Another Recent Real-World Example of Why Age Verification Raises Privacy Questions That Can’t Be Ignored!
- The White Hatter
- 1 day ago
- 3 min read
CAVEAT - The article that we will be speaking to in this posting did not get the coverage that it deserved, thus why we want to amplify it to the attention of parents and legislators.
In recent years, age verification has been promoted as a solution to protect youth online. Many lawmakers and advocacy groups argue that if platforms can simply confirm a user’s age, many digital harms will decrease. On the surface, that sounds reasonable. However, how age verification is actually implemented matters.
One of the more prominent companies operating in this space is Persona (1). Persona is widely used for identity and age assurance services and publicly presents its systems as secure and compliant with privacy regulations such as GDPR and CCPA. The company highlights frameworks like SOC 2 to support its security claims and states that it does not sell personal data. It also notes that clients have controls around retention and deletion of information.
Recently, an article published by The Rage reported that sensitive internal code connected to Persona’s system had been exposed online (2). According to the reporting, the code suggested that the system performs far more than a simple age check. Rather than merely confirming whether someone meets a minimum age requirement, the software reportedly conducts hundreds of verification checks. These include biometric analysis, facial image processing, IP address logging, device fingerprinting, and screening against various watchlists. It also referenced screening categories such as terrorism and espionage and data retention practices extending for years.
If accurate, that raises important questions about scope. Age verification is often presented as a narrow safety tool to protect youth and teens online. In practice, some systems appear to operate as comprehensive identity verification and risk assessment platforms.
So, why should this matters for parents?
Children’s Data Is Highly Sensitive
Many age verification systems request government ID, facial scans, or live selfie videos. Even when companies follow security standards, the collection of biometric data introduces risk. Data breaches happen, systems evolve, companies merge, sell, or change policies. Once biometric data is collected, it cannot be “reset” like a password.
Parents and caregivers should understand exactly what data is being captured and how long it is stored.
Age Checks May Go Beyond Age
There is a difference between confirming “Is this user 16 or older?” and building a deeper digital identity profile. If systems analyze device fingerprints, IP addresses, facial biometrics, and risk indicators, the process begins to resemble surveillance infrastructure rather than a simple gatekeeper.
That distinction matters. What begins as a child protection tool can expand into a long term data trail.
Safety Framing Does Not Eliminate Trade-Offs
Platforms often frame age verification as a straightforward safety measure. It can help with compliance and limit access to certain content. However, no technical solution eliminates online risk entirely. Age checks do not address algorithm design, persuasive features, or broader engagement models.
At the same time, poorly designed age-verification systems can introduce new privacy vulnerabilities. Parents deserve transparency about both sides of that equation.
The Parent’s Role Does Not Disappear
Even if age verification becomes standard across platforms, it does not replace parental guidance. Digital literacy, open conversation, and helping youth understand how their data is collected and used remain essential. Technology can assist, but it cannot substitute relationship-based parenting.
This example does not automatically mean age verification should be rejected outright. It does mean implementation details matter. Scope matters, oversight matters, and data minimization matters.
When proposals call for widespread age or identity verification across large portions of the internet, parents should ask thoughtful questions:
What data is being collected?
How long is it stored?
Who has access to it?
What happens if there is a breach?
Is the system verifying age, or building identity profiles?
Protecting youth online is important, but so is protecting their privacy and everyone else’s privacy.
As parents and caregivers, our responsibility is not to react emotionally to headlines, but to understand both the promise and the limits of the tools being proposed. Age verification may reduce certain risks. However, it may also create new ones if implemented without strict guardrails.
The goal should not simply be “safer by restriction,” but safer by thoughtful design, transparency, and accountability.
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech
References:
