Honestly I can't think of any way you could verify age accurately without something identifying being provided.
You could try age based trivia, but anyone could Google an answer.
this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2026
1 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Experienced Devs
1509 readers
1 users here now
Icon base by Delapouite under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Very easy: create a law that if minors are caught where they shouldn't be the parents and the minors are going to be held responsible, because raising kids is parent's responsibility.
However, absolutely ZERO percent of the age verification laws are being put in place to protect kids. They are pushing that with sole reason to invade your privacy and monitor your activity, so any mean that doesn't accomplish it missed the point.
The question you should really be asking: is it even desirable? Teens have been accessing adult content since forever and it is a perfectly natural and healthy part of adolescense. Sex is perfectly natural and healthy. It shouldn't be criminalized.
You're assuming legal sex acts are the worst thing a kid could find online.
The Roblox issue is hardly that of exposure to normal human biology, and as someone who went spelunking online as a kid. I assure you it's not.
That said this stuff should be up to parents, and instead of verification requirements, we should have parental control requirements.
On a lot of devices, I couldn't make them safe to hand to a kid without coding the tools myself.
I'm not assuming anything, I was practically raised on the internet, and I am a survivor of sexual abuse and grooming, and I am telling you categorically, this is a fucking terrible idea.
You do not need to censor the Internet to protect kids. You just need to be a trustworthy, reliable, attentive adult and raise your kids in a safe, loving environment. Grooming happens when a kid is vulnerable and needs attention from adults that they do not receive from trustworthy adults around them. Everything else, if your kid trusts you and comes across something upsetting or suspicious online, they will tell you, and you can help them get through it and stay safe. You do your kids no favors by sheltering them from reality.
...
Parental control software existing is a terrible idea?
There is insufficient incentive for games like Roblox to provide effective controls for parents to manage their childrens accounts.
That should change.
I was raised by loving and trustworthy parents. It didn't save me from curiosity leading me to things I was far, far too young to see. No amount of love and care can fix that.
You do your kids no favors by sheltering them from reality.
No. You let them learn to swim in he shallows to prepare them. Blind trust is like throwing them into the deep and seeing if they figure it out before drowning.
Having a supportive loving and trustworthy emvironmnet didn't me from wanting to kill myself.
Yes, it is. It is teaching your kids that you do not trust them, and it is indulging your own paranoia. People love to spout about this "I was too young to see" shit but it's reactionary knee-jerk nonsense. Did seeing gore or whatever you're referring to actually do you any long-term harm, seriously?
And did you seriously just try to use dismissing my trauma as a point, instead of a logical retort?
Can you tell me a bit about how you experienced that trauma? What happened? What did you see? How did it affect you?
None of your business.
I don't need you approval to be allowed to argue my point.
OK, whatever. I'm done with this conversation. I'd be willing to bet you're just justifying your authoritarian parenting to yourself, and I am uninterested in debating it with you.
Sure.
Reply to this.
Not the comment where I actually make my case.
Your entire case presumes that there is a harm to prevent. Kids are prevented from drinking alcohol because we know alcohol is harmful to minors. If there is no harm, then there is no harm to prevent.
You are rationalizing your prejudices, and you know it. I'm done with you. I actually have PTSD from being abused as a kid and your bullshit "oh I have trauma cuz I saw a scary pic once" can actually get fucked, and I am now blocking you.
Alcohol is also harmful to adults.
So is the internet.
To engage with either without risk, mental fortitute and maturity is required.
You should inform the underpaid workers going insane moderating facebook that the pictures can't harm them. I'm sure their need for therapy will instantly vanish.
Actually just fuck off. Please, just fuck off. Leave me alone. You are a liar. Fuck off. I am really struggling to disengage with you because I actually have real trauma and you are being extremely triggering. Please stop replying.
I'm sorry. I hope you're ok.
But don't go telling people their pain isn't valid. You literally can't know.
And it's not your fucking place to ask. What you tried to do to me by doing so, I would never do to anyone. And I'm pretty sure you understand why.
It is teaching your kids that you do not trust them, and it is indulging your own paranoia.
Only if you never lift the restrictions, and coddle instead of raise them.
A parent buying their kid their first beer is a show of trust, and confidence in having prepared them. That they weren't allowed before isn't some paranoia about turning them into an alcoholist. It's about preparation and maturity.
It is a display that shows that the parent feels their child is ready and responsible enough for the ability to decide themselves to be granted to them.
