Online age verification is coming, and privacy is on the chopping block

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
65,824
Reputation
10,162
Daps
178,294

The internet could soon become a very different place.
By Emma Roth, a news writer who covers the streaming wars, consumer tech, crypto, social media, and much more. Previously, she was a writer and editor at MUO.

May 15, 2023, 10:00 AM EDT|

A spate of child safety rules might make going online in a few years very different, and not just for kids. In 2022 and 2023, numerous states and countries are exploring age verification requirements for the internet, either as an implicit demand or a formal rule. The laws are positioned as a way to protect children on a dangerous internet. But the price of that protection might be high: nothing less than the privacy of, well, everyone.

Government agencies, private companies, and academic researchers have spent years seeking a way to solve the thorny question of how to check internet users’ ages without the risk of revealing intimate information about their online lives. But after all that time, privacy and civil liberties advocates still aren’t convinced the government is ready for the challenge.

“When you have so many proposals floating around, it’s hard to ensure that everything is constitutionally sound and actually effective for kids,” Cody Venzke, a senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), tells The Verge. “Because it’s so difficult to identify who’s a kid online, it’s going to prevent adults from accessing content online as well.”

In the US and abroad, lawmakers want to limit children’s access to two things: social networks and porn sites. Louisiana, Arkansas, and Utah have all passed laws that set rules for underage users on social media. Meanwhile, multiple US federal bills are on the table, and so are laws in other countries, like the UK’s Online Safety Bill. Some of these laws demand specific features from age verification tools. Others simply punish sites for letting anyone underage use them — a more subtle request for verification.

Online age verification isn’t a new concept. In the US, laws like the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) already apply special rules to people under 13. And almost everyone who has used the internet — including major platforms like YouTube and Facebook — has checked a box to access adult content or entered a birth date to create an account. But there’s also almost nothing to stop them from faking it.

As a result, lawmakers are calling for more stringent verification methods. “From bullying and sex trafficking to addiction and explicit content, social media companies subject children and teens to a wide variety of content that can hurt them, emotionally and physically,” Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), the backer of the Protect Kids Online Act, said. “Just as parents safeguard their kids from threats in the real world, they need the opportunity to protect their children online.”

Age verification systems fall into a handful of categories. The most common option is to rely on a third party that knows your identity — by directly validating a credit card or government-issued ID, for instance, or by signing up for a digital intermediary like Allpasstrust, the service Louisianans must use for porn access.

More experimentally, there are solutions that estimate a user’s age without an ID. One potential option, which is already used by Facebook and Instagram, would use a camera and facial recognition to guess whether you’re 18. Another, which is highlighted as a potential age verification solution by France’s National Commission on Informatics and Liberty (CNIL), would “guess” your age based on your online activity.

As pointed out by CNIL’s report on various online age verification options, all these methods have serious flaws. CNIL notes that identifying someone’s age with a credit card would be relatively easy since the security infrastructure is already there for online payments. But some adult users — especially those with lower incomes — may not have a card, which would seriously limit their ability to access online services. The same goes for verification methods using government-issued IDs. Children can also snap up a card that’s lying around the house to verify their age.

Similarly, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has expressed concerns about online age verification. In a report it updated in March, the US legislature’s in-house research institute found that many kids aged 16 to 19 might not have a government-issued ID, such as a driver’s license, that they can use to verify their age online. While it says kids could use their student ID instead, it notes that they may be easier to fake than a government-issued ID. The CRS isn’t totally on board with relying on a national digital ID system for online age verification either, as it could “raise privacy and security concerns.”

Face-based age detection might seem like a quick fix to these concerns. And unlike a credit card — or full-fledged facial identification tools — it doesn’t necessarily tell a site who you are, just whether it thinks you’re over 18.

But these systems may not accurately identify the age of a person. Yoti, the facial analysis service used by Facebook and Instagram, claims it can estimate the age of people 13 to 17 years old as under 25 with 99.93 percent accuracy while identifying kids that are six to 11 years old as under 13 with 98.35 percent accuracy. This study doesn’t include any data on distinguishing between young teens and older ones, however — a crucial element for many young people.

