I’m never doing this. I’ll pay someone else to verify my account before I upload my dox with these assholes.
I’m fine switching to an alternative, but I have seen no gaming companies linking anything else for their official “forums”
Minecraft.wiki links to Zulip....
I hope for once people would get together and drop Discord so that Discord would have to reverse this policy. So often, we the customers really have the power if we get together and act together. All these social networks are nothing without the contributions of the customers.
without the contributions of the ~~customers~~
Without the contributions of the product.
As the adage goes, if you're not paying for it (and often even when you are), you're not the customer.
I don't trust discord with what little I formation I've gave them so far. Definitely not giving them my ID or a scan of my face.
But they pinky promise the face scan is not facial recognition and that it's immediately deleted and never leaves your device.
Of the accounts impacted globally, we have identified approximately 70,000 users that may have had government-ID photos exposed
Lol, no thanks. I deleted this trash years ago and wish companies would stop using it for tech and customer support. “Join our discord channel!” - no.
I'm not against age restrictions, but letting every site brew their own method is a really bad idea. I'm not going to upload my legal ID to every random site; that's a recipe for identity theft, and it's a really bad idea to teach people that that's normal or acceptable.
And age guessing through facial recognition is incredibly unreliable. My 16 year old son has already been accepted as 18+ somewhere. I had a full moustache at 14. Others are blessed with a babyface well into their 30s.
The only right way to do this, is if governments provide their citizens with an eID that any site can ask "is this person 18+?" and get an accurate answer without any other identifiable info. And if you don't want the government to know what sites you visit, have sites route the request through a proxy.
But instead everybody's got to cobble together their own improvised system that we just have to trust blindly is not going to sell our data.
and it’s a really bad idea to teach people that that’s normal or acceptable.
This is a point so few people mention. Normalising having to give up personal information online is such a dangerous thing to do and companies/governments that enforce this shit are setting people up to be scammed
And if you don't want the government to know what sites you visit, have sites route the request through a proxy.
Actually, no on the fly communication with the issuer is required for selective disclose. You just need a signed document with individually salted hashes of different properties and you can create a zero knowledge proof non-interactively. Zero knowledge meaning that truely nothing but the disclosed property (age > 18, County == DE, or whatever) is communicated to anyone.
Theres a lot of other cool stuff that can be done with zero knowledge digital identity wallets. You could for example hash your pubkey together with the service providers pk and disclose that as a per service ID, but not reveal your pk. This allows linkability within one service (as a login method for example) while preventing cross service linkability.
That prevents the site from knowing your identity, but I'm not convinced it prevents the government from knowing it, the government might keep track of which document corresponds to which individual whenever they issue / sign it.
So if the government mandated that each proof of "age>18" was stored by the service and mapped to each account (to validate their proof), then the government could request the service to provide them copy of the proof and then cross-check from their end which particular individual is linked to it.
The reason why it works is a bit complicated, but basically the trick is that the signatures are not immutable. Given a valid signature, it is possible to create a new valid signature over the same content that is not linkable to the original one. This means that it is still possible to derive, what authority signed the document, but the authority cannot know in which transaction it has signed that specific document.
If you have no way to link the signature to the original document, then how do you validate that the signature is coming from a document without repetition / abuse?
How do you ensure there aren't hundreds of signatures used for different accounts all done by the same stolen eID that might be circulating online without the government realizing it?
Can the government revoke the credentials of a specific individual? ...because if they can't then that looks like a big gap that could create a market of ever-growing stolen eIDs (or reusing eIDs from the deceased) ...and if they can revoke, what stops the government from creating a simulation in which they revoke one specific individual and then check what signatures end up being revoked to identify which ones belong to that person? The government can mandate the services to provide them all data they have so it can be analyzed as if they were Issuer, Registry and Verifier, all in one, without separation of powers.
I know there are ways to try and fix this, but those ways have other problems too, which end up forcing the need for a compromise.. there's no algorithm that perfectly provides anonymity and full verifiability with a perfect method of revocation that does not require checks at every user login. For example, with the eIDAS 2.0 system (considered zero-knowledge proof), the government does have knowledge of the "secret serial number" that is used in revocation, so if they collude with the service they can identify people by running some tests on the data.
if you don’t want the government to know what sites you visit, have sites route the request through a proxy.
I feel a proxy would not really make much of a difference. If the government keeps a mapping of which eID corresponds to each real person from their end (which they would do if they want to know what sites you visit) then they can simply request the services (and/or intermediaries) to provide account mapping of the eIDs (and they could mandate by law those records are kept, like they often do with ISPs and their IP addresses). The service might not know who that eID belongs to.. but the government can know it, if they want.