A parent enforcing a rule before that is not some violation.
Only, for the internet, the tools and know-how to do so are rare or non-existent.
My parents did this with tons of things as me and my siblings grew up. Each time trusting us with a new piece of responsibility, when they felt we were ready.
What kind of parent doesn't decide their childrens bedtime until they can sanely maintain their sleep schedule themselves?
It was a big day when I was granted the ability to go to visit friends without asking permission first.
Parental control and guidance is essential for the stage-by-stage raising of a child into adulthood. Both online and offline, only tools and practices around the former practically don't exist.
Each parent is also on a deadline. When someone turns 18, all rules come off whether you're ready or not.
As a parent, you should aim for your kid to be making as many decisions themselves as possible by then.
hardcore christians disagree
Hardcore Christians are just pedophiles and trauma victims.
yep, everybody knows that already
This isn’t true.
The internet has been around since the late 90s at the earliest…that’s when some kids started freely accessing adult content.
When I was a kid…(and I grew up unsupervised and poor with one working parent - I was free range)…porn mags were like the holy grail. I literally didn’t see one until I was about 14 and I found one in somebodies forest fort. So think about that…not only could I not find a porn mag…but the person that had one had to go hiking to “use” it.
I mean…we also had homophobic molester gym teachers teaching us health class…
"This isn’t true."
Literally tells a story about experiencing adult material before being 18
Come on, dude...
I mean…we also had homophobic molester gym teachers teaching us health class…
Even more reason for kids to have safe access to sexual content on their own terms. Great point, thanks for making it for me.
You said teens. I didn’t know you meant 18. Even if it wasn’t your topic…surely kids having access to hardcore porn, fetish scenarios, etcetc before they have access to sex ed isn’t optimal.
Yeah…things are better, sex ed wise, then they were in the 80s. Miles better. That’s a great thing - but as I said above, sex-ed can’t keep up with what children are being exposed to. We’re not talking about Playboys and R-Rated movies here.
You didn’t really get my point, no. My point was that some children are being bombarded with sexual information from all angles, and it’s having unintended consequences. We essentially opened a new all-encompassing type of media and barely tried to regulate it.
The question isn't whether having access to hardcore porn is harmful. The question is the relative degree of harm.
When a web service can reliably distinguish between adult and child, it can specifically target content to either. Netflix can provide age-appropriate content to its users. That's great.
Groomers can specifically target members of their desired audience. That's not so great. That's bad. That's really, really bad. That's much worse than kids finding hardcore pornography. And that degree of targeting is only possible with widespread age verification laws.
There’s no question that certain types of adult content, not restricted to hardcore porn is harmful…we know it is.
It’s not “we deal with groomers OR we deal with harmful adult content…OR we only regulate popular streaming sites. We can do all of the above. We certainly don’t just throw up our hands and say “it’s not profitable to protect our children” (not what you’re saying, but rather what’s happening).
The way regulators are currently dealing with age-gating - say, in Australia - isn’t what we need to do. That certainly empowers groomers because there’s zero expertise or thought out into it: it’s an ISP-friendly virtue signal that attempts to preserve profits while making Boomers feel like something is happening.
I don’t have the answer…but I DO know there are a ton of answers that include actually attempting to study and regulate all addictive content, including adult content - ie content at the hosting level and requiring that providers and purveyors regulate their content with actual humans. We can never “win” the war if the status quo is automated moderation and profits above protection.
We can do all of the above.
No, we cannot. At a societal level, we can't do any of it.
Protecting a child from content on the internet requires a massive invasion of the child's privacy. That degree of privacy invasion should not be granted to society in general. It should not be granted to the operators of a pornography site. It should certainly not be granted to the groomers.
The only place where that degree of privacy invasion is reasonable and acceptable is between parent and child. If you want to protect the children, you give parents the tools to regulate content. You don't provide those privacy-invading tools to the content providers and you certainly don't expect them to take a parental role over your kids, let alone your neighbors and yourself.
Well, we can protect them as societies and villages and we do.
This notion that somehow groomers are neutralized if we abandon any attempt at protecting children at large is absurd…talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. Imagine a world where we just ignore the source of the issue…the groomers would have a hay day. “Sorry kid…you should have had better parents”.
Putting it all on the parents just means that a small portion of rich and savvy parents will be able to “protect” their kids, usually with draconian practices that put kids far more at risk. Pardon me…but you don’t know what you’re talking about.
