eva2000
Well-known member
Thanks for testing
Brightness check added, so do not need to waste AI processing time/$$$
UK Online Safety Regulations and impact on Forums
- Thread starter lazy llama
- Start date
-
- Tags
- regulation
Thanks for testing
Brightness check added, so do not need to waste AI processing time/$$$
Kintaro
Well-known member
how about "say cheese" and after 5 seconds it snaps a photo? but you need access to the mic
eva2000
Well-known member
Ok added that though not all browsers support it, Opera One (my default doesn't)
Will hide button for voice when browser doesn't support it
Last edited:
That is useful, thank you. They only refer to CASM and not other online harms to children I notice ...............
chillibear
Well-known member
eva2000
Well-known member
Yes same test link - updated with a few improvements since
. Optionally support additional AI LLM models for facial age verification analysis. So, I can use a single AI LLM model or multiple LLM models for weighted evaluation, which provides more accuracy at the cost of additional LLM model input/output tokens and image processing costs. Currently, set to single LLM model for evaluation Hmm - I wouldn't see an email quickly,. A text "pings"
Ok just tried it (on phone) - just did capture image and it verified me. Afterwards I saw a bit at the bottom saying please hold your hand up, but I hadn't done that and it verified me anyway.Yes same test link - updated with a few improvements since
I think it's better without the hand
The hand boxes are perhaps a little distracting and people may not be clear where their face is supposed to be. I'd be quite happy with something like that just with photo and no hand for "liveness". I;ll try and spoof it ..........chillibear
Well-known member
Then I would suggest either having your email client on your phone sync more frequently or if using the above add-on setup an email to SMS gateway to send you an SMS when that inbox received an email. There are plenty to choose from.
Thanks - it would need to be SMS as I have sound turned off for email so would only see an email if I actually check for emails.
Ok I tried one spoof - holding a phone photo up (without the edges of the phone showing) of someone who is over 70 lol. It failed to verify the photo. I don't think it could be spoofed like that because there are reflections from the phone. Will see if I can find an actual photo of an adult ..........which won't be easy - everything is digital round here.Yes same test link - updated with a few improvements since
As such I think it's reliable enough just doing a selfie.
Verifymy replied to my enquiry about face estimation instead of email estimation. It's marginally cheaper at 40p per verification, but still has the same set up cost (£2000). 
No data is stored except a cookie on your site so you don't verify them twice.
Luciditi replied to my query about costs. The guy was quite helpful. Age estimation is 6p per verification but they recommend setting the age at 23 to exclude anyone younger than 18. He says this means about 25% of users typically fail that maybe over 18. The back up then is banking or document scanning which is 49p per verification. He helpfully did some sums based on 25% of users doing the back up option saying this would average about 20p per verification overall. However there is also an annual charge of £550 a year, so based on 100 verifications a month the cost would be about £790 a year (before VAT!). Which long term, may actually be worse than £2000 upfront one-off fee to Verifymy,
The demo on their web page didn't load properly for me a couple of times so I would hope the real thing was better. No data stored, but a token stored for the user that lasts 18 months, so they don't keep being verified.
Although based on the members of my forum I expect the vast majority are well over 23.
No data is stored except a cookie on your site so you don't verify them twice.Luciditi replied to my query about costs. The guy was quite helpful. Age estimation is 6p per verification but they recommend setting the age at 23 to exclude anyone younger than 18. He says this means about 25% of users typically fail that maybe over 18. The back up then is banking or document scanning which is 49p per verification. He helpfully did some sums based on 25% of users doing the back up option saying this would average about 20p per verification overall. However there is also an annual charge of £550 a year, so based on 100 verifications a month the cost would be about £790 a year (before VAT!). Which long term, may actually be worse than £2000 upfront one-off fee to Verifymy,
The demo on their web page didn't load properly for me a couple of times so I would hope the real thing was better. No data stored, but a token stored for the user that lasts 18 months, so they don't keep being verified.
Although based on the members of my forum I expect the vast majority are well over 23.
chillibear
Well-known member
A lot of them seem to be 20-something plus (The VerifyMy one I am using is 25+ on the selfie estimate).
eva2000
Well-known member
Yeah a lot of them recommend a higher age limit, which is interesting.
Yeah my facial age verification checks are looking for such spoofed images. Though been reading folks are now using real-time AI deepfakes that can change a persons face on the fly!
Can someone else see if they can get the Luciditi age verification to work? It won't work on my desktop. Unless the actual app will be different, it presents four options
1) Continue
2) Verify using Luciditi
3) Verify using your bank (Says OneID there)
4) Exit - I am not over 18.
Which is a confusing number of options for users to select. It would be easier if it just said "continue". If on mobile, and you press continue, it then gives three options
1) Take a selfie
2) Verify using Luciditi
3) Verify using your bank
If choosing the "Take a selfie" option it works fine. But if you choose "Verify using Luciditi" it gives you a QR code to scan. Scanning that takes you to a "small" page/window that says tap here or scan the QR code. Tapping here does nothing. Scanning the QR code isn't possible because you're already on that page having scanned the QR code. This is the same on both mobile and desktop.
Maybe if only requiring the selfie and the bank options, there would be less options displayed. I can only assume the "Verify using Luciditi" option is for people who have a luciditi app on their phones?
But no option there to scan your ID (which was mentioned). I guess this is just a demo though.
But it wouldn;t do a selfie on computer. IT did give the option to "take a selfie on my phone" though and when that was done, it approved on computer.
So @eva2000 's option was way easier - particularly on computer!
1) Continue
2) Verify using Luciditi
3) Verify using your bank (Says OneID there)
4) Exit - I am not over 18.
Which is a confusing number of options for users to select. It would be easier if it just said "continue". If on mobile, and you press continue, it then gives three options
1) Take a selfie
2) Verify using Luciditi
3) Verify using your bank
If choosing the "Take a selfie" option it works fine. But if you choose "Verify using Luciditi" it gives you a QR code to scan. Scanning that takes you to a "small" page/window that says tap here or scan the QR code. Tapping here does nothing. Scanning the QR code isn't possible because you're already on that page having scanned the QR code. This is the same on both mobile and desktop.
Maybe if only requiring the selfie and the bank options, there would be less options displayed. I can only assume the "Verify using Luciditi" option is for people who have a luciditi app on their phones?
But no option there to scan your ID (which was mentioned). I guess this is just a demo though.
But it wouldn;t do a selfie on computer. IT did give the option to "take a selfie on my phone" though and when that was done, it approved on computer.
So @eva2000 's option was way easier - particularly on computer!
I think they have to do that because the estimation is apparently a couple of years either side (read that on one of the sites). And it's where Ofcom criticised Only Friends for not having their age set high enough (only at 19 or 20 I think).