Pre 4: Dynamic Coalition on data and trust: Stakeholders Speak – Perspectives on Age Verification

Summary

This EuroDIG pre-session focused on examining age verification systems from multiple stakeholder perspectives, exploring their effectiveness in protecting minors online while considering associated risks and alternatives. The discussion was moderated by Regina Filipová Fuchsová and featured panelists from the Internet Society, youth organizations, and academic research backgrounds. The session began by acknowledging growing concerns about social media’s impact on young people’s mental health, citing research showing increased rates of depression, suicide, and self-harm among adolescents since 2010, with Australia’s planned mandatory 16+ age limit for social media platforms serving as a key policy example.

Tatiana Tropina from the Internet Society outlined significant concerns about current age verification technologies, emphasizing that they create privacy and security risks for all users, not just minors. She highlighted how these systems require sensitive data like government IDs or biometric information, potentially exposing users to data breaches and creating barriers for marginalized communities who may lack required documentation. The discussion revealed that age verification tools could disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, including older adults, people without bank accounts, and those with disabilities, while potentially creating a false sense of security.

Youth representatives Niels Zagema and Paulo Glowacki emphasized that young people find many age verification methods invasive and creepy, undermining trust in digital systems. They stressed the importance of youth participation in developing solutions and noted that Germany has extensive experience with age verification systems, having implemented over 100 approved solutions. Researcher Natálie Terčová cautioned against viewing age verification as a silver bullet, emphasizing that children’s online experiences are shaped by complex factors including family dynamics, socioeconomic status, and individual circumstances.

The panelists agreed that effective child protection online requires a multi-layered approach combining education, digital literacy programs, parental involvement, platform responsibility, and youth participation in policy development. They concluded that protecting children online should not come at the expense of privacy, security, and digital inclusion for all users, rejecting the framing of child safety versus user rights as a necessary trade-off.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Age verification is not a “silver bullet” for protecting minors online** – All speakers agreed that age verification systems alone cannot solve the complex problems of online safety for children, and that current implementations create significant privacy, security, and access risks for all users, not just minors.

– **Privacy and security risks of current age verification systems** – These systems require collection of sensitive personal data (government IDs, biometric scans, financial information) that creates vulnerabilities to data breaches, tracking, and misuse while potentially creating a false sense of security.

– **Access barriers and digital exclusion concerns** – Age verification tools disproportionately affect marginalized communities, older adults, people without government IDs or bank accounts, and those with disabilities, potentially pushing vulnerable populations toward less secure parts of the internet.

– **Need for multi-stakeholder, holistic approaches** – Speakers emphasized that protecting children online requires a combination of digital literacy education, parental involvement, platform responsibility, youth participation in policy development, and improved platform design rather than relying solely on technical solutions.

– **Balancing child protection with rights and autonomy** – The discussion highlighted tensions between protecting children and preserving their privacy, autonomy, and right to access information, with emphasis on creating age-appropriate spaces rather than simply excluding children from online environments.

## Overall Purpose:

This was a pre-conference working session at EuroDIG examining age verification from multiple stakeholder perspectives (technical community, youth representatives, researchers, civil society). The goal was to analyze the challenges and risks of age verification systems while exploring complementary approaches that could protect minors online without undermining fundamental rights like privacy, inclusion, and digital autonomy.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently thoughtful and collaborative tone throughout. Speakers were critical of current age verification approaches but constructive in their criticism, focusing on identifying problems and proposing alternatives rather than simply opposing child protection efforts. The tone was academic and policy-oriented, with speakers building on each other’s points and showing mutual respect for different perspectives. There was a shared sense of urgency about finding better solutions that don’t create trade-offs between child safety and other fundamental rights.

Speakers

– **Moderator (Ramon)**: Remote moderator for the session

– **Regina Filipová Fuchsová**: Industry Relations Manager at EURID, session moderator

– **Tatiana Tropina**: Senior advisor at the Internet Society, involved in research, policymaking and capacity-building projects at academic institutions and with various consultancy projects for international organizations, civil society and think tanks

– **Niels Zagema**: Fellow and Dutch youth representative for European affairs at the National Youth Council, member of USDIG, advocates for the rights of young people in national and EU policy processes

– **Natálie Terčová**: Researcher and lecturer, European representative on ICANN’s At-Large Advisory Committee, chair of the IGF Czechia, focuses on children’s online experiences, digital skills, and online safety

– **Paulo Glowacki**: Member of EURID Youth Committee, holds a degree in international relations, currently pursuing a master’s degree in international law at the Geneva Graduate Institute, active member of the German Youth IGF

– **Audeince**:

**Additional speakers:**

– **Tapani Tarvainen**: From Electronic Frontier Finland

– **Torsten Krause**: From the Digital Opportunities Foundation in Germany, child rights advocate

# EuroDIG Pre-Session: Age Verification Systems – A Multi-Stakeholder Analysis

## Executive Summary

This EuroDIG pre-session examined age verification systems from multiple stakeholder perspectives, exploring their effectiveness in protecting minors online while considering associated risks and alternatives. The discussion was moderated by Regina Filipová Fuchsová, Industry Relations Manager at EURID, with remote co-moderation by Ramon. The session brought together representatives from the Internet Society, youth organizations, academic research, and civil society to analyze the complex challenges surrounding online child protection.

Regina opened the session by referencing growing concerns about social media’s impact on young people’s mental health, citing Jonathan Haidt’s research showing increased rates of depression, suicide, and self-harm among adolescents since 2010. Australia’s planned mandatory 16+ age limit for social media platforms, scheduled to take effect in December, served as a key policy example driving current debates. The discussion evolved beyond technical solutions to examine fundamental questions about children’s rights, digital inclusion, and the balance between protection and autonomy.

## Key Participants and Perspectives

The panel featured diverse expertise: Tatiana Tropina from the Internet Society provided technical and policy analysis; Niels Zagema represented youth perspectives from the Netherlands; Paulo Glowacki contributed insights from German youth advocacy; and Natálie Terčová offered research perspectives on children’s online experiences. Additional contributions came from audience members including Tapani Tarvainen from Electronic Frontier Finland and Torsten Krause from Germany’s Digital Opportunities Foundation.

## Major Areas of Discussion

### Age Verification as a Standalone Solution

All speakers rejected age verification as a complete solution for protecting minors online. The panelists agreed that current implementations create significant privacy, security, and access risks while providing false security.

Tatiana Tropina emphasized that age verification systems fail to address the complex nature of online risks, stating that the issue should not be framed as a trade-off between child safety and privacy rights. This perspective challenged the commonly accepted premise that protecting children online requires sacrificing other fundamental rights.

Niels Zagema noted from a youth advocacy perspective that young people find many age verification methods invasive, undermining trust in digital systems. Paulo Glowacki added that age verification impacts how young people access educational content and participate online.

Natálie Terčová provided research context, explaining that children’s online experiences are shaped by complex factors including family dynamics and individual circumstances that cannot be addressed through technical age checks alone. She also criticized the research methodology underlying some claims about social media’s impact, noting that “correlation is not causality” and that the scientific community has concerns with certain framings of this research.

### Privacy and Security Vulnerabilities

Significant concerns were raised about privacy and security implications of current age verification technologies. Tropina outlined how these systems require sensitive data such as government IDs or biometric information, creating vulnerabilities to data breaches and misuse.

The discussion revealed tension between GDPR’s data minimization principles and age verification systems that demand extensive personal information. Terčová highlighted this legal contradiction, noting that companies face penalties for allowing minors through age verification systems.

Paulo Glowacki raised concerns about transparency, noting that current age verification technologies function without clear understanding of their algorithms or decision-making processes.

Tapani Tarvainen from the audience highlighted a crucial paradox: children may need to browse the internet anonymously for their own protection, as requiring them to identify themselves to potentially harmful actors could increase rather than decrease their vulnerability.

### Digital Exclusion and Access Barriers

The discussion examined how age verification systems create barriers for marginalized communities. Tropina explained that these tools disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, including people without government IDs, those with disabilities, and individuals from marginalized communities.

Biometric verification systems were criticized for poor performance on people with non-white skin tones and challenges for people with disabilities. The speakers noted that pushing vulnerable populations away from mainstream platforms could drive them toward less secure parts of the internet.

### Legal and Ethical Considerations

Glowacki referenced the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which balances freedom of expression and access to information with privacy rights, suggesting children have rights both to protection and to access beneficial online content.

Terčová raised concerns about the developmental impact of requiring teens to repeatedly prove their age, suggesting this might feel invasive during a critical identity development period.

The discussion also touched on broader regulatory trends, with concerns expressed about proposed EU regulation that could expand beyond age verification into general surveillance.

### Alternative and Complementary Approaches

Rather than dismissing child protection concerns, speakers focused on alternative approaches that could address online safety without the drawbacks of current age verification systems.

Tropina advocated for adult websites to self-label with metadata, empowering parents to set appropriate device controls without requiring platforms to collect sensitive user data. She emphasized the need for multi-stakeholder development of international standards if age verification tools are implemented.