Although Yoti claims its system has no “discernible bias across gender or skin tone,” previous research indicates that facial recognition services are less reliable for people of color, gender-nonconforming people, and people with facial differences or asymmetry. This would, again, unfairly block certain people from accessing the internet.



It also poses a host of privacy risks, as the companies that capture facial recognition data would need to ensure that this biometric data doesn’t get stolen by bad actors. UK civil liberties group Big Brother Watch argues that “face prints’ are as sensitive as fingerprints” and that “collecting biometric data of this scale inherently puts people’s privacy at risk.” CNIL points out that you could mitigate some risks by performing facial recognition locally on a user’s device — but that doesn’t solve the broader problems.

Inferring ages based on browsing history raises even more problems. This kind of inferential system has been implemented on platforms like Facebook and TikTok, both of which use AI to detect whether a user is under the age of 13 based on their activity on the platform. That includes scanning a user’s activity for “happy birthday” messages or comments that indicate they’re too young to have an account. But the system hasn’t been explored on a larger scale — where it could involve having an AI scan your entire browsing history and estimate your age based on your searches and the sites you interact with. That would amount to large-scale digital surveillance, and CNIL outright calls the system “intrusive.” It’s not even clear how well it would work.

In France, where lawmakers are working to restrict access to porn sites, CNIL worked with Ecole Polytechnique professor Olivier Blazy to develop a solution that attempts to minimize the amount of user information sent to a website. The proposed method involves using an ephemeral “token” that sends your browser or phone a “challenge” when accessing an age-restricted website. That challenge would then get relayed to a third party that can authenticate your age, like your bank, internet provider, or a digital ID service, which would issue its approval, allowing you to access the website.

The system’s goal is to make sure a user is old enough to access a service without revealing any personal details, either to the website they’re using or the companies and governments providing the ID check. The third party “only knows you are doing an age check but not for what,” Blazy explains to The Verge, and the website would not know which service verified your age nor any of the details from that transaction.

Blazy hopes this system can prevent very young children from accessing explicit content. But even with this complex solution, he acknowledges that users in France will be able to get around the method by using a virtual private network (VPN) to conceal their location. This is a problem that plagues nearly any location-specific verification system: as long as another government lets people access a site more easily, users can route their traffic through it. The only surefire solution would be draconian crackdowns on privacy tools that would dramatically compromise freedom online.
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
65,824
Reputation
10,162
Daps
178,294
Some governments are trying to offer a variety of options and let users pick between them. A report from the European Parliament Think Tank, an in-house department that helps shape legislation, highlights an EU “browser-based interoperable age verification method” called euCONSENT, which will allow users to verify their identity online by choosing from a network of approved third-party services. Since this would give users the ability to choose the verification they want to use, this means one service might ask a user to upload an official government document, while another might rely on facial recognition.

To privacy and civil liberties advocates, none of these solutions are ideal. Venzke tells The Verge that implementing age verification systems encourages a system that collects our data and could pave the way for more surveillance in the future. “Bills that are trying to establish inferences about how old you are or who you are based on that already existing capitalistic surveillance, are just threatening to legitimize that surveillance,” Venzke says. “As we think about kids’ online safety, we need to do so in a way that doesn’t enshrine and legitimize this very surveillance regime that we’re trying to push back on.”


Age verification laws “are going to face a very tough battle in court”



The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group, similarly argues that all age verification solutions are “surveillance systems” that will “lead us further towards an internet where our private data is collected and sold by default.”

Even some strong supporters of child safety bills have expressed concerns about making age verification part of them. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), one of the backers of the Kids Online Safety Act, objected to the idea in a call with reporters earlier this month. In a statement, he tells The Verge that “age verification would require either a national database or a goldmine of private information on millions of kids in Big Tech’s hands” and that “the potential for exploitation and misuse would be huge.” (Despite this, the EFF believes that KOSA’s requirements would inevitably result in age verification mandates anyway.)

