"Online identity is hard."

I suppose I'm probably in a tiny minority here, but I think I'd be pretty happy to see online identity get harder (which I think is what will happen, with better and cheaper spoofing).

There are a very few entities I actually want to be able to verify my identity. For everyone else I'd much prefer to go back to the default-anonymous internet of the late-90s.

In a recent conversation I had with a KYC implementor for mobile it came out that these "fit your head into the frame / make a gesture" prompts are indeed to get unfakable images of the user, but the real use is in the attempt to fulfil the task. The app is actually recording video and not just trying to get an image under arbitrary conditions. It was explained to me that the full process of adjusting your phone + position within a frame is much harder to fake convincingly than a static image. Your reaction to the prompts, rather than your fulfilment, is what is valuable.

YC S25 startup idea:

Online identify verification is hard. Financial apps rely on verification to meet their KYC/AML obligations. In years past, a selfie photo was sufficient, but sophisticated fraud entails that we must now ask users to perform actions while their identity is being verified.

Where there is a problem, there is also opportunity. Identity verification is ripe for commoditization as adtech. We have partnered with Mountain Dew to help users protect themselves from identify theft by asking them to perform fun, brand-aware actions during the IDV process.

Due to the revenue generated from our sponsorship partners, we can actually pay apps to include our technology, even if they don't need it. This enables revenue potential that would be impossible with the traditional app-pays monetization model.

Seriously, the very idea of this tool is deeply offensive. It's speedrunning inaccessibility.

Whether its success rate is 50% or 95%, the percentage where it doesn't work is always (obviously!) going to predominantly be made of people who are already at some disadvantage in society. The people who are already more likely to be having a shit time are going to have the shittiest time getting forced to deal with this crap. Then all the people who fit the parameters can say "oh, it always works for me". Cool.

Hope these smiles are just an optional suggestion because some people cannot smile at all, not sure if the author is physically unable to. If they’re required for verification/registration Im guessing that eventually they’ll learn it’s not a good idea and drop enforcing it.

> You know that Treehouse of Horror episode of The Simpsons where the family is bundled off for some “Re-Neducation”, and everyone’s faces are forced into a smile with tenterhooks?

When making a reference, it’s helpful to link to some information that helps people find and understand it. Like you did with the song later on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPII9cfFe34 (exact bit is at 53 seconds)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehouse_of_Horror_V

Also a great feature when buying airplane tickets to fly to your father’s funeral. Great time to be told to smile more. F you Ryanair

You want to know another funny thing that happens to only a minority of tech workers? It happened to me: a senior colleague (a lady, no less, the design department lead) complained to my boss (the dev group lead) that when I went to speak to her I didn't smile enough. After that he also advised me when I wanted to go and speak to people, e.g. the guys at the server team (this is 2011 right? No Clouds on the horizon, we had an in-house server team, and machines) I should smile.

I bet my boss never gave the same advice to male engineers (I can think of some particularly dour dudes we had, but you don't know them so it wouldn't be as funny imagining them going to the server team with a big, friendly smile on their face), nor did the lady at the design team ever complain that male engineers didn't smile enough when they spoke to her. Just me.

I don't have a Bitchy Resting Face. It's all lies.

Reminded me of this "Pretentious Movie Reviews" episode [1] by a local stand-up comic duo (especially funny if you know Bollywood cinema). The whole seven minute episode relates to the post's theme of having to conform to some very specific literal interpretation of an identity and/or emotion. The last segment starting 5m 50s is most pertinent (:

[1] MOST ACTING EVER - Main Prem Ki Diwani Hoon Review

https://youtu.be/7sV6UPJa0DI?si=OdnxDck1ZXtJV0w3

The feature of making people smile for ID verification (as written in the article) is rather idiotic. I could smile but why force myself to do so? I hate smiling when it's not genuine. ID verification is a confrontation and even though necessary, rather insulting also. These modern technological systems are becoming exceptionally irritating.

There are few things more infuriating than being told by one or both of a machine or a bureaucratic process that you’re not who you in fact definitely are.

It's a cultural thing, I know of one Russian guy recently who went for an interview for a principal dev in a FAANG company, and didn't get the role because he was too serious, no smiles, no little ice-breaking smirks, no chortles - but a deadpan response to each interview question. Sometimes, it does matter how you appear to be saying something as well as what you say.

Facial recognition systems are generally utterly broken. Other examples of this:

- user-presence detection systems that can't see you if you have dark skin (Apple FaceID has/had this problem)

- the high rate of false positives with the facial recognition systems police use at protests

- driver drowsiness detection that can't tell the difference between a sleepy driver and someone with a narrow eye shape

We needed a form of facial movement for verification. Initially, we asked users to blink, but found that intentional blinking could feel awkward. Ultimately, we decided on using a smile instead.

[dead]

[flagged]