Digital literacy education emerged as a crucial complementary measure, though speakers noted this must extend beyond traditional classroom settings. Terčová’s research indicated that enhanced digital literacy and ethical values matter more than parental mediation, especially for older adolescents.

The discussion explored creating youth-specific safe platforms rather than simply restricting access to existing ones, focusing on age-appropriate environments designed with young people’s needs in mind.

### Technical Implementation Challenges

Torsten Krause from the audience referenced German experience with age verification solutions, describing double-blind mechanisms that provide yes/no answers without revealing user identity, suggesting that privacy-preserving approaches might be technically feasible.

However, this perspective contrasted with Tropina’s more skeptical assessment of current implementations. She emphasized that even improved technical solutions would require independent auditing with publicly available reports to ensure transparency and accountability.

### Youth Agency and Participation

A crucial theme was recognizing children and young people as active participants rather than passive consumers of digital services. Terčová emphasized not underestimating children, noting they will find ways to work around regulations and restrictions.

This perspective reframed the adult role from controller to guide, acknowledging that restrictive approaches may be counterproductive if they fail to account for young people’s agency. Zagema stressed that youth participation in design and regulation debates is essential but must be meaningful to avoid tokenism.

## Areas of Agreement

The speakers demonstrated agreement on several key points:

– Age verification alone cannot solve complex issues of child online safety and may create additional problems

– Multi-layered approaches combining technological safeguards with education and digital literacy are needed

– Meaningful youth participation in developing policies is important

– Current age verification implementations raise significant privacy and security concerns

– Trust is fundamental – systems that undermine trust may defeat their own purpose

## Points of Disagreement and Tension

Several areas of disagreement emerged:

**Parental Control Role**: Zagema expressed concerns about excessive parental influence on children’s autonomy, while Terčová noted that parental mediation works for younger children but older adolescents rely more on peers.

**Technical Solution Feasibility**: Tropina remained skeptical about technical age verification solutions, while audience members presented German approaches as potentially viable privacy-preserving options.

**Research Foundations**: Terčová explicitly criticized certain research methodologies regarding social media’s impact on youth mental health, despite the session opening with references to this research.

## Unresolved Issues

Several complex issues remained unresolved:

– How to balance child protection with privacy rights and digital inclusion

– Technical feasibility of privacy-preserving age verification systems

– Regulatory fragmentation across different jurisdictions

– Tension between GDPR data minimization and age verification data collection requirements

– Preventing over-blocking of beneficial content like health education resources

## Recommendations and Next Steps

The discussion generated several recommendations:

– Continue discussion at the main EuroDIG session

– Implement independent auditing of age verification systems with public reports

– Develop international standards through multi-stakeholder processes

– Focus on creating youth-specific safe platforms and age-appropriate digital environments

– Implement adult website self-labeling to empower parental controls

– Enhance digital literacy programs beyond traditional classroom settings

– Explore privacy-preserving technical mechanisms with transparency requirements

## Conclusion

This EuroDIG pre-session challenged simplistic approaches to online child protection while maintaining focus on keeping children safe online. The discussion elevated the debate from technical implementation details to fundamental questions about children’s rights, digital inclusion, and technology’s role in society.

The key message was rejecting false trade-offs between child safety and other fundamental rights. The speakers advocated for sophisticated, multi-layered approaches that recognize children as active participants with agency while providing appropriate guidance and protection.

The discussion demonstrated that meaningful progress on online child protection requires moving beyond technical solutions to address broader questions of digital literacy, social support, platform responsibility, and youth empowerment. While age verification systems may have a role in comprehensive child protection strategies, they should not be viewed as standalone solutions to complex social and technological challenges.

Moderator: My name is Ramon, and I will be your remote moderator for this session today. More information about the session and the speakers are available on the EuroDIG wiki, which I will share the link very soon. We encourage you to raise questions, and to raise your hand if you have any questions or if you want to present something. I’d like to ask you, if you have any questions, please put a cue in the chat and ask your question so that I can address it to the room. Before we’ll start the session, I would like to highlight the session rules, which are please enter the Zoom session with your full name. If you have to ask a question, raise your hand using the Zoom function. You will be unmuted and the floor will be given to you, and then you can raise a question. When you’re speaking, please switch on your video. State your name and your affiliation, and do not share any links to the Zoom meeting, not even with your colleagues, please. Let me just, there we go. Now we’ll send the information again in the Zoom chat, and I hand over to our moderator, Regina Fuchsová.

Regina Filipová Fuchsová: Thank you very much, Ramon, for the information. A warm welcome from me as well to this session. We are starting basically the EuroDIG Conference today with these pre-sessions on day zero, one of them being the perspectives on age verification from the viewpoint of different stakeholders. We are organizing it within the Dynamic Coalition on Data and Trust, and in cooperation with the Youth Committee of EURID and also the Czech IGF. My name is Regina Filipová Fuchsová, and I work at EURID as the Industry Relations Manager, and I will try my best to moderate the session today and give everybody space enough to raise the points and questions. We are concentrating on the various aspects of age verification as a measure to protect minors online. So let me please start with a brief note of what underlying issues are we actually addressing here. We have a bit more than the first decade behind us of experience with social media. So we can analyze the impact from different perspectives over a longer period of time already. Evidence from leading researchers across continents show a consistent link between social media use and a decline in young people’s mental health. And this is independent of local social context. Unrestricted access to social media exposes children to cyberbullying, adult abuse, image-based abuse, and illegal or age-inappropriate content. We are referring here, for example, to a well-known social psychologist, Professor Jonathan Haidt, and his book The Anxious Generation, where he writes that since 2010, tech companies have basically been exploiting our kids’ attention and mental health for profit. His research shows an evidence that between the years 2010 and 2020, the situation in the United States became especially alarming, and he documents it on data such as the high increase in suicide rate among adolescents or major depressive episodes, both very high for girls and boys in this age group, and also emergency room visit connected with self-harm, which rose for girls by 188%. percent in the decade, which is very alarming, and it was much higher than boys of the same age group. He also claims that the rise of phone-based childhood has contributed to four key harms, including social and sleep deprivation, attention fragmentation, and addiction. Acknowledging this situation, nonprofit organizations worldwide are already working to address the most harmful aspects of children’s online exposure with their missions to educate and also equip families mainly in the field of prevention of harm and also healing when the situation occurs. The minimum age requirements for social media access are now very central in regulatory debates, also in the European Union. Most platforms currently set the minimum age at 13. This is a threshold which can be easily bypassed, and it’s insufficient for protecting younger teens who are especially vulnerable to algorithm-driven content and also harmful comparisons. Australia is an emerging leader in this area. We already mentioned it in the description of this session. Its government plans to implement the Online Safety Amendments Act, which introduces a mandatory minimum age of 16 for certain social media platforms. This law is scheduled to take effect in December later this year. Since we are at EuroDIG here, we are, of course, interested in the possible response of European countries and the EU itself, taking into account the risks of regulatory overreach, which comes in attempts like this to regulate, or also opportunities for the right-respecting industry. communication, security of privacy and providing self-regulation. Age verification and the connected age systems should ideally ensure the balance from privacy rights and digital inclusion. What is important are the perspective and ethical considerations of the participants and the importance of the participation of the participants in enabling surveillance or exclusion of them. So we will focus today on practical issues and case studies as well, experienced by different stakeholders as our speakers represent a wide variety of them. Let me introduce to you our panelists and speakers. We have two persons here in person and two online. We have a woman from the Internet Society. She is a senior advisor in the Internet Society. Earlier she was involved in research, policymaking and capacity-building projects, both at academic institutions and also with various consultancy projects for international organizations, civil society and think tanks. Thank you for coming. We have on my right-hand side Niels Zagema, a fellow and Dutch youth representative for European affairs at the National Youth Council. So Niels is both a member of USDIG and also one of the Dutch young representatives for European affairs elected by Dutch youth through the Dutch National Youth Council. He advocates for the rights of young people in national and EU policy processes. Thank you for coming. And then online we have Natálie Tercova. Natálie is a senior advisor in the Internet Society and also a member of the Dutch Youth Council. She is also a member of the European Council on Human Rights. a researcher and lecturer. She serves as the European representative on ICANN’s At-Large Advisory Committee, and she is also the chair of the IGF Czechia. Her areas of focus include children’s online experiences, digital skills, and online safety. Hi, Nati. And our second speaker online is Paulo Glovacki, a member of EURID Youth Committee. He has been active in internet governance since 2022, when he first participated in the IGF in Addis Ababa. He holds a degree in international relations, and he is currently pursuing a master’s degree in international law at the Geneva Graduate Institute. Paulo is also an active member of the German Youth IGF, and yeah, and he is joining us today from Geneva, right?

Paulo Glowacki: Hello. Yes, hello, everyone.