No, here in reality we should continue to institute and advocate for effective measures.
This notion that somehow groomers are neutralized
No. I never suggested that. My argument is that using age verification makes it easier for groomers. That is a harm that arises from age verification. The harm to children from age verification greatly exceeds the benefit to children.
Well, we can protect them as societies and villages and we do.
Correct. And I described how we can do that: By providing parents with the means to do it. Not pornographers. Not groomers. Not society in general. Providing these means to anyone except the parents is an unacceptable invasion into the privacy. Even to the parents, these measure deprive the child of a certain degree of privacy, but children have no broad expectation of privacy from their parents. It's OK for parents to invade their child's privacy; it is not OK for anyone else.
Putting it all on the parents
I'm not "putting" it on the parents: It's already on the parents. That responsibility should stay with the parents, because nobody else is qualified to wield it. Pornographers, groomers, politicians, and you will not invade the privacy of my children, and I should not be empowered to invade your child's privacy either.
just means that a small portion of rich and savvy parents will be able to “protect” their kids, usually with draconian practices that put kids far more at risk.
A small portion of parents use draconian practices that put far more kids at risk? What the hell are you even talking about?
No, here in reality we should continue to institute and advocate for effective measures.
Age verification is not an "effective measure". The only person who needs to know the user's age is the parents.
With "age verification", we are supposed to place our trust in the pornographer and the groomer. Most of them aren't even in the same legal jurisdiction and are immune to criminal prosecution or civil judgment. Yet, we are supposed to grant them the power to invade our childrens' privacy, as well as our own. That is by no means an "effective" measure.
An effective measure would be creating a free, publicly available blacklist of adult content, and any number of free apps to implement that blacklist to block content on the child's device. Which we already have. Hundreds of them. They are extremely effective at protecting children, without invading their privacy or enabling grooming.
You’d need to demonstrate that age verification protects groomers v children…all the data says the opposite. On a basic level, we know anonymous age-gating works…but it goes nowhere near far enough.
Your only strategy can’t be tools for parents. That’s one, albeit important, pillar. You’re essentially giving tools to the people who need them the least, and leaving the children at risk out in the cold. The majority of parents aren’t savvy enough, aware of, or have the time to use the tools.
I’m talking about the real world outcomes of “leaving it to the parents”. The most common way for parents to try to protect children is prohibition…and we know that prohibition puts kids more at risk. This isn’t an edge case…this is well meaning parents putting their children in danger because they don’t understand the realities of danger. Again…draconian prohibition is currently the most common strategy - that’s what I’m talking about. These parents most often the same parents who want to restrict sex education in schools, by the way.
You have a strange and incorrect understanding of how age verification functions, or can function. You’re creating this straw man scenario where children are broadcasting their age publicly…that’s not really a thing. There’s an array of private ways to verify who a person is…we do it all the time when we’re protecting money assets or for other security. The only problem here is the expense of instituting these methods on a large scale, and requiring that the data isn’t harvested or sold or used in any other way. It’s bizarre to suggest that because a tiny portion of is vulnerable…we should stop looking at data. The harm reduction option is definitely not “leave it to the parents”.
I highly recommend educating yourself about the methods of restricting adult content…which aren’t limited to age verification by the way. It really seems like you have a specific and personal axe to grind with internet restrictions that you’re not talking about.
You’d need to demonstrate that age verification protects groomers v children
All I need to show is that groomers can use the tools to distinguish between adults and children. The California law requires your OS announce your age to a "developer" before downloading an "application". The way the law is crafted, though, "developer" = "web server", and "application" = "web page".
Furthermore, the way the law is written, groomers aren't just allowed to get your age; they are required to get your age if they offer web services to Californians.
The majority of parents aren’t savvy enough, aware of, or have the time to use the tools.
You'd be hard pressed to find an adult who was successfully isolated from pornography as a minor. From that, we can conclude that the overwhelming majority of children aren't actually harmed by porn. Quite the contrary, instilling the idea in them that seeking pornography is somehow sinful or disobedient is quite harmful on multiple levels. But I digress...
The fact that fucking everyone has seen porn before their 18th birthday --without harm-- demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of kids don't actually need the tools. You see parents not using the tools as not knowing they exist or how to use them; I see parents trusting their kids. I see parents feigning ignorance of such tools in order to keep puritanical nitwits off our backs.