In the US, it’s unclear whether online age verification would stand up under legal scrutiny at all. The US court system has already struck down efforts to implement online age verification several times in the past. As far back as 1997, the Supreme Court ruled parts of the 1996 Communications Decency Act unconstitutional, as it imposed restrictions on “knowing transmission of obscene or indecent messages” and required age verification online. More recently, a federal court found in 2016 that a Louisiana law, which required websites that publish “material harmful to minors” verify users’ ages, “creates a chilling effect on free speech.”

Vera Eidelman, a staff attorney with ACLU, tells The Verge that existing age verification laws “are going to face a very tough battle in court.” “For the most part, requiring content providers online to verify the ages of their users is almost certainly unconstitutional, given the likelihood but it will make people uncomfortable to exercise their rights to access certain information if they have to unmask or identify themselves,” Eidelman says.

But concerns over surveillance still haven’t stopped governments around the globe, including here in the US, from pushing ahead with online age verification mandates. There are currently several bills in the pipeline in Congress that are aimed at protecting children online, including the Protecting Kids on Social Media Act, which calls for the test of a national age verification system that would block users under the age of 13 from signing up for social media. In the UK, where the heavily delayed Online Safety Bill will likely become law, porn sites would be required to verify users’ ages, while other websites would be forced to give users the option to do so as well.

Some proponents of online safety laws say they’re no different than having to hand over an ID to purchase alcohol. “We have agreed as a society not to let a 15-year-old go to a bar or a strip club,” said Laurie Schlegel, the legislator behind Louisiana’s age restriction law, after its passage. “The same protections should be in place online.” But the comparison misses vastly different implications for free speech and privacy. “When we think about bars or ordering alcohol at a restaurant, we just assume that you can hand an ID to a bouncer or a waiter, they’ll hand it back, and that’s the end of it,” Venzke adds. “Problem is, there’s no infrastructure on the internet right now to [implement age verification] in a safe, secure, private way that doesn’t chill people’s ability to get to constitutionally protected speech.”

Most people also spend a relatively small amount of their time in real-world adults-only spaces, while social media and online communications tools are ubiquitous ways of finding information and staying in touch with friends and family. Even sites with sexually explicit content — the target of Louisiana’s bill — could be construed to include sites offering information about sexual health and LGBTQ resources, despite claims by lawmakers that this won’t happen.

Even if many of these rules are shot down, the way we use the internet may never be the same again. With age checks awaiting us online, some people may find themselves locked out of increasingly large numbers of platforms — leaving the online world more closed-off than ever
 

Yapdatfool

Superstar
Joined
May 5, 2012
Messages
8,648
Reputation
1,286
Daps
22,767
Reppin
NULL
Yea... I don't like it.

Privacy being 1, restrictions on speech being 2, but the biggest reasons will be the breaches to gain information then the workaround is a 3 year purchase for 120 bucks away.

Truthfully I have 0 faith/trust in legislators finding a balance in the first place.

You want to block children from viewing/doing shyt online, do the shyt yaself.
 

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
91,416
Reputation
3,791
Daps
163,047
Reppin
Brooklyn
On one hand we're sliding into a fascist white supremacist Christian theocracy and on the other hand I already got the covid vaccine so I guess there is that


:manny:
 

The Bilingual Gringo

Tucked in to the socks
Supporter
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
4,862
Reputation
955
Daps
9,674
I have zero issues w/ a verification system for online related activity.

However, I'd never want to see any verification regulation in place without security. Our country is far too behind on data privacy laws and overall cyber infrastructure for this. This whole thing reeks of white Christianity projection :scusthov:

On a side note, Electronic Frontier Foundation is a dope group.
 

Yapdatfool

Superstar
Joined
May 5, 2012
Messages
8,648
Reputation
1,286
Daps
22,767
Reppin
NULL
On a side note, Electronic Frontier Foundation is a dope group.
fukk yea they are. I need to get back to reading their articles like this:

 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
65,824
Reputation
10,162
Daps
178,294

The Gist: Age Verification is an Epic fail​


From the 21st July 2025, Ireland’s regulator will be enforcing age checks at the door for social media sites in the EU. This is the Gist.