Regina Filipová Fuchsová: Okay, so let’s dive into the discussion. I would like to start with an introductory question to all the speakers, and ask why is the topic of age verification important for each of you, for your organization or the stakeholder group you are representative of? And also, if you see the age verification as the silver bullet in protecting minors online. So can I ask Tanja to start?

Tatiana Tropina: Thank you very much, Regina, and thank you very much for having me and Internet Society on this session. Why is it important for us at the Internet Society or as a technical community as a whole? At the Internet Society, we believe that internet is for everyone. We work to make the internet open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy. And these are not just abstract values. Internet exists as a force for good in the society. It exists to improve people’s life. This is at the core of our mission. So when we look at the age verification tools as they are now, we do not see compatibility with open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy Internet. In fact, we believe that in the current way, shape, and form, Internet users around the world will be less secure with the age verification rule, with mandatory age verification tools. These tools do not affect only minors. They affect everybody, minors and adults alike. And we see several big risks that these tools bear if they are implemented as they are now. First of all, they introduce privacy and security and data misuse risks, as I said, not only for minors but for adults, basically for everyone. Another risk we see is the barriers for access to the Internet they introduce. And this affects the groups that already are disadvantaged, that already face these barriers for access, those groups who are already excluded somewhat, like older adults, like marginalized and disadvantaged communities. And overall, these risks can cause a chilling effect on the Internet use, on the everyday Internet use. And as I said, some of the groups could be affected very disproportionately. And at the end, when we see what is going on around the globe, We are right now at EuroDIG, but we have to think globally when we think about Internet as a global network. When various states, or stakeholders for that matter, start rolling out their own age verification solutions or start mandating them via regulation, it can create a patchwork of different approaches and different barriers. And at the end, it can disrupt the interoperable global nature of the Internet. And Regina and everyone, I know that this is only the introductory statement. I hope that I will have a chance to elaborate on these risks a bit more later in this discussion. But to wrap up, I just want to say that what Regina called a delicate balance between protection of minors online, which we absolutely appreciate and support as a very good goal, and privacy, security, and other rights. As currently framed, these solutions and this debate, instead of introducing a delicate balance, introduce a trade-off between security of minors and privacy, security of users, access. And it should not be a trade-off. We should not frame it as a trade-off. And a bit more on this later, I hope. Thank you very much.

Regina Filipová Fuchsová: Thank you very much, Tanja. Indeed, we will dive more in the risks as well of age verification systems. Can I now ask Natálie for her introductory statement? Thank you.

Natálie Terčová: Sure. Good morning, everyone. Hope you can hear me well. Let me know by nodding. Okay, good. Thank you. Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. Thank you. Perfect. Okay. So, first of all, thank you so much for inviting me to the session. It’s a pleasure. As Regina already correctly stated, I work as a researcher during my day job, and actually my topic of focus is digital literacy of children and youth related to their online experiences and also online risks. And in this case, age verification on the surface of it does promise a way to keep, let’s say, harmful online content away from children and those who are very vulnerable. And it really does matter to me because it forces also tech companies and us as a society to really do recognize that children and young people do need some unique needs online. end-users of the internet, and sometimes they need to be treated in a different way. And in this case, if we talk about age, it can be preventing an eight-year-old from wandering into a chat room, which is 18 plus, full of intimate content that could be not useful and maybe potentially harmful for someone that age, or making sure that a 10-year-old isn’t targeted with some, let’s say, inappropriate ads. And they know how to navigate their way in this. And in my academic work, actually, we did see a lot of psychological development role in affecting how kids really do interact online. So of course, we know that younger children are more vulnerable, and teens are, on the other hand, testing the boundaries and also trying to work their way around it. So of course, it is very good to have some, let’s say, gates in place, some barriers, like age checks. However, what is really, really important to say here, and I am drawing from not only my experience but from robust data we have from around the world from very well-known scientists and academics, the thing is that just eight checks cannot solve all the issues because what really really matters and has been proven many times is the role of family, the SES, the socio-economic status and also so many other little aspects like prerequisites that children come with to the online environment and these shape the experience they have online and another thing that really we should just very briefly remember is that whenever you restrict someone from something they will find their way to still access it but doing these detours and trying to find an alternative routes these can be really really dangerous so I would just not to be too long in this opening statement I just want to say that I do not see age verification as a silver bullet, I really believe that no single tool can be a silver bullet or an ultimate solution and we should focus very much on education, enhancing digital literacy but also wise parenting, parenting strategies, we know a lot about parental mediation and how these things really really matter and of course a good platform design but that is something I will talk more I guess as we go with the session. Thank you so much.

Regina Filipová Fuchsová: Thank you very much Natalie, so yeah it looks so far that it’s not like a one-word answer to the problems which we depicted at the beginning. Can I ask Niels for his introductory statement now?

Niels Zagema: Yes you can, thank you Regina. So I’m the youth representative for the Dutch National Youth Council which means I speak to a lot of young people also in classrooms and of course we hear a lot a lot about the dangers of the Internet, but we also know that online safety is an important priority. We hear from young people that they are worried, but as the Youth Council and as a youth representative, we don’t believe that age verification is the silver bullet. I also, to be honest, have not heard anyone say it’s the silver bullet yet, but maybe that’s because I’m in different circles. In fact, when implemented poorly, I think that age verification really undermines the right of freedom that makes Internet such a powerful space for young people, and nowadays the first remark about connectivity is negative, which is, of course, understanding, but the positive often gets neglected. I mean, first of all, I think young people do want safe and appropriate online environments, but I think we can get that through different means, and it’s not trading one evil for another evil. I, for example, was in a classroom, and I asked them, what do you think of age verification? They said, well, if I have to scan my face or upload a passport just to watch YouTube, first of all, that would feel invasive and a bit creepy, and it doesn’t really show trust. And I think, I mean, I agree with it personally, but it also shows that young people are concerned about the topic of age verification, but that’s mainly when you bring the topic to them, so not really by themselves, and also when in the media you hear a lot about age verification, and it can, of course, mean different things, has a lot of technical details, and therefore it’s also difficult for young people, but also, of course, broader society to form a general opinion. So to go back to the question of whether age verification is a silver bullet, I don’t think so. I think you can focus more on education beyond the classroom, on empowering youth to have those spaces, like create more safe spaces for young people, but I do think it’s a valid concern to be addressed, and I see both sides of the argument, but the most important for youth, I think, is that they can have trust in those systems, and that age verification can neglect trust or can make trust, and that’s a way of looking at it. How do we want to see young people have trust in those digital environments? So, thank you and I think move on to the next speaker which is Paulo.

Regina Filipová Fuchsová: Thank you very much indeed.

Paulo Glowacki: Well, thank you everybody for having me. First of all, thank you Natalie and Regina for the great collaboration in organizing this. I have to give a big shout out to those two and especially to Katrin Worasz who can’t be here today, but she was very helpful in preparing me on this topic because I’m a member of the EURID youth committee, although I don’t speak on behalf of EURID or the youth committee. But of course I’m engaged in these issues, but not an expert necessarily on everything, so she was very helpful in briefing me. Let me, after this preliminary remark, start out perhaps with our or my general statement on this issue saying that of course age verification is relevant because it directly imparts how we access, young people access, online spaces, but everybody accesses online spaces. But especially for young people, I think it’s relevant because we get educational content, entertainment, but even civic participation online. So really a large degree of our lives depends on the online spaces and from the perspective of German young people, especially those engaged in digital rights and youth organizations that I have talked to in the past couple of weeks, the debate is not just about protection, as previous speakers have already outlined, it’s really about striking this balance between safety and freedom, between privacy and participation, and really striking the balance where do we need it, right? Germany is sort of a special case in the world or in Europe as far as I’m aware and looked at it. I mean Australia is pushing forward now with the social media age ban, but Germany has had a very long history actually of at least age checks, also age verification in place for so-called high-risk content that can be gambling, pornography, etc. that is already restricted and providers are actually already implementing age verification measures. Now they’re not always mandated, but many providers have gone to do so. There’s a very vibrant ecosystem of laws, of actors, of regulatory actors in Germany. And that comes, of course, from the perception that we do need to protect children from harmful content online. But we also do need to avoid the oversimplification of the solution, really, right? Because it’s not the silver bullet, let me agree with my previous speakers on that. It can become a digital gatekeeping, as Tanja has outlined. But that’s perhaps why Germany has implemented this vibrant ecosystem of providers coming to the authorities that then can approve the solutions. And then only is it that they’re implemented. So trust and agency definitely matter to us. I mean, young people, we want to be involved. We want to be involved in the development of the solutions. But of course, we also want to be asked, how is this issue taken forward? And like I said, Germany can be considered a front runner on this issue, I would say. But it’s definitely a very complex regulatory landscape. We have certain laws, like I said, implemented. We have the German Commission for the Protection of Minors in the Media, known as KionM. We have another German Association for Voluntary Self-Regulation. So there’s really a vibrant ecosystem going on. And we have over 100 solutions already approved in Germany. So I think that shows that we’re sort of in another position sometimes, I think, in the European landscape, in the global landscape, where we come from. But I definitely share the concerns and also the hopes, perhaps, on this technology. Let me stop here.