The most common way for parents to try to protect children is prohibition…and we know that prohibition puts kids more at risk. This isn’t an edge case…this is well meaning parents putting their children in danger because they don’t understand the realities of danger. Again…draconian prohibition is currently the most common strategy - that’s what I’m talking about. These parents most often the same parents who want to restrict sex education in schools, by the way.
No, that puts fewer kids at risk. Only the kids of those draconian parents are put at risk by those prohibitions. Age verification expands that to every kid. You've got the test backwards.
While those draconian parents are putting their kids at risk, their normal peers are inoculating them with sanity. Expand their insane bullshit to the rest of society, and that sanity is replaced with puritanical dogma.
You’re creating this straw man scenario where children are broadcasting their age publicly…that’s not really a thing.
Read the California law. That is a thing, effective January 1st, 2027. There are provisions against requiring data for other purposes or giving it to third parties, but those provisions require first-party groomers to have their webservers collect that data on every page load.
I see, yes, you’re reacting to specific family of regulations that I already criticized earlier in this thread. Just like I don’t think putting it on on the parents is a good thing, I don’t think having companies regulate themselves is a good thing. This is what I was talking about when I said I don’t believe we should take an approach that protects companies profits.
The alternative to self-regulation isn’t to just give up (put it in the parents hands) - it’s to have a multi pillared approach that includes everything that works, including (but not limited to) education, user tools, age gating etc. But that’s basically what we’re doing now…and instead of coming up with a comprehensive plan to regulate data at the source…we’re putting in a patchwork of company friendly virtue signals that make us less safe at the end of the day. Again: removing consumer age-gating and replacing it with nothing is a bad idea.
Nah, I have it exactly right. The current model is primarily prohibition and nothing for the rest of us….that’s very dangerous. Your fear mongering scenario isn’t a thing. You’re speaking as if all children must publicly announce their age…when you know very well that’s not how the laws function. You’re arguing that if it’s possible for groomers to get the data…then it’s not worth getting the data at all. Meanwhile I’m reality the groomers require an additional step that any system would be vulnerable to. Certainly the groomers are much happier if you win your case and we do nothing…then they have access to every kid with the exception of the few savvy parents who can use the tools effectively.
You’re not making an argument I can take seriously. You can’t just call every company who collects data a groomer, that’s absurd. As I said before…you need an actual groomer working within the system…and groomers are much happier working without a system than with one.
I completely agree that the law is lazy and doesn’t put enough oversight or privacy safeguards in place. I don’t agree that returning the internet to an unregulated hellhole with only user tools is the answer.
The alternative to self-regulation isn’t to just give up (put it in the parents hands)
Putting it in the parents hands isn't "giving up". That's where the responsibility should be. There is no other entity capable of performing this task without undue invasion of privacy.
it’s to have a multi pillared approach
This isn't a case where throwing everything at the problem makes it better. It doesn't. Every effort we take is another invasion into our privacy; into the privacy of children. Everything we do makes the privacy problem worse, and most of what we can do will also make it easier to identify and target children for additional harm.
Again: removing consumer age-gating and replacing it with nothing is a bad idea.
We aren't "removing" anything. Consumer age gating does not exist. It has never existed. It never needs to exist. Age gating isn't just virtue signalling. Age gating is actively enabling harm.
The current model is primarily prohibition and nothing for the rest of us….that’s very dangerous.
The current model is not "prohibition". The current model is "parental supervision".
You’re arguing that if it’s possible for groomers to get the data
No. I'm arguing that groomers are now required to collect the data. We used to be able to prosecute suspicious people for needlessly invading the privacy of others. With the current crop of laws, we require them to identify children.
You can’t just call every company who collects data a groomer,
Strawman. I didn't claim that. What I claimed is that every groomer who happens to provide a web service to Californians will be required to collect children's age data as of January 1, 2027.
I don’t agree that returning the internet to an unregulated hellhole with only user tools is the answer.
Supplanting user tools with centralized regulation is exactly what made the internet a hellhole.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I agree with others here when they say that age-verification laws aren't about children at all, and identification isn't a side effect, it's the raison d'être.
But if I were to earnestly try to solve the problem, I might look to the physical (non-online) world. In every part of the world I've been to, buying alcohol requires one thing; to be of age. So if you very clearly look of age, you are allowed to buy it. If you look younger, you may be asked to provide ID proving you are old enough. While some vendors may take additional precautions such as scanning your ID, it is not a requirement and most do not. They simply look at your ID to verify, then allow the purchase.
