Age assurance: scientific critique of online restriction initiatives

Scientific push against blocking of minors: since December, journalists from across Europe & Australia have asked me to comment on age-gating initiatives internationally to restrict minors’ access to online content, and at the CEDPO conference in 2025 I pushed back against a 5-person panel that was fully in favour of prohibiting minors’ access to social media. I have always stressed a few points:
(i) Minors have their own freedoms too, such as freedom of information.

(ii) Age verifications are notoriously difficult to get right absent government IDs – and even with official IDs, some verification methods are trivial to bypass (hello AI-generated ID card & “selfies”). Plus, government IDs often bring with them additional data protection difficulties (such as the prohibition by default to process unique national identifiers in certain countries).

(iii) When contemplating age-gating, consider the knock-on effects and the likelihood of the excluded population turning to *unregulated* platforms, basically a form of “shadow” platform or economy with many untrustworthy and unaccountable actors.

(iv) It’s very nice to say this is about protecting minors – but have we talked to minors? Have we asked them their input? And have we considered how switching from a full ban before 15-18 to full access after that age might look if there is no way of helping minors adjust? In which case – why not focus on awareness and education instead of a ban?

(v) Every adult has been a teenager and ought to know that to a teenager, “you’re prohibited from doing A/B/C” sounds like a challenge.

(vi) Bring in experts from a wide range of sectors, from psychologists to philosophers, before you engage in rule-making on this topic. It’s a complex one!

In a letter, 371 security & privacy scientists and researchers (from 30 countries) have now called upon world leaders to think twice before demanding “age assurance” on platforms such as social media.

To quote Bart Preneel’s summary:
1) Proposed solution is ineffective (large number of false positives, easy to bypass), while there is a high risk of function creep and abuse.
2) It undermines the essential protection of encryption, is disproportionate and undermines fundamental rights (similar to putting a camera in every room of every house).
3) Additional safeguards added in the new version are insufficient.
4) There are other measures that would be more effective in protecting children online.

The letter is well worth reading. I don’t personally agree with everything that is said, but the sentiment is one that consumer rights organisations, industry representatives and many others can get behind: when it comes to the protection of children online, there are no simple measures – and a ban is definitely not a good idea.

[The key measure in my view? Awareness & education. It’s not easy – I’ve been discussing online safety with my pre-teen kids for a while now – but it’s very important.]

Link: https://lnkd.in/ena9ejVy