Regina Filipová Fuchsová: Okay, thank you very much, Paulo. So I think we can move to have a closer look on the main challenges and risks associated with age verification. have been get through in the last two years.

Tatiana Tropina: In addition to IDs or biometric scans, it can also include financial accounts, for example, right? So imagine what kind of information is amassed there. And immediately it exposes the users and platforms who collect and store this information to the risks of security breaches, privacy breaches, data misuse. But even let’s forget about misuse and abuse. How can we ensure that this data is handled properly, that it’s not being sold to the third parties, that it’s not being used to track users? So when people know that they can be traced, and here I come to the word creepy yet again, they will be less willing to use very legitimate services. that put their efforts to perform the age verification checks. And I know that several speakers mentioned trust in the Internet, which is very important and which is declining. And this will just have this chilling effect further on the trust in the Internet. So the bottom line for me here when it comes to the privacy and security risks is that age verification technologies do not offer any holistic approach to make people or minors, rather minors in the first place, to be safe online. Rather, they can create false sense of security while creating various vulnerabilities in security and privacy. And in this regard, as a first step, I know that we are going to talk about solutions a bit later, but we believe that at a minimum, these age verification tools should be independently audited on whether they are actually compliant with privacy and security guidance with reports available publicly so researchers can access them. So this is on privacy and security risks. The second risk I mentioned was the risk of accessibility. And in this regard, the age verification tools can have a very chilling effect as well on everyday Internet use. I’m coming back again on what information is collected and how. Government-issued ID, financial accounts. Think about people who don’t have government-issued ID or they live in a foreign country and their government-issued ID is different from the government-issued ID readable in a particular country. Think about people who cannot provide their government-issued ID. government issued ID for any legitimate reason, it will affect them significantly. The same with the financial accounts. It sounds strange, but not everybody has a bank account. So these people will not use trustworthy services. They will probably go to very dark corners of the internet. And frequently, this is going to be people who are already affected by the lack of inclusion and lack of access. People who will not have bank accounts or government issued IDs would already be vulnerable population groups, marginalized population groups, and older people. When we think about biometric tools, camera, again, it sounds strange, but not everybody has a webcam or a phone with a webcam. We also know that these tools do not perform well on people who don’t have white skin tones. They can affect access for older people who will find the use of these tools challenging. You think that it’s simple, but for many, it’s not. It’s not simple for people with cataract. It’s not simple for people with health conditions like heart veins or people who are recovering from stroke. It’s not that simple for them. It’s a major access barrier. So in this regard, we believe that the access would be significantly hampered. And as the last point on accessibility, it’s not only about old people and marginalized population groups. It’s also about young people. Because when you think how the camera verification, how the biometric verification checks perform on young people, they have the range of several years. So some teenagers or young adults might also find it challenging. When the range is not clear, so it’s both for old people and young people. And finally, I said at the beginning that the Internet Society, we do care about interoperable globally connected Internet. And in this regard, the impact of all these access barriers, security risks, lack of trust can have significant effect. And as I said at the beginning, the more countries are going to roll out these programs of age verification, mandatory tools, we might end up with Internet interoperability being impacted, breaking on various layers. We believe that it does move forward. So, if I may say, the horse is out of the barn. We cannot unroll these tools. But if we look at the international level, we probably need international standards. International standards where stakeholders participate on an equal footing, developed in the multi-stakeholder manner, so all these risks can be factored, all these risks can be addressed and not simply framed, as I said at the beginning, as a trade-off. Let’s sacrifice this and that for the safety of the minors online. So, we do have to take this question seriously and develop the standards if it comes to that point that we agree that we have to have these verification tools. Then we have to standardize them properly. Thank you.

Regina Filipová Fuchsová: Thank you very much, Tanja. You did a really thorough analysis. I would just ask who from the speakers would like to complement this overview of challenges and risks. Maybe also it would be good to tackle some from the technical field, but also legal. But just feel free to add your comments, whoever would like to. Yeah, Niels? Okay.

Niels Zagema: I mean, it’s not the technical or legal field, so my apologies for that. But I do resonate with what Tanya said. It was very extensive. But what I noticed, what also reminded me of was the restriction that comes across with the administrative slump. I know a lot of people, for example, go to government homes and they’re treated as a number because they need a passport or they stand in line. I think this age verification falls in line with the broader movement where people are not treated as people, but as in a system where they’re treated as numbers. So I think that’s a connection to make. And it can also provide a false sense of security. So we say it’s OK to provide security, but does it actually do that? And if it is implemented, is that sense of security warranted? And don’t people treat it as something that is actually that bad? And another one is to know that there’s no such thing as a universal child. The needs of men, the needs of humans are different. And therefore, also, it’s different to put an age on it. But currently, you see that with social media, there’s an age limit, for example, of 13. But because it’s not really enforced, no one really cares about it. And therefore, there is not a discussion on what actually the age should be. And I know analysis is currently still going on for guidelines, what the age should be. But this is, again, dependent on the needs of children and the needs of persons in general. So it should be more flexible and not try to fit everyone into this box where they should be, cannot really be themselves. That was what I like to add. But again, thanks to Tanja for the extensive mention of the risks.

Regina Filipová Fuchsová: Thank you. Our online speakers do like to add.

Natálie Terčová: I can follow up if that’s fine.

Regina Filipová Fuchsová: Yes, please. Thank you.

Natálie Terčová: I think so. I want to say I admire the long list and I fully agree with what was said by my colleague before me. All these things are very important to mention. there’s a lot of bias going on also now with new emerging technologies especially definitely as was mentioned out the skin of the color medical conditions and stuff like that and all these things can definitely hinder people’s access to things so this is very good and thank you so much for mentioning this. I might add a bit on the legal and ethical aspects because it may seem a bit funny because we have laws like GDPR that push for stricter age checks to protect children protect kids and it does really sound great however how to verify age without violating privacy laws and GDPR calls for minimization so to collect as minimum data as possible and it also calls for privacy by design meaning you shouldn’t collect more personal data than necessary yet many age verification systems as we heard demand exactly that so as we heard the personal information IDs and all sorts of these things so there’s a very big tension between protecting children in our case but also protecting their data and everyone’s data and their privacy so of course on the other side of the spectrum on the other side of the barrier companies are also worried about liability if they get age verification wrong what are the consequences they could face penalties for letting a minor slip through or breach privacy regulations by storing the sensitive data or handling them badly and these things so it’s really legally a tightrope walk I would say and ethically it’s very important to mention something we know from the psychological research which is some form of a wrestle we have here with children’s autonomy because teens in particular are developing in this period their sense of self and privacy And it shows that if we would force them constantly to prove their age, it might feel a bit too invasive and send them a message that the privacy comes second. And this is something, this is a message we definitely should not send. So it’s definitely delicate balance. I wouldn’t say we should throw the idea out, but more to implement it in a sensible and rights respecting way. That would be my add on this. Thank you so much. And Paulo, if you want to compliment me, feel free.

Paulo Glowacki: Thank you very much. And perhaps drawing from my legal background, there’s a lot of, of course, documents out there that are relevant. But I would just highlight one, perhaps the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I think globally, that gives us a good standing. I mean, it has 140 signatories were ratified. And in Article 13, especially contains the rights to freedom of expression, access to information online, as well as the right to privacy in Article 16. So I think, of course, those rights need to be balanced and taken into account globally. There’s also a general comment, number 25 of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child from 2021, that highlights this relation between children’s rights in the digital environment. They’re also reflected at the European level. And of course, those are sort of risk mitigating, I would say, laws that we have or treaties, a treaty that is in place there. Now, perhaps at the European level, which is a bit more legalized and regulated even more. I see one challenge emerging on the horizon, which is the proposed regulation on to prevent and combat child sexual abuse, the CSA draft, which is currently under discussion at the European level. Nobody really knows where it’s going to go. But it contains the issue of chat controls. So really controlling minors chats and decrypting chats, that’s, of course, goes beyond age-related. verification. But that’s a huge issue. And perhaps what I’m trying to go here with is, if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail, right? I mean, the technology of age verification is not itself a bad technology, I would say. But the question is, how do we apply it? Right. And I think I fully agree with what Tanya has outlined on the privacy concerns, the chilling effect, I would add, perhaps the lack of transparency of most of these technologies, I mean, AI technologies, most of them, they’re black boxes, we don’t know how they function, the algorithms, we don’t know how they’re how they’re working. And then a common issue in content moderation always is over and under blocking, right? I mean, if we have, if we even if we do not implement age verification technologies, but just age, perhaps if we restrict content, we always have, you know, stuff being filtered out, let’s just look at, you know, perhaps useful sex education or mental health content, right, that could be beneficial to people who would otherwise due to their socioeconomic circumstance, not have access to this, that would be blocked, or could be blocked to them. So these are concerns that we need to continuously address, I think as we go. And of course, we have the issue that not everybody in drawing back to the legal challenges here, not every country has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Countries have reservations on this. So we do risk having a fragmented landscape out there globally. And the EU also needs to take this into account. I mean, that the Digital Services Act is yet another document that’s relevant here in Article 28, specifically targets children protections. So I think all of these need to be taken into account and balanced out really, because they frame the discussion in legal terms. So that’s what I would, I would add to that.