Simon McGarr


13 Jul 2025 — 6 min read

The Gist: Age Verification is an Epic fail
Photo by Anthony Bressy / Unsplash

It will be no surprise to long-time Gist readers to hear that Ireland's clueless regulator of the Internet, Coimisiún na Meán, has some bad ideas. This is, after all, the body who suggested that an ideal policy outcome was for children to send live selfies of themselves to porn sites.

In fact, as it is relevant to the plan intended to roll into action in a fortnight, let's review the CnaM's stated plans to bring in an age verification gate for all video sharing platforms.

(which is to say, almost1 all social media in a video-first media world):

“Uploading documents and or a live selfie is one example” (source: CnaM website)

“A requirement for a person to show their passport and then a selfie to verify they are the person on the passport” (source: Irish Examiner)

“A live selfie each time you want to access it and they use biometrics to check”. (source: Irish Examiner)

And, as always, I return to Dr. Karlin Lillington of the Irish Times description of these proposals to aid us in assessing them;

“all absolutely mega-scale bonkers”

Britain: The Gift That Keeps Giving​


It is one of the consequences of Brexit that if your country is considering some manifestly insane policy- I mean, something really really "mega-scale bonkers"- there is a greater than even chance that Britain will have done it already, with extra administrative zeal.

And so it is with the idea of Age Verification for social media.

The UK's equivalent of CnaM, Ofcom, is proud to report that its Age Verification enforcement system is coming online at the same time as ours. But, unlike the CnaM, it has built a load of tools and documentation to promote its mad idea. Whereas our regulatory body simply shouted out the window to the street below that it wants to see some square circles delivered in a fortnight, Ofcom set deadlines, built questionnaires, launched a full enforcement programme and has overseen the roll-out of those age verification systems.

As an aside, one of my favourite parts of the UK's laws is that there are exemptions if you are a UK education or childcare provider (who also permits porn on your website.) Surely an invitation for the creation of a chain of PornHub x Creche and Childcare Services collabs.

6. Do any exemptions apply to your online service?  Some online services are exempt from the Act because they are internal business services or because they are provided by a public body, or by an education or childcare provider.  Do any exemptions apply to your online service? Select all that apply Yes, it is an internal business service, including services such as business intranet, content management systems, or customer relationship management systems Yes, it is provided by a public body, such as Parliament, a UK public authority, or foreign government Yes, it is provided by an UK education or childcare provider No, none of the above applies


Bluesky's Epic Fail​


This week saw the introduction of Bluesky's Age Verification requirements in the UK, in response to these Ofcom requirements. These will presumably mirror how they deal with these demands in the EU when Ireland's rules lackadaisically come into force too. So we get a peep into our near future. Spoiler: Not Good.

Instead of building their own Age Verification scheme, Bluesky decided to use one called Kids Web Services. This is a system bought by Epic Games (you know, the people who do Fortnite) and then made available for free to any developer to integrate with their service. Who doesn't love a free compliance tool?

Now, I live in a house with three children, so while I have never managed to learn how to do the Floss myself, I was, at least, familiar with Epic Games in their Fortnite aspect. But I hadn't encountered their Age Verification entity before. Possibly because they launched it with talk about the Metaverse and I may therefore have just zoned out while it happened.

But reading the Bluesky statement, I found myself suddenly interested in the Kids Web Services Privacy Policy. Especially when I found out that Kids Web Services has its EU representation office in Haddington Road, Dublin.