The government needs to want to protect your privacy. If the government really wants to know what sites you visit, there's no reason why they would want to provide you with a eID that is truly anonymous at all levels and that isn't really linked to you, not even in state-owned databases.
Of course, a government has many ways they can legislate your rights, freedom and privacy away. But if you want to do this in a way that preserves privacy, this is how you do it.
Of course the government knows who you are; they have to. They issue your ID, and that makes them the only organisation that can issue your eID. But a government that serves its people would provide this an a service, with the proxy, to ensure privacy is respected.
And of course with a warrant they can and should be able to demand access to the proxy's or the website's logs. But only with a warrant. That is the bar that the government should always have to clear before they can get access to any citizen's privacy.
I agree that a government that wants privacy can actually do it in a way that ensures privacy. That's also what I was saying.
My point was that this is up to the government, and no amount of "route the request through a proxy" would patch that up, that's not gonna help this case. Because this is not something that's tracked in the networking layer, it's in the application layer.
If the government wants to protect privacy, they can do it without you needing to use proxies, and if the government wants to see what sites you visit using these certificates, they can do it even if you were to use proxies.
If the proxy is independent, I don't see how the government can know what the requesting site is. They can only see the proxy. I don't mean a standard network proxy of course, but a proxy for the entire request. That's probably the source of our misunderstanding.
They don't need to know the requesting address in order for them to know if it was you the person corresponding to that proof of age, because the information is in the data being exchanged. These kind of verifications don't depend or rely on IP address or networking, these are credentials that are checked on the application layer.
In fact, they don't even need to directly communicate with the government for this.
This is equivalent to a registration office for a service asking you provide a paper stamped by the government that certifies your age without the paper actually saying who you are.. the service does not need to contact the government if they can trust the stamp in the paper and the government official signature (which in this case is mathematical proof). And even though the service office can't see your name in the paper, the government knows that the number written in the paper links to you individually, because they can keep record of which particular paper number was issued to which individual, even if your name wasn't written in the document itself.
So, the government can, at any given time, go to those offices, ask them to hand in the paper corresponding to a particular registration and check the number to see who it belongs to.
The traceability is in the document, not in the manner in which you send it. It does not matter if you send the document to a different country for someone else to send it from a different address, on your behalf (ie. a proxy). If the government can internally cross-reference the registration papers as coming from you personally, they can know it's yours regardless of how it reached the offices. So this way they can check if you registered yourself in any particular site they wanna target and what your account is.
Obviously the government knows it's you. That's the whole purpose. But they don't know the site that's requesting this, if the proxy hides that from them.
My point is that the government can check if you visited a site by asking the site for the document.. they don't care about the network connection used to provide this document, it doesn't matter if you used a proxy to reach the site.
So in this situation they can indeed know if you visited any one particular site that they choose to target.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the site that’s requesting this", requesting what? the site does not need to request anything to the government once they follow a standard method of verification, the verification can be done locally, without asking the government for every one person, just the same as how an office worker does not need to phone the government to verify every stamped & signed document.
But getting that information from the USP or the site would require a warrant. Not to mention that the site doesn't have to know your real identity either.
And the whole point of this exercise is to ensure that you don't have to provide any document to the site.
What I mean by the site that's requesting this, is exactly that: you need to prove to a site that you're above a certain age. For that, the site redirects you to the proxy that redirects you to the eID site, with a request to confirm that you're above a certain age.
The site has fulfilled its legal obligation to check your age, but doesn't have to know your identity, and the government doesn't have to know what site you're visiting.
I feel like you're misunderstanding the scenario we're discussing.
I feel you are talking about a different thing now. My point was surrounding what you initially said:
The only right way to do this, is if governments provide their citizens with an eID that any site can ask “is this person 18+?” and get an accurate answer without any other identifiable info. And if you don’t want the government to know what sites you visit, have sites route the request through a proxy.
An eID is a digital document. You yourself are proposing that sites should request people to provide a document, one that's issued by the government to you, personally. Then later you said that using a proxy prevents the government to know what you visit.
My answer was that if you are providing a government-issued document/file to the service then the government (the issuer) can know if you visit the site just by keeping track of who did they issue each document for and requesting the sites for copies of the documents. Even if the document itself does not say your name. And that's regardless of how many proxy layers you use, since there's traceability in the document. This makes you fundamentally less anonymous to the government than before (when you could have indeed used a proxy to prevent this), this makes proxies no longer a good defense.