One could buy a physical verification token, like one might buy a gift card currently, and the purchase requires the same verification as buying alcohol. Imagine you buy a plastic gift-card-like item branded Roblox and they verify you are of age, when you sign up for Roblox you enter in the details of the gift-card-like item. You are verified to be of age, and no-one has any other details.
I think this is the best possible solution, great write up and explanation. A minor improvement would be to make the card some kind of OATH device to generate TOTP tokens rather than a single ID number, so that you can reuse the same identifying token in multiple places with no way to connect the token.
Edit: On second thought, I can't think of a way to make that work, without compromising privacy, and I can think of a few possible ways that the original idea could potentially go wrong, too. Still, I think this is the closest possible solution.
Oh, mine is a terrible idea, but maybe one of the least bad. I like your idea of making it reusable somehow.
On second thought, I can't think of a way to make that work, without compromising privacy
I'd say check out my top-level comment, and the link to the crypto Stack Exchange within it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is the precise question that Soatok discussed here: https://soatok.blog/2025/07/31/age-verification-doesnt-need-to-be-a-privacy-footgun/
Google recently published an open source library that proves a user’s age in a way that preserves privacy. This library is undergoing two independent security reviews, but should be production-ready in the near future.
If we’re going to force websites to implement some kind of age verification for adult content, we should demand the governments that pass these laws provide the zero-knowledge proof technologies to satisfy the law.
Full disclosure, I'm not a full time dev, but am in IT and do some minor software development work.
Here's my proposal:
Reverse the verification. Don't verify adults. Have extra actions to allow children to access the internet, and make it the legal responsibility of those adults that purchase the devices verify that a device given to a child can only access the child-friendly internet. We already have laws constructed like this and they work pretty well. Cigarettes and alcohol are largely out of the hands of young children. No its not perfect, but no system will be.
The default behavior of any device is full adult access. However, devices will have a service menu that you can put the device in child-friendly mode. However, it's a one way change. Once its in child-mode, there's no going back.
Then, sell devices that are able to access the internet only to 18 year olds and older. An adult can put the device in child-friendly mode and give it to a child. An adult can also let the child use their adult mode device when it is under the supervisor of the adult. Any child found unsupervised with an adult mode device will be treated the same way as if they were found with a fifth of whiskey or a carton of cigarettes. Any adult found giving adult-mode devices to children will be charged the same way as if they were giving alcohol and tobacco to children. Perhaps a repeat offender adult will have their ability to buy electronics capable if internet access made illegal for a time as punishment.
However, it's a one way change.
How would you implement this? It would require devices so locked down you could never replace or even update the OS on them.
The idea seems sound, but to implement this, hardware and software would have to go down a path they really, really shouldn't.
This idea is essentially incompatible with FOSS.
How would you implement this?
Hardware and firmware combination. Fusible link in the CPU would be the one-way change. Firmware would have to support the service menu option to burn the link forever setting the device to only access the child-friendly internet. The only change in the firmware be the menu to activate the fusible link burning, and later reading the registers where a binary state of "child friendly=0 or 1" exist.
It would require devices so locked down you could never replace or even update the OS on them.
What is child un-friendly about an OS? I can't see any reason why an OS would be labeled not-safe-for-children. I'd be surprised if debian.org or Microsoft.com would be considered child-unfriendly.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The short answer is yes, it can.
I actually think the best method is to put the onus on parents to parent in the way they think best, while giving them effective tools with which to do it. Parental controls should be baked into the OS, and sites should be required to hook into these parental controls via an API. The system could even have the capability, optionally, to block based on a crowd-sourced list, so it can still be effective against non-compliant sites. There would be no privacy problems, because no private information is ever shared. There isn't even a middleman who has to see any identification at any point.
However, if the goal is to have specific age verification that actually enforces age, it's still possible. I know of two main ways.
Here's the first: https://crypto.stackexchange.com/a/96283
It has the downside of requiring a physical device like a passport or some specific trusted long-running locally-kept identity store held by the user. But it's otherwise very good.
Another option does not require anything extra be kept by the user, but does slightly compromise privacy. The Government will not be able to track each time the user tries to access age-gated content, or even know what sources of age-gated content are being accessed, but they will know how many different sites the user has requested access to. And sites requiring age verification will not get access to any information they didn't already have other than the simple answer to the question "is this user old enough?" It works like this:
- The user creates or logs in to an account on the age-gated site.
