←back to thread

EFF launches Age Verification Hub

(www.eff.org)
351 points iamnothere | 4 comments | 10 Dec 25 20:35 UTC | HN request time: 1.119s | 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
rlpb ◴[10 Dec 25 22:08 UTC] No.46224574[source]▶
I'd be OK with an "I am a child" header mandated by law to be respected by service providers (eg. "adult sites" must not permit a client setting the header to proceed). On the client side, mandate that consumer devices that might reasonably be expected to be used by children (every smartphone, tablet, smart TV, etc) have parental controls that set the header. Leave it to parents to set the controls. Perhaps even hold parents culpable for not doing so, as a minimum supervision requirement, just as one may hold parents culpable for neglecting their children in other ways.

Forcing providers to divine the age of the user, or requiring an adult's identity to verify that they are not a child, is backwards, for all the reasons pointed out. But that's not the only way to "protect the children". Relying on a very minimal level of parental supervision of device use should be fine; we already expect far more than that in non-technology areas.

replies(8): >>46224965 #>>46225003 #>>46225048 #>>46225061 #>>46225433 #>>46236425 #>>46236866 #>>46241419 #
1. Epa095 ◴[12 Dec 25 06:30 UTC] No.46241419[source]▶
It would be possible to make a website which proxies other sites, but strips this header, right (maybe with some added ads)?

If so I would expect such sites to appear, and the only way to secure a child device is to have a whitelist of webpages (to avoid the proxies), putting us back close to where we are today.

replies(1): >>46241628 #
2. cocoto ◴[12 Dec 25 07:10 UTC] No.46241628[source]▶
Such sites would be illegal if not sharing the header back from the source website and be banned as much as adult websites incorrectly setting this header. It’s not a real problem.
replies(1): >>46241810 #
3. Epa095 ◴[12 Dec 25 07:44 UTC] No.46241810[source]▶
Making them illegal does not fix it. There will be a indefinite whack-a-mole game which is very hard to solve without draconian control over the Internet.

The problem is that it's easy to make, easy to deploy, easy to make money on, and a single site opens up the whole Internet. It will happen even if it's illegal.

Compare this to adult webpages setting the header. They will probably be quite willing to do so, since they want to make their money legally, and there is probably little money in serving to kids anyway. And even if a single out of thousand adult webpages refuses, it still only opens that single site.

replies(1): >>46242402 #
4. imtringued ◴[12 Dec 25 09:30 UTC] No.46242402{3}[source]▶
It's actually hard to understand on "which" side you're on, but a charitable interpretation is that you're arguing that there are no perfect solutions, hence a simple and minimal non-invasive method will probably have the same effect as a complex and invasive method. That is, both methods will add enough friction that children who don't know what they're missing won't bother and the ones who can't do without, will choose every conceivable method to get around the restrictions.

Worrying about the latter makes no sense, because they are sort of like organized crime. People still take drugs even though they are illegal.