Regina Filipová Fuchsová: Thank you very much, Paulo. It brings us also to the never, let’s say, or everlasting discussion about the if online environment requires more or different measures and protections than the offline world. Maybe before we have a closer look to the, let’s say, the positive side of what complementary approaches could be considered, if there is some question from the audience, either in general or any of the panelists or online we can take them on. Please.

Audeince: Thank you. I’m Tapani Tarvainen from Electronic Frontier Finland. First, I must note I very much agree with the speakers, especially Tatjana has made the case very clear. But there’s one point I want to highlight that the main problem with age verification, at least, it seems that it seems to require identification of users. And that is dangerous in itself. Especially, it’s also dangerous for the children in question. If a child tries to access, let’s say, a site with age-inappropriate material, let’s put it that way, I would rather not have that site know that identity of the child. Because the site managers may not be, well, let’s say, might have some motives that are not ideal for the interest of the children. So especially children need to be able to browse the internet anonymously. Now, there are some technical ideas of how you could verify age without revealing the identity to that site in question, but that’s something we might discuss at some point. I would be curious to hear if you think those might actually work. There are some theoretical possibilities, but I don’t know if any have been implemented so far. Thank you.

Regina Filipová Fuchsová: Would you like to react, Tania? Thank you.

Tatiana Tropina: Yes, absolutely. Thank you very much, Tapani. I think that, Regina, what you said when you moved the questions, summing it up in a way like does. online world need the same solutions and protections as offline world? And I think it very much corresponds to what Tapani said. I think there are two layers of this question. First of all, if we perform verification in the physical world, should we perform verification in an online world? Because let’s be clear here, we do perform age checks in the physical world, right? A child cannot buy alcohol. A child cannot buy a pack of cigarettes. Does it mean that we have to transpose these ideas and solutions to the online world? And here, here the question becomes acute. Because in the offline world, the age verification is temporary. You show your ID or you don’t show your ID and you walk away. It’s done and gone. Online, the data is gone. It’s not you who are gone. The data is gone. And this is why I would say, no, no, we cannot equal these two. We have to factor in different risks. And this is what you said, Tapani. It can endanger those very children. It’s interesting. There is something that I made a note of when Natalie was speaking about platforms, providers, operators being at risk of fine if a minor slips through the age verification. And I understand the risk. The problem for me is that they are not at risk if they exclude an older person from access to legitimate services, if they exclude disadvantaged groups from access to legitimate services. They are not at risk of any fine. And this feels like a big inequality in terms of what kind of barriers and risks we are creating for our society. And also, we can… improve societal trust and protection in the physical world by performing age verification checks. But in an online world, in fact, from what I’ve heard, we’re not improving trust. We’re decreasing trust. We’re trying to solve huge societal problems and harms with only technical tools. And here, again, I would agree with Natalie that the problem has so many aspects than just looking at technology and this formalistic approach, this layer, where I perform verification and how accurate it is is just simply not working. Thank you.

Regina Filipová Fuchsová: Thank you, Tanja. We have another question.

Audeince: Hey, hello, good morning. My name is Torsten Krause. I’m coming from the Digital Opportunities Foundation in Germany, and it’s more kind of a statement than a question. I’m wondering, I’m aware that we are discussing this issue from different angles and perspectives, but I’m wondering if we are on the same kind of level in this discussion, because Paulo laid down in his remarks that in Germany, we have a longstanding history of age checks, more than 20 years, and more than 100 systems are in place in this history, and that’s, I think, what maybe is kind of hurdle to overcome here is we are discussing about the protection of minors, so keep children out. That’s also what’s discussed in Australia, and I don’t like this approach, because as a child rights advocate, I am in favor of the participation of children, and I think we have to go kind of a shift that age assurance mechanism and tools. can be a key tool or a kind of a precautionary measure for creating age-appropriate digital environments where not children keep out, but maybe we keep out adults to have safe spaces for children And when we compare it with the offline work like Tanya does, what I really like is, then we have such checks also you will see if an adult is going in a kindergarten, a safe space for children. You will see that it is not a person of the same age. Online, we don’t know if we have a chat room for children, which is meant for children, and if there are going adults on because they want to offend, for example. We will not recognize that. But age checks can be a tool to find a solution for this age-appropriate safe participation for children. I totally agree on the concerns with current mechanisms of these tools. We have barriers because not everyone has a financial account or a bank account. Not everyone has an ID. That’s true. It’s creepy to scan your face, and it’s not just creepy. From a child rights perspective, it’s totally invasive and not safe to work with all this data of children. But for me, I would like to see us not to stop here at this stage, but to think how to overcome these challenges and how to create tools that secure the privacy and anonymity of all users by checking their age and how to realize that. And the German government has developed such a system together with the Fraunhofer SIT. And a double blind mechanism, working with data that already exists, so there is no new data generated and in the end the service will just get an answer yes or no if the user, which the service don’t know, who is the user, if he should be allowed to go in this space or to get this content or not. And I think that’s the way we should discuss this, how to use it as a key to make the digital environment safe for us all by securing our privacy and anonymity and widen the participation of all users in the end. Thanks.

Regina Filipová Fuchsová: Thank you very much. It actually nicely brings us to the part where we wanted to discuss the complementary approaches and it should be considered which could achieve the same goals without undermining the rights such as privacy, inclusion and autonomy, what we discussed. So can I ask also the speakers to say their view, how these complementary approaches could look like. Paulo, can I be asked with you this time?

Paulo Glowacki: Yes, thank you. Thank you. Since I have to leave at 10, this will probably be my last intervention, but once again already thank you for the organization and for all the questions that we’ve received from the floor. Perhaps let me start out with agreeing with Torsten, thank you for bringing that up again. I think you’re much more an expert on this than I am. So if you stick in the room, please, that would be great. I think also shout out to the work you guys have been doing. Let me turn to the alternatives or complementary approaches that you have asked about, Regina. I think we’ve already brought them up a bit. Natalie has highlighted, I mean, platform responsibility, of course, is one issue. We have that coming with the DSA. I mean, it’s a question of implementation now, I think, legally speaking. And then I think a big issue or a big thing that we have had in Germany, as we have experienced with dealing with these issues for a long time in a rather unique way, perhaps, is also parental and community involvement, right? We have this concept of Jugendmedienschutz, so youth media protection, where we really have a variety of projects and models that combine regulation, but also education, dialogue with young people. I think that’s very, very crucial. Of course, parental control mechanisms could be much more helpful if applied in the apps. So where the issues arise, I think we should avoid pushing this issue down the technology stack onto the operating system level. I think that we really run into big issues there. And then, of course, digital literacy. I think that’s something that we have also pushed for as the Euro Youth Committee, as the Youth Internet Governance Forum Germany. We’re keen on collaborating on these issues. So please do reach out there. But I think it’s a very important measure to complement age verification technologies. And last but not least, youth participation. I think youth participation in the designs of these systems, in the debates of the regulation, I think that’s very crucial, because it’s also showing us where do we really need the protection. I think like Niels has said it, I mean, it appears creepy, but it only appears creepy once you bring the topic to the young people. I think it’s important to reach out and keep them involved. I think there’s, of course, lots of risks and lots of benefits out there. And I think thinking about it the way that Torsten has pushed us to think is, I think, very helpful in creating safe online. spaces for everyone, of course, right, without harming our privacy and data protection. I think I’ll leave it there. And once again, thank you, everybody, for being here and having me.

Regina Filipová Fuchsová: I actually cannot hear in the room. I don’t know if it’s only me. One, two, three. It’s much better if the button is red. I just realized. So I was just thanking Paulo for his contribution and attending this panel. And just good luck for your next lecture, which you have to join. And we will continue. So we don’t need to repeat what was already said for the alternatives. But maybe if you want to compliment or highlight some thing, Tanya, in this measure, because we heard a lot of like problematic aspects. So if you can offer us some light at the end of the tunnel from your perspective as well.