- The site creates a token
Tthat can uniquely identify that user. - That token is then blinded
B(T). Nobody who receivesB(T)can learn anything about the user. - The user takes the token to the government age verification service (AVS).
- The user presents the AVS with
B(T)and whatever evidence is needed to verify age. - The AVS checks if the person should be verified. If not, we can end the flow here. If so, move on.
- The AVS signs the blinded token using a trusted AVS certificate,
S(B(T))and returns it to the user. - The user returns the token to the site.
- The site unblinds the token and obtains
S(T). This allows them to see that it is the same tokenTrepresenting the user, and to know that it was signed by the AVS, indicating that the user is of age. - The site marks in their database that the user has been age verified. On future visits to that site, the user can just log in as normal, no need to re-verify.
All of the moving around of the token can be automated by the browser/app, if it's designed to be able to do that. Unfortunately a typical OAuth-style redirect system probably would not work (someone with more knowledge please correct me), because it would expose to the AVS what site the token is being generated for via redirect URLs. So the behaviour would need to be created bespoke. Or a user could have a file downloaded and be asked to share it manually.
The AVS could also be private third parties rather than governments, if necessary. Since it probably relies on government ID, I think it's better for the government to do it, but technologically there's no problem with private companies doing it. They would still not gain any information about which sites you access. Only that a user with this ID card tried to access an age-gated site.
There's also a potential exposure of information due to timing. If site X has a user begin the age verification flow at 8:01, and the AVS receives a request at 8:02, and the site receives a return response with a signed token at 8:05, then the government can, with a subpoena (or the consent of site X) work out that the user who started it at 8:01 and return at 8:05 is probably the same person who started verifying themselves at 8:02. Or at least narrow it down considerably. Making the redirect process manual would give the user the option to delay that, if they wanted even more privacy.
The site would probably want to store the unblinded, signed token, as long-term proof that they have indeed verified the user's age with the AVS. A subsequent subpoena would not give the Government any information they could not have obtained from a subpoena in an un-age-verified system, assuming the token does not include a timestamp.
Contracts only for those 18 and older... So no internet for anyone under 18, or else the parents have to sign the contracts and take responsibility for their upbringing, etc... Oh, damn...
I'm not sure what you mean. Nobody's talking about contracts?
Absolute privacy? Not at all, the fact that I'm over 18 is personal information, you've all invaded my privacy a little bit by reading that. Absolute accuracy? Not at all, I have no idea how anyone would ever prove for sure someone's age. Any potential solution is going to about compromise. The real question is: How well can we verify someone's age well enough while preserving as much privacy as possible?
The best solution I've heard of, that hits a pretty good compromise, is giving the local device some indicator of the user's age, and allow applications or websites to perform a limited resolution query of that value, along the lines of which of several age brackets does the user fall into. The birthday can optionally be provided when the device is configured; a parent can set up a device for their kid, setting whatever value they want for the kid's age. A good implementation would make it quite difficult to extract or change that birthday value without admin rights, which the parents would keep.
If this sounds a lot like the laws in the news from California and Colorado, that's because it is. I think that they're stupid laws, but they describe reasonably good features for software. That law making effort should have been put towards banning the incredibly invasive and somehow also incredibly inaccurate use of AI image processing for age estimation.
How about we just don't.
Yes, that's what the California and Colorado (not sure about the others) implementations accomplish. Bare minimim exposure of data to consumers who want to verify you, without any need to expose additional data to trusted third parties. The burden of trust is placed on the device owner.
Yes, kind of. In a similar way that we can currently authenticate with OpenID. Basically something like a passkey could be issued by your government that would let you prove your (pseudonymous) identity (and thus age range) through their API to a website.
This wouldn’t allow for anonymous browsing, since the website would have to identify you, but it could allow for pseudonymous browsing, since the website’s identification of you could be just an ID number that is specific to them. They already track you with cookies, so it wouldn’t be any worse than we have now, except that it’s more unnecessary bureaucracy.
load more comments
(1 replies)
No.
Basically, as soon as a web service knows your age, they can tailor their content specifically for you. That's great when the service is Netflix and doesn't want to suggest R-rated movies to pre-teens.
That's not quite so great when the "service" is KidGroomer dot com.
Turns out that having machines automatically report the ages of their users is not such a good idea. Turns out that enabling groomers to identify children from adults is a fair bit worse than kids finding naked people on the internet.
We use used to have a privacy friendly solution that allowed parents to monitor their kid's internet use.
You just had to put it in shared area.
view more: next ›