←back to thread

EFF launches Age Verification Hub

(www.eff.org)
347 points iamnothere | 3 comments | 10 Dec 25 20:35 UTC | HN request time: 0.198s | source

Also: We built a resource hub to fight back against age verification https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/age-verification-comin...
Show context
pksebben ◴[11 Dec 25 20:45 UTC] No.46236900[source]▶
This keeps coming up and we keep having the same debates about what Age Verification isn't.

For the folks in the back row:

Age Verification isn't about Kids or Censorship, It's about Surveillance

Age Verification isn't about Kids or Censorship, It's about Surveillance

Age Verification isn't about Kids or Censorship, It's about Surveillance

Without even reaching for my tinfoil hat, the strategy at work here is clear [0 1 2]. If we have to know that you're not a minor, then we also have to know who you are so we can make any techniques to obfuscate that illegal. By turning this from "keep an eye on your kids" to "prove you're not a kid" they've created the conditions to make privacy itself illegal.

VPNs are next. Then PGP. Then anything else that makes it hard for them to know who you are, what you say, and who you say it to.

Please, please don't fall into the trap and start discussing whether or not this is going to be effective to protect kids. It isn't, and that isn't the point.

0 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/lawmakers-want-ban-vpn...

1 https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/vpn-usage...

2 https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2025-09-15/debates/57714...

replies(14): >>46236954 #>>46237349 #>>46237480 #>>46238016 #>>46238148 #>>46238925 #>>46240138 #>>46240141 #>>46240546 #>>46240662 #>>46240975 #>>46241941 #>>46242412 #>>46243136 #
1. thayne ◴[12 Dec 25 02:16 UTC] No.46240138[source]▶
I would much rather have laws that require that certain kinds of websites return machine-readable headers describing what kind of content is on them, and then browsers, web proxies, etc. could be configured by parents, schools, etc. to block undesirable sites.
replies(2): >>46240260 #>>46242801 #
2. wkat4242 ◴[12 Dec 25 02:35 UTC] No.46240260[source]▶
And really, a locally running AI could make that assessment pretty easily even if it isn't declared. No need to destroy the whole world's privacy. Unless that was the goal to begin with, obviously.
3. Terr_ ◴[12 Dec 25 10:39 UTC] No.46242801[source]▶
Recycling a post about reasons to do it that way:

> 1. Most of the dollar costs of making it all happen will be paid by the people who actually need/use the feature.

> 2. No toxic Orwellian panopticon.

> 3. Key enforcement falls into a realm non-technical parents can actually observe and act upon: What device is little Timmy holding?

> 4. Every site in the world will not need a monthly update to handle Elbonia's rite of manhood on the 17th lunar year to make it permitted to see bare ankles. Instead, parents of that region/religion can download their own damn plugin.