Moderator: Thank you, Regina. Yes, I know that I highlighted some of the ways forward already, like, for example, development of the standards in the multi-stakeholder manner or making sure that privacy and security guidelines are followed by this age verification system by making reports available and accessible publicly. I want to make one remark before I come to the solutions on what Torsten said. And that actually, I think, brings me nicely to my sort of concluding words about solutions. The idea of safe spaces sounds very, very compelling when we think about children and protection, protecting children. But we will have to bear in mind that, and you said it yourself, that safe spaces will again require age verification. So here we come again. How do we look at this layer of technology? And to me, the way forward would be to look at this layer of technology not separately from everything else. As a German, I have a huge belief in the ability of Fraunhofer Institute to create something

Tatiana Tropina: that would be bulletproof, absolutely, foolproof. I believe in it. The point that if we try to solve complex societal problem with technology, we need to look beyond technology. And this is it. We need to look at who is included, who is excluded, how. Can we solve, what kind of aspects of complex societal problems can we solve with this technology? And what we cannot, and this is why we will need complementary solutions. To wrap this up, I will come to technology. So when we look at this, at the Internet Society, we see quite a few examples that can be less risky and more privacy-friendly, more security-friendly. Examples of this is adult websites self-labeling with metadata, right? And this helps parents to set children devices in an appropriate manner to block access to this content. So instead of creating privacy and security risks, these tools empower families, empower parents to protect their children. And in a way, this responsibility is not only with the platform, it also includes a parent. So there is certain autonomy, I would say. So they are actors on their own as well. And with this, yes, I think all the solutions I already highlighted in my previous interventions, so I don’t want to repeat myself. Thank you.

Regina Filipová Fuchsová: Thank you very much. Niels, would you like to add?

Niels Zagema: Yes, I would like to add only, for example, the fact that, I mean, many people believe that the Internet was not really designed for young people, so I think of youth-specific platforms and not only seeing what to ban, but provide alternatives that are really safe for young people in which they can better navigate the Internet. And I like what Paulo said about digital literacy, because you hear it a lot, but I think we’re addressing two different problems, both with age verification, for example, with social media and more addictive content, and more harmful content like adult websites, and they’re both on the umbrella of age verification. So we also need to look for each specific problem what the solution might be. And again, with parental and societal control, I’m a bit hesitant about how parents can influence children. I think children should have more autonomy and have the right to develop as adults without the parental narrative. But there is a role for the parents and for society in general to say, okay, this is normalized, this is not normalized. And as an alternative to age verification, I think we can much better put blame or the harm on other sides of the story and I’m mainly talking about, for example, social media and not about the harmful websites. But that we really say, okay, there are alternatives, but are we really using them? So it fits in a picture that’s much broader than age verification, but about how we want to use the Internet and how youth-specific that is. Also, another point is that youth participation is often mentioned as a good thing, that we can create trust for young people, but bad youth participation kind of hurts the cause so I think it’s often also to look critically at how youth participation is done. done, especially with regards of, like, technical solutions such as age verification, and really have a critical look on it, okay, is this actually something that young people can agree with? So those, I think, are some alternatives and some remarks I wanted to make.

Regina Filipová Fuchsová: Excuse me. Yeah. Yeah. It’s not very inclusive here, at least not obviously for my age. Natalie, can we ask you for your viewpoints? Thank you.

Natálie Terčová: Yeah, thank you so much. I will definitely make use of my research field being on digital literacy with an aspect of parents that usually is there and plays a big role, and I’m very glad my previous colleagues and speakers mentioned this already. And this is something that really goes hand in hand. So what we know from a fact from various of longitudinal researchers, so actually some of the data that we see really does change in time, because this is something that we need to think about when we also hear all these alarming books and studies. And yes, I am a bit pointing at the opening speech about height. And honestly, this is something that in a scientific community, we do have some problems with his framing of things. And I’m more than happy to post in the chat later some of, let’s say, critics in the review of what he says, because causality is not, I’m sorry, correlation is not causality. And this is something we see a lot in his work. But enough of height. This just highlights what I want to say. One thing is that parents do play an important role in enhancing digital literacy, but this mainly works for younger children. But as children grow older and especially in the older adolescents, let’s say from 15 years old and later, they rely more on their peers for support and also some lifestyle choices when it comes to accessing various content online. So actually, in some of the studies we did that were longitudinal and parents were trying to, we say, mediate. So pretty much tell their children how to react online, what to access, what not to access and what types of risks they can encounter. We could see that even though they try and they really do as much as they could as parents, it does not really affect very much if they can actually mitigate the risks and if they do enhance their digital literacy levels. But there are some other aspects in place that play a more important role than parents, especially in this age group. But what really, really matters is the ethical compass and some of the values we pass on our family members, on our friends. Well, generally the kids and the young people in our area, because we can see, and this is something that was not done before as much, when people do encounter some harmful online content, and here I mean people as children, they have different outcomes of such encounters. Some even do intentionally search for them. And there can be various reasons. And in the past, we did not differentiate between the intentionality, if it is voluntarily or not, if this is something that just pops up and the kid is just surprised. Of course, in this case, it has negative consequences also on the well-being of the child and so forth. However, there can be various reasons why the child can be in a position that they want to search for a specific content. One example I had from… in-depth interviews with young people, they told me, oh, I was bullied in school, and I wanted to understand more why this is happening to me. So I was Googling cyberbullying. I was Googling even topics of self-harm because this is something that came to my mind. And I just wanted to understand, or maybe I wanted to find a community of people who can understand my situation. Maybe we can discuss these things. So there are so many layers behind how kids interact and what they want to see. And maybe at first glance, we would just categorize things into risky and or into beneficial ones, but it’s not so black and white. So what really, really matters is what types of values we share with them. If also they have us as the older people and parents, older siblings, if they do trust us, if they can talk to us whenever they encounter something that frustrates them, if it makes them scared, if they really know how to cope with these things. And all these aspects I’m now mentioning to you, they can all be somehow enhanced or learned with the help of enhancing digital literacy. So it really works in a circle. And I’m trying to explain it here, but please bear with me. It’s complicated. And also English, it’s not my first language. So please let me know if this really does not make much sense. However, really, really what we see is that we can do as much as we want for regulation, but we have to keep in mind that children or any end users, they are not just passive people who just enter the online environment and something happens to them and everyone react the same way and have the same outcomes. This is really not the case. And so I would say the alternative way is more like a toolbox of approaches. Once can come from us, from the family, the surrounding of the child. And then another thing would be definitely what Paula already said, all those digital literacy. programs, it doesn’t have to be from schools, it can be also from institutions, organizations that do care about this, libraries and so forth. So I will stop here, and thank you, I hope I did not take much of your time.

Regina Filipová Fuchsová: Thank you very much, very interesting, also with reference to the concrete research and statement of children, and it was also the aim of this session to involve different stakeholders, also youth participants to see the different perspectives. We have a few more minutes left, so we went actually through the introductory statements, highlighting the shortcomings of the age verification systems, we discussed quite extensively what risks are associated, and then switched to at least outlining some of the ways forward. It looks like us, and I mean us in a broad sense, cannot push away the responsibility for the safety of online environment here for the children, we cannot shift it fully on technology, technical companies, we cannot shift it away from us as a parent. It’s not easy, what seems to be the way forward, rather a multi-layered approach, which includes education, hand-in-hand with technological safeguards and social interventions, so a lot of work and discussion to do, and actually this session was meant as a warming up. discussion, a working session within one of the dynamic coalitions, and there is a main stage session on age verification later this week, I think it’s on Wednesday, where everybody is very much invited to continue the discussion. And before we conclude, I wanted to ask our panelists, out of what was said here and what we heard, what would be like the message that you would like the audience to take with them? It could be like the main, let’s say, challenge or also the main aspect of the way forward. What would you like everyone to keep in their mind when leaving the room? Who wants to start? Niels, you look like you are ready.

Niels Zagema: I wasn’t ready, but it was my fault, I was smiling. What I would like as an ending note is that I think age verification, as we’ve discussed, pretty much we’ve agreed that a lot of the downsides, but it’s dependent on transparency and the trust in the system itself. So what I would like to leave is that we should not see it as a silver bullet, but also put more focus on the broader system, and also I leave to everyone here in this room, when I hear about age verification, especially for example in news or in politics, people talk beside each other, people are miscommunicating about it because they have different goals in mind. So really be sharp in putting, that society knows what we’re talking about, and also that it can be a public discussion, and I think that the internet should be a place of high trust.

Regina Filipová Fuchsová: Thank you very much. Tania?

Tatiana Tropina: I think my main message would be that we cannot make children, minors, or young adults more secure online. by creating huge security risks, and including other groups of people who benefit also from open, globally connected, and secure Internet. We should never ever make it a trade-off. We should never frame it as a trade-off. Everybody should be safe online. Everybody should be secure online. Nobody should be excluded from access to the Internet. Thank you.

Regina Filipová Fuchsová: Thank you very much. Natalie?

Natálie Terčová: I would say don’t underestimate children. They will find their way how to work around the regulations and restrictions. They are not just passive consumers, and technologies and the Internet is just a tool, and it’s up to us or up to the children how they will use it. And they do have the full right to benefit from technologies and the Internet as much as we do. There are definitely risks offline, but there are also risks online. So let’s be here for them, be the guides for them, and make the most so that they can minimize the risks they encounter in their lives, but still make the most of the benefits that also technologies offer for them.

Regina Filipová Fuchsová: Thank you very much. This is definitely also a very important aspect to take into account. We are almost at the end of our session with the time, so if there is one or two comments from the audience or from online, we can still take it up. If not, then thanks a lot to our speakers. It was very interesting. Thank you very much. And let’s take this as an invitation to discuss the age verification and the connected issues, not only in the working groups and dynamic coalitions which are connected with this topic, but also later this week here at EuroDIG. Thank you very much.

