic. Not just the hyper-aggressive monetization and microtransactions they bring to every IP, but Tencent is one of many faces of a totalitarian state. I think people have a lot of difficulty understanding how a gaming company can be a threat to democracy and individual freedom, but this is a great example of how the CCP has been very deliberately normalizing the next level of techno-fascism.
Hopefully this wakes people up to the fact that they're sleeping walking us all deeper and deeper into a dystopian nightmare with their negligence, but I doubt it.
Why even do this??? Who is asking for this? The stakes are so low.
The government, mainly. Per the article, this is an alternative to requiring photo ID to be compliant with COPPA laws.
The ESRB has a vested interest in getting more children to be able to play games, so they're trying to come up with alternatives to photo ID checking.
It seems to be more specifically about ads, actually.
COPPA heavily restricts what ads you can show to children under the age of 13 and without parental consent.
It's a disgusting tactic to get around the spirit of the law, tbh. The idea is to protect children from a lot of the shit modern online experiences are. So now the companies are looking for a way to get around that as good as they can, and this seems to be one idea they are pushing onto the government on how to do this. Always keep in mind the ESRB is the industries, not the government.
But on a completely different note: What would be a better alternative?
We will always have situations that require age verification. And Germany already ruled that someone just clicking "Ayup, I'm 18+" is not a legally verifiable way of checking age. We need some way of doing that without - ideally - having to selfie-film ourselves, but I'm not sure what a good way would be.
I'm thinking maybe our ID cards? If there was some way to use a reader to encrypt a token that just gives some hashed ID + a verification that confirms the user is in age group XYZ, then that could be used to ensure age without releasing any other information. 🤔 But it's hardly a convenient technology, even with the ability to read these cards with our phones.
I will confirm that when I wanted to watch something rated 18+ (or whatever the equivalent is) on Amazon Prime here in Germany, I had to verify my age with photo ID. I only had a passport rather than a German ID card at the time though, so it's possible they would've used the existing electronic ID system that goes with official German ID cards if I'd had that.
I haven't pirated a game in probably 20 years, but I'll hop right back into it if they want to start scanning my face every time I try to buy one.
What's stopping them from taping up a picture of Tipper Gore on a stick in front of the camera? Other than not knowing who she is in reference to banning things for silly reasons.
What you're mentioning has been done a long time ago with vending machines in Japan.
I would assume some combination of:
For reference, the TSA in the past was found to fail 95% of audits.
That was largely my thoughts too. It has a margin for spoofing that kids will quickly pass around via TikTok or whatever exists in its place in the future as "legitimate" workarounds. As well I can imagine this mostly only being a parental control vs full implementation.
I did a bit of netsec myself and always loved reading about Bruce Schneier and the TSA too. I have always loved the low level hacks to silly high tech things him and so many others have done over the years.
I only skimmed through the proposals PDF(it's on the FTC site) but it looks like there are method to prevent that. even if it doesn't totally work, this ain't something we should accept as normal.
The sad part is that this is one of the least intrusive age verification proposals in the US, Utah has a plans to give out "digital IDs" to residents for "age verification." ....
I still wonder what a half decent face mask of Nixon from Spirit Halloween would detect as too.
Totally agree on all parts about it being outrageous.
I think it's important to remember the context for this. COPPA requires that online games get permission from adults to be able to store the data of any child players. This involves the parent submitting their photo ID to.
The ESRB wants to get as many people playing games as possible. They probably don't really care if there's false positives or false negatives, it's just something in addition.
I doubt it'll work all that well but they're just shotgunning stuff at the FTC to see what sticks.
That would surely suck for baby faced individuals. Before I grew my beard people were always mistaking me as someone 18 or younger and I was 36 at the time
There aren’t even a fraction of official comments, at the time of me leaving mine, that are in this thread.
Please go register your protest officially. This is an egregious invasion of privacy when Congress has still yet to pass any significant legislative protection.
Many of us aren't american.
Comments only get posted up there after they get approved, so there are probably more in the pipeline. But yeah, please Americans comment officially on the issue in a calm and intelligent manner so that they must listen.
Can't see this being an issue for most people, seeing how it's optional. Though, I'm curious what parents have to say about this. If it works, will this be of any use to you or do existing methods work fine?
Pretend whatever game company it is will not be secretly saving photos and also pretend it won't end up being easily defeated by something like a fake nose.
The ESRB can kick rocks
They really know how to make those VPN companies paid, huh?
Arrrrrr
This would definitely push me away from regular channels.
Even if I don't personally pirate games anymore, I'm glad piracy still exists. Could you imagine the hellscape that gaming would be if that nuclear option for some customers wasn't there?
They always cry foul about games piracy, but the rates of piracy are so low. Like you say, this just drives people more and more to piracy. When you inconvenience the masses so much that it's easier to pirate a game, they will do it. Look where the Music and Movie industry were at in the 90s/00s? That could be the games industry in a few years if something like this was to come in, I imagine.