The service does not know you, but that's not the point, what you said is that the government can't know if you visit the site, which is the one thing I disagreed with.
I'm still talking about the same thing, but I understand the nature of our misunderstanding now. You see eID as something you download and can share (but what kind of security would that provide?). I mean an online ID service, similar to the Dutch DigiD. I assume the EU eID is also something similar, although I have no personal experience with that.
The first paragraph on Wikipedia contains a good description of what I'm talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_identification
An electronic identification ("eID") is a digital solution for proof of identity of citizens or organizations. They can be used to view to access benefits or services provided by government authorities, banks or other companies, for mobile payments, etc. Apart from online authentication and login, many electronic identity services also give users the option to sign electronic documents with a digital signature.
The online authentication is the important part. The article also talks about physical cards with a chip, but I honestly don't quite understand how that's different from a regular chip in a passport.
When I have to access any government service, I get redirected to digID to log in, then redirected to the site I want to visit. This is very similar to other online authorisation schemes, except it's tied to me official legal identity.
My proposal is to use this not just to log in to government sites, but to use it to provide any legally required online identification, tailored to the highest amount of privacy possible in that situation. So if a site needs to confirm you're 18+, let that site ask the eID service for just your age, or even just whether you're 18+ or not, log into the eID system, and the eID system sends confirmation of your age back to the site.
Oh, I see the misunderstadning.
Note that "authentication and login" does not necessarily require network communication with a government service. In fact in Europe the eIDs (eIDAS) are digital documents that use cryptography to authenticate without the need of spending resources in a government-funded public API that could be vulnerable to DDOS attacks and would be requiring reliable internet connections for all digital authentication (which might not always be an online operation). The chips are just a secure way to store the digital document and lock under hardware the actual key, making it much harder for it to be copied/replicated, but they don't require internet connection for making government-certified digital signatures with them that can be used in authentication, this is the same whether the service itself you are login into is online or offline.
In any case, in your example where actual network communication is used, it would still be possible for the government to track you regardless of proxies, because then they can store a log of the data & messages exchanged in the authentication.
They can either ask the sites to authenticate previously with the government for the use of the API (which would make sense to prevent DDOS and other abuse, for example), which would let them know immediately which site you were asking login for (in a much more direct way than with "documents"), or simply provide a token to the site as result of the user authentication (which is a common practice anyway, most authentication systems work through tokens) and later at any given time in the future ask the sites to provide back which tokens are linked to each account on the site (just like I was saying before with the "documents" example) so the government can map each token with each individual person and know which users of that site correspond to which individuals.
Yeah, you go ahead & do that, & watch how many people will jump ship to other alternatives while you lose a lot of money & subscriptions, especially when you’ve been hacked before.
People have found other alternatives to TikTok, & they’ll do the same with Discord.
i wouldn't be so optimistic. normies have a tendency to accept quite a lot.
Finally my chance to quit?
Idk
However, some users may not have to go through either form of age verification. Discord is also rolling out an age inference model that analyzes metadata like the types of games a user plays, their activity on Discord, and behavioral signals like signs of working hours or the amount of time they spend on Discord.>
that's probably not much better though. nothing good will come from discord scanning and judging everything we say on it.
Revolt! your time has come (though it has been renamed to Stoat; a name I very much dislike.
Users who aren’t verified as adults will not be able to access age-restricted servers and channels, won’t be able to speak in Discord’s livestream-like “stage” channels, and will see content filters for any content Discord detects as graphic or sensitive.
Shrug
I'm not using discord for porn, so I'm not going to lose sleep. Will simply live with a "teen" account until my groups migrate to a better service.
But you'll get my biometrics from my cold dead hands.
They will also get warning prompts for friend requests from potentially unfamiliar users, and DMs from unfamiliar users will be automatically filtered into a separate inbox.
GOOD
Crazy they didn't implement this years ago. Discord is bloated with fake user spam.
So I get a free spam filter for not verifying? Guess I'm never verifying then, lol.
in other news: next month i will be attempting to bypass discord's "AI" powered security features. I expect to overcome them in 4 minutes with a pic of an ID i found on the internet
Damn guess I'm not using Discord anymore
gonna fire up good ol' roger wilco for voice chat I guess
Deleted 👍🏻
Dude my dnd campaign is run on Discord what the fuck. Do I need to start hosting open source voice and video chat?
can somebody screenshot the article i cant read it
Does there exist an alternative that has both a desktop (WIN/Linux) client and a phone (android/iphone) client?
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