Agreement points

Age verification is not a silver bullet solution

Speakers

– Tatiana Tropina
– Niels Zagema
– Paulo Glowacki
– Natálie Terčová

Arguments

Age verification is not a silver bullet and creates false sense of security while introducing new vulnerabilities

Young people want safe online environments but not through invasive measures that feel creepy and show lack of trust

Over-blocking and under-blocking in content moderation can filter out beneficial content like sex education or mental health resources

Age checks can help prevent inappropriate content exposure but cannot solve all issues related to children’s online safety

Summary

All speakers agreed that age verification alone cannot solve the complex issues of child online safety and may create additional problems while providing false security

Topics

Human rights | Children rights | Cybersecurity

Multi-layered approach combining education, technology, and social interventions is needed

Speakers

– Tatiana Tropina
– Paulo Glowacki
– Natálie Terčová

Arguments

Adult websites should self-label with metadata to empower parents to set appropriate device controls

Digital literacy education, parental involvement, and youth participation in system design are crucial complementary measures

Enhanced digital literacy and ethical values matter more than parental mediation, especially for older adolescents who rely on peers

Summary

Speakers consensus on need for comprehensive approach combining technological safeguards with education, parental involvement, and digital literacy rather than relying solely on age verification

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Children rights

Youth participation in design and regulation is essential

Speakers

– Niels Zagema
– Paulo Glowacki
– Natálie Terčová

Arguments

Youth participation in design and regulation debates is essential, but must be done critically and meaningfully

Digital literacy education, parental involvement, and youth participation in system design are crucial complementary measures

Children are not passive consumers and will find ways around restrictions, so they should be treated as active participants

Summary

All youth-focused speakers emphasized the critical importance of meaningful youth participation in developing age verification systems and related policies

Topics

Human rights | Children rights | Sociocultural

Privacy and security risks of current age verification systems

Speakers

– Tatiana Tropina
– Paulo Glowacki
– Natálie Terčová

Arguments

Age verification tools collect sensitive data (IDs, biometrics, financial accounts) creating risks of breaches, misuse, and tracking

Current age verification technologies lack transparency and function as black boxes without clear understanding of their algorithms

There’s tension between GDPR’s data minimization principles and age verification systems that demand extensive personal information

Summary

Speakers shared concerns about significant privacy and security vulnerabilities in current age verification implementations, including data collection risks and lack of transparency

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized respecting children’s autonomy and rights to access internet benefits while acknowledging their capabilities as active participants rather than passive recipients

Speakers

– Niels Zagema
– Natálie Terčová

Arguments

Young people’s autonomy and right to develop without excessive parental control should be respected

Children have full right to benefit from internet technologies and should not be underestimated in their capabilities

Topics

Human rights | Children rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers highlighted how age verification systems create exclusionary barriers and dehumanizing experiences, particularly affecting already disadvantaged populations

Speakers

– Tatiana Tropina
– Niels Zagema

Arguments

Age verification creates barriers for marginalized groups who lack government IDs, bank accounts, or proper technology access

Administrative burden of age verification treats people as numbers rather than individuals, similar to bureaucratic government processes

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasized the importance of balancing children’s rights to access information and privacy, referencing legal frameworks and developmental considerations

Speakers

– Paulo Glowacki
– Natálie Terčová

Arguments

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child balances freedom of expression and access to information with privacy rights

Forcing teens to constantly prove their age may feel invasive and send message that privacy comes second during critical identity development period

Topics

Human rights | Children rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Need for international standards and coordination

Speakers

– Tatiana Tropina
– Paulo Glowacki

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder development of international standards needed if age verification tools are implemented

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child balances freedom of expression and access to information with privacy rights

Explanation

Despite coming from different perspectives (technical community vs. legal/youth advocacy), both speakers converged on the need for international coordination and standards to address the global nature of internet governance challenges

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Infrastructure

Recognition of German experience as valuable case study

Speakers

– Paulo Glowacki
– Audeince

Arguments

Digital literacy education, parental involvement, and youth participation in system design are crucial complementary measures

German experience shows possibility of double-blind mechanisms that provide yes/no answers without revealing user identity

Explanation

Unexpected convergence on Germany’s approach as a potential model, with both speakers acknowledging its comprehensive regulatory ecosystem and innovative technical solutions as worth studying

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Trust as fundamental requirement for any age verification system

Speakers

– Tatiana Tropina
– Niels Zagema
– Paulo Glowacki

Arguments

Age verification is not a silver bullet and creates false sense of security while introducing new vulnerabilities

Young people want safe online environments but not through invasive measures that feel creepy and show lack of trust

Digital literacy education, parental involvement, and youth participation in system design are crucial complementary measures

Explanation

Unexpected consensus across technical, youth advocacy, and legal perspectives that trust is the fundamental issue – systems that undermine trust defeat their own purpose regardless of technical capabilities

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Cybersecurity

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged against age verification as standalone solution, with all speakers agreeing on need for multi-layered approaches combining education, technology safeguards, and meaningful youth participation. Significant agreement on privacy/security risks and importance of trust in any implemented systems.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles despite different stakeholder perspectives. This suggests potential for collaborative policy development that balances child protection with rights preservation, though implementation details may still require negotiation.

Different viewpoints

Role and extent of parental control in children’s online safety

Speakers

– Niels Zagema
– Natálie Terčová

Arguments

Young people’s autonomy and right to develop without excessive parental control should be respected

Enhanced digital literacy and ethical values matter more than parental mediation, especially for older adolescents who rely on peers

Summary

Zagema expresses hesitation about parental influence and emphasizes children’s autonomy and right to develop without excessive parental narrative control, while Terčová acknowledges parental mediation works for younger children but emphasizes that older adolescents rely more on peers and that ethical values matter more than parental control.

Topics

Human rights | Children rights | Sociocultural

Approach to creating safe online spaces – exclusion vs inclusion paradigm

Speakers

– Tatiana Tropina
– Audeince

Arguments

Age verification tools collect sensitive data (IDs, biometrics, financial accounts) creating risks of breaches, misuse, and tracking

Age verification should create age-appropriate environments where adults are kept out of children’s spaces, not just keeping children out

Summary

Tropina focuses on the risks and problems with current age verification approaches, emphasizing privacy and security concerns, while the audience member (Torsten Krause) advocates for a paradigm shift toward creating safe spaces for children by keeping adults out rather than restricting children’s access.

Topics

Cybersecurity | Children rights | Infrastructure

Feasibility and desirability of technical solutions for age verification

Speakers

– Tatiana Tropina
– Audeince

Arguments

Age verification is not a silver bullet and creates false sense of security while introducing new vulnerabilities

German experience shows possibility of double-blind mechanisms that provide yes/no answers without revealing user identity

Summary

Tropina is skeptical about technical age verification solutions, emphasizing their risks and limitations, while the audience member presents Germany’s technical solution as a viable privacy-preserving approach that can work effectively.

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Criticism of Jonathan Haidt’s research methodology

Speakers

– Regina Filipová Fuchsová
– Natálie Terčová

Arguments

Session aims to examine age verification from multiple stakeholder perspectives given evidence of social media’s impact on youth mental health

Children have full right to benefit from internet technologies and should not be underestimated in their capabilities

Explanation

While Fuchsová opens the session by citing Haidt’s research as evidence for the need to address social media’s impact on youth mental health, Terčová later explicitly criticizes Haidt’s work, stating that the scientific community has problems with his framing and that ‘correlation is not causality.’ This creates an unexpected tension within the session’s foundational premises.

Topics

Children rights | Human rights | Sociocultural

Degree of optimism about technical solutions

Speakers

– Tatiana Tropina
– Audeince

Arguments

Age verification systems should be independently audited with publicly available reports for researcher access

German experience shows possibility of double-blind mechanisms that provide yes/no answers without revealing user identity

Explanation

While both acknowledge the need for better technical implementation, Tropina remains fundamentally skeptical about age verification technology even with improvements, while the audience member presents existing German solutions as proof that privacy-preserving age verification is already achievable. This represents an unexpected split on the technical feasibility question.