Yep, we've been left minding the shop again.

bingo-bingo-bluey.gif
This is what I look like as I read Privacy Policies

To access Bluesky (and whatever other entities take this free route to ticking the age verification compliance box) we will have to agree to Epic Games's system getting the following data:

  • Your email address
  • a unique ID number

some, "but never all", of the following information:

  • your name, date of birth, mailing address, credit or debit card information, a personal identity number (such as a CPF number in Brazil, a CURP number in Mexico, certain digits of a RRN number or i-PIN in the Republic of Korea, and certain digits of a US social security number in the US), a cell phone number, an identity document or face scan." (uh...emphasis added)
  • "we automatically collect information about your devices (computers, phones, tablets etc.) and your use of and interactions with KWS, including in order to identify your country and language"
  • Device information, which includes "data about the operating systems and hardware and software versions, device identifiers, internet protocol (IP) address, login data, browser type and version, time zone setting, country and language, browser plug-in types and versions"
  • Usage information, which includes site navigation... the actions you take, the time, frequency and duration of your activities (UH....emphasis absolutely added)
  • your child’s age or date of birth.
  • your child’s country (and in the US, State) and language.

Ok, so, you know, wow.

That is a lot of personal data, including face scans, postal addresses, mobile phone numbers and so on. But at least we can be sure, can't we, that it's not going to be used for anything other than Age Verification? I mean, we haven't accidentally issued a legal mandate for a huge commercially invaluable data honeypot on everyone's browsing and web activity history linked to their government ID, have we?

Epic Games, the people who brought us the most profitable microtransactions site aimed at children in the world, would never try to use this huge pool of data for their own commercial purposes, right?

Oh no.

Purpose: To improve and develop new products and services We may sometimes use your information to help us improve and develop products and services, including to develop updates and add new functionality, product and features based on your comments and feedback and an understanding of how you and others use them.      Adult data Verification information Device and usage information Customer support information


Bluesky don't even have control over Epic. The Kids Web Services company isn't a Data Processor for Bluesky as Data Controller (which would let Bluesky dictate how its users' data can be used). The Privacy Policy is quite clear that "The legal entity responsible for the information that we collect through KWS is Kids Web Services Ltd (we / us). Kids Web Services Ltd belongs to the Epic Games family of companies"

In legal GDPR terms, they are Joint Controllers. Look, I even found the Joint Controller Agreement that sets it out. Epic even explicitly set out how all of the data they collect will be treated as an asset of the business;

"If we are involved in a merger, acquisition, or sale of assets, we may share your personal information with the acquiring or receiving entity. The categories of information we disclose and our legal basis for doing so depends on the circumstances, but would include our legitimate interest in operating, selling and expanding our business"

So, yeah, we've legislated for an exciting new kind of surveillance capitalism. As always, if a service on the web is being offered for free, it just means that you (in this case the adult wishing to participate in social media) are not the customer.

You are the product.

Square Circles are hard to draw​


Both the CnaM in Ireland and Ofcom in the UK were tasked with performing an impossible task. They had to introduce mass surveillance of adults' interpersonal conversations with other adults by means of social media, while also, at the same time, protecting their Data Protection and Privacy rights.

As you can see above, if it can be done, it hasn't been done yet.

When Karlin Lillington wrote about this plan, she pointed out that the Age Verification bar would be at platform level, not at the level of individual pieces of content. So a person who just wanted to watch cat videos but not lose access to the full platform they were on would still have to surrender their browsing anonymity.

In response, the CnaM issued a furious statement;

"She accuses us of proposing to create a porn user register and repeats baseless online claims that people would have to upload their identity documents and facial scans, ... She even suggests that this could be required when people only want to view cat videos.

She rightly says that such a proposal would be bonkers. We agree. Which is why we have neither considered it nor proposed it."

This 'bonkers' outcome is, as we can see above, exactly what has now happened.

I believe CnaM when they say they never considered the consequences of their actions.

But it is a pity that they were so wrapped in institutional arrogance that they didn't consider that other people, with more experience of how the internet actually worked, might know better.



1 You see, in all of this co-ordinated push to introduce age-verification, the unspoken winner is Meta. That's because they are the shopping centre to other platform's city streets.

While they recently announced they were specifically permitting hate speech against certain vulnerable groups, they won't allow anything sexual on their platforms. Scream trans people shouldn't exist all you like on Facebook, Instagram or Threads. They're fine with it, just as long as you keep fully covered while doing it.

These laws therefore create costs for their competitors, while leaving them with nothing extra to do. It is a classic regulatory moat.
 
Top