Is age assurance a silver bullet?

Age assurance has gained attention in recent years and is frequently cited as an important step towards implementing specific legal measures relating to the protection of children online, such as the Digital Services Act (DSA). This may be true, but it should not be seen as a miracle solution, but rather as one measure in a wider toolbox needed to promote a safer experience for children online.

Age assurance is any mechanism designed to estimate or verify a user’s age (either a range such as 13-18, or a threshold below or above 18) using a variety of methods, including self-reporting, credit card or ID, facial age estimation, or behavioral profiling. Latest research from ECPAT International, Eurochild and Terre des Hommes Netherlandslargely 60% of children support online platforms requiring age verification.

At a time when digital policy debates have become unnecessarily technical and complex, age assurance is no excuse for barring children from most digital spaces. While necessary to implement the DSA, age assurance should not be implemented in isolation; it must be seen as a solution within broader measures to prevent online harm and empower children.

Despite the technical challenges, Age assurance mechanisms must respect children’s rightsPaying particular attention to the impact on participation and privacy rights; Effective and realistic.

First, to ensure that any age assurance tool fully respects children’s rights, it is important to ensure that it is proportionate to the risks and designed and operated in the best interests of children. A recent study commissioned by the European Commission It sets out 10 requirements that must be balanced when deciding how to implement age assurance, including proportionality, privacy, accuracy, non-discrimination, participation and transparency – but a balancing act is required. Proportionality Taking this into account may help determine the balance between accuracy and privacy (i.e., kid-oriented platforms may not require the same level of accuracy, and therefore privacy intrusion, as adult content platforms). Best Interest It may shed light on conflict resolution. There is a gap between participation and safety (i.e. safety needs may limit children’s access to mature content and therefore limit children’s participation).

Secondly, it is worth noting Primary Responsibilities Implement Appropriate age guarantees are provided by the service providerAs part of Duty of Care Age guarantees that online platforms have for child users should be legally required for services that may be accessed by children. However, this does not mean that platforms should process the data necessary to verify the age of users, especially given the sensitivity of children’s data and the possibility that it may be used for commercial purposes. Similarly, it does not mean that online platforms should process the data necessary for age verification. developing There is an incentive to minimize the cost of such expensive technologies, so they will not be adopted.

The Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) has been a pioneer in this field, Development of age verification prototype – An app that securely scans an official ID document and generates a digital token that can be provided to sites requesting verification. The token contains no information about the user other than that they meet the age requirements.Age assurance solutions are standardized and homogenized at European level To avoid asymmetries between member states.

In this complex environment, Eurochild highlights the need for a uniform age of consent across the EU and uniform GDPR guidelines on children’s data, and more importantly, to ensure that age assurance solutions respect children’s rights and are effective. Urgent need for technical standards It sets out minimum principles of data minimisation, privacy protection, data security and accessibility, and respects the best interests of the child.

For more information, Fabiola Bas PalomaresChief Policy and Advocacy Officer for Online Safety.