Privacy Groups Say Age Assurance Is Well-Meaning but Harmful
Though using age assurance to access certain online platforms and websites is the route policymakers frequently take hoping to protect children online, it can end up doing more harm than good, multiple privacy organizations said in recent papers and blog posts.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Privacy Daily provides accurate coverage of newsworthy developments in data protection legislation, regulation, litigation, and enforcement for privacy professionals responsible for ensuring effective organizational data privacy compliance.
“These efforts to protect kids online are well-meaning, but ... they can have significant unintended consequences,” said the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) in its newsletter Tuesday.
Recent CDT research found that parents and teachers had "serious concerns" about efficacy and privacy "related to sharing sensitive data,” the newsletter said. Participants also "emphasized the need for transparent and context-driven approaches that support users’ agency and choice, alongside parental discretion when determining young people’s access to online services.”
CDT also found that age-verification technology can be inaccurate, particularly with some groups, such as people with disabilities.
Public Knowledge recommended in an August report "that policymakers propose a risk-based standard that scales with the potential harm associated with specific features.”
For example, a tiered risk assessment could forgo an age gate for basic content browsing and general communication features. Instead, it could use age estimation for social networking and to receive algorithmic recommendations and strict age assurance for access to adult content such as pornography.
The report emphasized “age verification technologies for high-risk features must be privacy-preserving,” and “platforms should be required to implement verification methods that prove age without exposing personal information.”
An IAPP blog post (see 2508260038) concluded that "age assurance is a tool, not an end in itself, for positive online youth experiences." While at its best it protects, at its worst, "it bars young people from essential information, expression and connection."
In a blog post Friday, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) argued that sweeping age-verification laws, like Mississippi's HB-1126, do nothing to rein in Big Tech and instead oppress internet and online platform use.
Mississippi's law, which requires parental consent for those younger than 18 to create accounts with certain digital service providers, has litigation pending against it from trade association NetChoice for its alleged violation of the First Amendment and user privacy rights (see 2406070059).
The U.S. Supreme Court, however, allowed the age-verification law to stand while the case is pending, rejecting an emergency application blocking the measure (see 2508140048).
"Lawmakers often sell age-verification mandates as a silver bullet for Big Tech’s harms, but in practice, these laws do nothing to rein in the tech giants," said Molly Buckley, activist at EFF and author of Friday's blog post. "Instead, they end up crushing smaller platforms that can’t absorb the exorbitant costs."
She noted how social media platform Bluesky (see 2508250057) and online platform Dreamwidth have already announced that they're blocking access to their sites to those with Mississippi IP addresses, rather than comply with HB-1126. "If this sounds like censorship to you, you’re right -- it is," Buckley said. "But it’s not these small platforms’ fault."
While supporters of age verification argue that laws "will hold Big Tech companies accountable for their outsized influence," the opposite is true, she said. "As we can see from Mississippi, age verification mandates concentrate and consolidate power in the hands of the largest companies -- the only entities with the resources to build costly compliance systems and absorb potentially massive fines."
An Aug.18 EFF blog post by legislative activist Rindala Alajaji and activism director Jason Kelley centered on age-verification laws that took effect July 1 in Wyoming and South Dakota, requiring any website containing sexual content to verify users' ages.
Alajaji and Kelley said the states seemed to be inspired by the U.S. Supreme Court's June decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (see 2506270041), but they don't believe the ruling "gives these laws any constitutional legitimacy."
"You do not need a law degree to see the difference between the Texas law," targeting sites where one-third of content is sexual material said to be harmful to minors, "and these laws, which apply to any site that contains even a single instance of such material," they said. "In practice, it is the difference between burdening adults with age gates for websites that host 'adult' content, and burdening the entire internet, including sites that allow user-generated content or published content."