Supporters of mandatory age verification assert that they have secure technologies in place that safeguard user privacy. They maintain that age verification methods are advanced enough now, suggesting that concerns over privacy are outdated. According to them, modern security measures have rendered previous anxieties about privacy and cybersecurity irrelevant.
However, the theoretical benefits of public policy often fail when confronted with practical, technical, and human limitations that derail even the best academic plans. When citizens lose privacy, they are justified in asking for proof that their sacrifices lead to meaningful gains, yet the data currently available offers little confidence in that regard.
Claims of solid security can be easily dismissed. Age verification services frequently experience issues like hacks, data breaches, and mismanagement, which expose users’ personal information including government-issued documents.
The European Union’s recent case adds to the woes of age verification advocates. The newly introduced age verification app was quickly compromised, just hours after the European Commission’s President touted its launch as a mandatory measure. Security consultant Paul Moore reported that he hacked into the app within two minutes, uncovering various vulnerabilities, including one that allowed users to skip the verification process. The EU did make fixes, but Moore promptly discarded the update.
This incident places the EU among a long list of verification platforms that have been breached, such as Otabox and AU10TIX, along with two third parties linked to Discord. These alone account for significant personal data breaches that number in the billions.
In March, hundreds of security and privacy scholars signed a letter advocating for a temporary halt to age verification efforts until there’s a scientific consensus regarding its effectiveness and its potential risks.
Fundamental concerns about age verification have yet to be addressed, even as we push to implement conditions that require users to share personal information with potentially untrustworthy digital systems for basic online access.
The letter highlighted two central questions: whether age verification is indeed effective, and what risks it poses to overall security and privacy. As the letter points out, the removal of privacy warrants substantial proof that the trade-offs result in significant benefits, yet the current evidence is quite lacking.
Efforts to enforce online safety in the UK have also faced significant hurdles, leading many users to resort to virtual private networks to evade age verification requirements.
Australia has also tried to restrict minors from major social media platforms via age verification, but surveys reveal that a substantial number of young users still find ways around the law—even claiming it’s “easy” to do so.
Children naturally seek to push boundaries, and those qualities transfer to their online activities. Governments lack the capability to oversee children’s digital behavior as closely as parents do, making it tough to ensure online safety.
Mandatory age verification is being promoted by lawmakers who view it as a one-size-fits-all answer to the complexities of managing a diverse population of minors, each with unique needs. Current compliance standards often show that clever minors can easily navigate around these regulations.
No government has a comprehensive understanding of a child’s daily life or actions to effectively mitigate every request made by them online. Once again, parents are tasked with this heavy responsibility. It’s crucial to nurture and protect children in the digital world with the same care as in the physical world.
While it could seem sensible to endorse mandatory age verification, the evident technical and human challenges indicate serious risks associated with this approach, not to mention a very low chance of success.
Traditional child protection standards place the onus primarily on parents for children’s upbringing and welfare. Even though the digital landscape may seem new, human instincts remain unchanged. Solutions should evolve through collaboration rather than top-down mandates from lawmakers.
