Age Verifiers Dispute Tech Industry Critique of Conn. Bills

Chamber of Progress, a tech trade group, wrote May 9 in the Connecticut Mirror, that SB-1295, SB-1356 and HB-6857 may violate the First Amendment. “These bills would require platforms to verify the identity and age of all users, chipping away at the privacy of all Connecticut residents, adults and minors alike,” wrote the group’s communications manager, Alisa Caccamo.

“Under an age verification mandate, platforms must verify the identity and age of all users, including existing ones,” Caccamo said. “Many adults simply don’t want to share sensitive documents with online services. Under the proposed legislation in Connecticut, they’d face an uncomfortable choice: hand over personal data just to engage in protected online speech or walk away entirely.”

But in a Thursday op-ed in the same newspaper, Age Verification Providers Association Executive Director Iain Corby said Caccamo's essay “misrepresents the nature of modern online age checks.”

“Contrary to her claim, effective age verification ... does not require either identifying users or building databases of sensitive personal data. In fact, industry-standard systems ensure there is nothing to hack -- because no personal data is retained at all.”

“Modern age verification does not rely only on government-issued ID,” added Corby. “It can be achieved through tokenized signals, anonymized hand movement and facial estimation (where images are immediately deleted, and often never leave the palm of your hand as the estimate is processed on your own smartphone), or verified credentials stored securely in users’ own devices.”