[WarOnPrivacy]

> I guess it depends on what the ID data is?

At the minimimum it will be

    Everything on a Gov ID
    All info demanded during the original collection process + demands that get added v2, v3 ...
    All possible metadata
    Data from other sources, added downstream to make it more valuable to govs/corps

The ages of leak victims:

    16 and 17 yo
    Under 16 because many will try
    Everyone else

[Dylan16807]

That doesn't much line up with the process described in the article. Why would you try to derive their age from photo/video if you have access to their birth certificate, for example?

[WarOnPrivacy]

> That doesn't much line up with the process described in the article.

I think you're right this way: I quote part of the the official's comment, ending with ...

After that point in the comment, she pivots to FaceRec. Meanwhile I go off about problems with harvesting Gov ID data. I'd agree those two things don't align.

However, a larger point is she never actually says which tech methods will be in place in Dec 2025.

After half-dismissing Gov ID, she tosses FacRec out there in a way that suggests it'll glean age-from-face on login, without needing any other identifying info. She even qualifies a vendor as being 99% accurate - which is a worthless stat here because it has no context.

FacRec for ID is problem generator. It fails for white skin and fails more, the darker the skin is. Unlike AU's Ban official, I am not excited about tech that disproportionately misfires for AU's brown skinned population.

That's FR for ID, FR for age is magnitudes less capable. The odds it can distinguish between a teen of 15y363d and 16y0d is ~0.

Lastly she tosses beta hand-wavy tech out there as if it were an actual contender. In this interview, she should be reassuring us with known good+safe AgeVer methods. Instead, she takes a moment to tech-fantasize. Best case she's intentionally distracting us here. Worst case she's lost her own thread.