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers showed remarkable consensus on rejecting age verification as a silver bullet solution and agreeing on the need for multi-layered approaches, but disagreed on the specific balance between technical solutions, parental involvement, youth autonomy, and regulatory frameworks. The most significant disagreements centered on the role of parents versus youth autonomy, and the feasibility of privacy-preserving technical solutions.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with high consensus on core principles but divergent views on implementation strategies. The disagreements are constructive and reflect different stakeholder perspectives rather than fundamental opposition, suggesting that collaborative solutions incorporating multiple viewpoints are possible. The unexpected criticism of the session’s foundational research (Haidt) indicates some underlying tension about the evidence base for regulatory action.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized respecting children’s autonomy and rights to access internet benefits while acknowledging their capabilities as active participants rather than passive recipients

Speakers

– Niels Zagema
– Natálie Terčová

Arguments

Young people’s autonomy and right to develop without excessive parental control should be respected

Children have full right to benefit from internet technologies and should not be underestimated in their capabilities

Topics

Human rights | Children rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers highlighted how age verification systems create exclusionary barriers and dehumanizing experiences, particularly affecting already disadvantaged populations

Speakers

– Tatiana Tropina
– Niels Zagema

Arguments

Age verification creates barriers for marginalized groups who lack government IDs, bank accounts, or proper technology access

Administrative burden of age verification treats people as numbers rather than individuals, similar to bureaucratic government processes

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasized the importance of balancing children’s rights to access information and privacy, referencing legal frameworks and developmental considerations

Speakers

– Paulo Glowacki
– Natálie Terčová

Arguments

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child balances freedom of expression and access to information with privacy rights

Forcing teens to constantly prove their age may feel invasive and send message that privacy comes second during critical identity development period

Topics

Human rights | Children rights | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Age verification is not a silver bullet for protecting minors online and creates a false sense of security while introducing new privacy and security vulnerabilities

Current age verification systems create significant barriers to internet access, particularly affecting marginalized groups, older adults, people with disabilities, and those without government IDs or bank accounts

There is fundamental tension between protecting children online and preserving privacy rights, digital inclusion, and internet accessibility for all users

A multi-layered approach is needed that combines technological safeguards, digital literacy education, parental involvement, and youth participation rather than relying solely on age verification

Children and young people should be treated as active participants with agency rather than passive consumers, and they will find ways around restrictions regardless of implementation

The responsibility for online safety cannot be shifted entirely to technology companies or technical solutions – it requires involvement from families, educators, and society as a whole

International standards developed through multi-stakeholder processes are needed if age verification tools are to be implemented to avoid fragmented approaches that could break internet interoperability

Resolutions and action items

Continue discussion at the main stage EuroDIG session on age verification scheduled for Wednesday

Age verification systems should be independently audited with publicly available reports for researcher access

Develop international standards through multi-stakeholder processes if age verification tools are implemented

Focus on creating youth-specific safe platforms and age-appropriate digital environments

Implement adult website self-labeling with metadata to empower parental controls

Enhance digital literacy programs beyond traditional classroom settings through libraries and community organizations

Unresolved issues

How to balance child protection with privacy rights and digital inclusion without creating trade-offs

Technical implementation of privacy-preserving age verification systems that don’t require identity disclosure

Determining appropriate age thresholds that account for individual developmental differences rather than universal standards

Addressing the fragmented regulatory landscape across different countries and jurisdictions

Resolving the tension between GDPR data minimization principles and age verification data collection requirements

Managing platform liability concerns regarding penalties for age verification failures versus privacy violations

Preventing over-blocking and under-blocking of beneficial content like sex education and mental health resources

Suggested compromises

Implement double-blind age verification mechanisms that provide yes/no answers without revealing user identity, as developed in Germany

Focus on creating safe spaces for children by keeping adults out rather than keeping children out of all spaces

Combine age verification with complementary approaches including digital literacy, parental involvement, and platform responsibility

Develop flexible age verification systems that account for individual needs rather than rigid universal categories

Empower families through self-labeling and metadata systems rather than mandatory platform-based verification

Ensure meaningful youth participation in the design and regulation of age verification systems

Implement transparency requirements and independent auditing of age verification technologies

We should not frame it as a trade-off. We should not frame it as a trade-off between security of minors and privacy, security of users, access. And it should not be a trade-off.

Speaker

Tatiana Tropina

Reason

This comment fundamentally reframes the entire debate by rejecting the commonly accepted premise that protecting children online requires sacrificing privacy and access rights. It challenges the binary thinking that dominates policy discussions and suggests a more nuanced approach is possible.

Impact

This reframing became a central theme throughout the discussion, with other speakers building on this concept. It shifted the conversation from ‘how much privacy should we sacrifice for safety’ to ‘how can we achieve both goals simultaneously,’ elevating the discussion to a more sophisticated level of analysis.

I would rather not have that site know that identity of the child. Because the site managers may not be, well, let’s say, might have some motives that are not ideal for the interest of the children. So especially children need to be able to browse the internet anonymously.

Speaker

Tapani Tarvainen (audience member)

Reason

This comment introduces a crucial paradox that hadn’t been explicitly addressed: age verification systems designed to protect children might actually make them more vulnerable by requiring them to identify themselves to potentially harmful actors. It highlights the counterintuitive risks of the proposed solution.

Impact

This intervention prompted deeper discussion about the fundamental contradictions in age verification approaches and led to exploration of technical alternatives that could verify age without revealing identity. It added a layer of complexity that forced speakers to consider unintended consequences.

I’m wondering if we are on the same kind of level in this discussion… I am in favor of the participation of children, and I think we have to go kind of a shift that age assurance mechanism and tools can be a key tool or a precautionary measure for creating age-appropriate digital environments where not children keep out, but maybe we keep out adults to have safe spaces for children.

Speaker

Torsten Krause (audience member)

Reason

This comment fundamentally inverts the typical framing of age verification from exclusion-based to inclusion-based protection. Instead of keeping children out of adult spaces, it proposes keeping adults out of children’s spaces, shifting from a restrictive to a protective paradigm.

Impact

This perspective shift influenced the latter part of the discussion, with speakers acknowledging this alternative approach and discussing how it might work in practice. It moved the conversation from purely critical analysis to constructive exploration of alternative implementations.

Don’t underestimate children. They will find their way how to work around the regulations and restrictions. They are not just passive consumers… There are definitely risks offline, but there are also risks online. So let’s be here for them, be the guides for them.

Speaker

Natálie Terčová

Reason

This comment challenges the paternalistic assumptions underlying many age verification proposals by recognizing children’s agency and resourcefulness. It reframes the adult role from controller to guide, acknowledging that restrictive approaches may be counterproductive.

Impact

This perspective helped synthesize the discussion’s themes about education, empowerment, and the limitations of technical solutions. It provided a philosophical foundation for the multi-layered approaches discussed throughout the session and influenced the final recommendations.

The problem for me is that they [platforms] are not at risk if they exclude an older person from access to legitimate services, if they exclude disadvantaged groups from access to legitimate services. They are not at risk of any fine. And this feels like a big inequality in terms of what kind of barriers and risks we are creating for our society.

Speaker

Tatiana Tropina

Reason

This observation exposes a critical asymmetry in how regulatory frameworks incentivize platform behavior, highlighting how current approaches may systematically disadvantage already marginalized groups while focusing solely on one type of harm.

Impact

This comment deepened the discussion about unintended consequences and social equity, leading other speakers to consider how age verification systems might exacerbate existing digital divides. It added a social justice dimension that enriched the overall analysis.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally elevated the discussion from a technical debate about implementation details to a sophisticated examination of underlying assumptions, unintended consequences, and alternative paradigms. The most impactful interventions challenged binary thinking (protection vs. privacy), exposed paradoxes (protection systems creating vulnerability), and proposed paradigm shifts (from exclusion to inclusion, from control to guidance). Together, these comments created a more nuanced conversation that acknowledged the complexity of the issue while pointing toward more holistic, rights-respecting solutions. The discussion evolved from identifying problems to exploring fundamental questions about children’s agency, digital rights, and the role of technology in society.

How can age verification technologies that preserve anonymity and don’t reveal identity to websites be implemented in practice?

Speaker

Tapani Tarvainen

Explanation

He mentioned theoretical possibilities for verifying age without revealing identity but questioned if any have been actually implemented, highlighting a gap between theory and practice

How can international standards for age verification be developed through multi-stakeholder participation?

Speaker

Tatiana Tropina

Explanation

She emphasized the need for international standards developed in a multi-stakeholder manner to address the risks of fragmented approaches across different countries

How can double-blind age verification mechanisms be scaled and implemented more widely?

Speaker

Torsten Krause

Explanation

He referenced a German government system developed with Fraunhofer SIT that uses existing data without generating new data, but implementation and scalability questions remain

What should be the appropriate minimum age thresholds for different types of online content and platforms?

Speaker

Niels Zagema

Explanation

He noted that current age limits like 13 for social media aren’t enforced and there’s insufficient discussion about what the actual age should be based on children’s varying needs

How can the tension between GDPR’s data minimization requirements and age verification’s data collection needs be resolved?

Speaker

Natálie Terčová

Explanation

She highlighted the legal contradiction between privacy laws calling for minimal data collection and age verification systems requiring extensive personal information

What are the long-term effects of different parental mediation strategies on children’s digital literacy and risk mitigation?

Speaker

Natálie Terčová

Explanation

Her research showed that parental mediation has limited effectiveness for older adolescents, suggesting need for more research on alternative approaches

How can youth participation in age verification system design be implemented effectively without tokenism?

Speaker

Niels Zagema

Explanation

He emphasized that bad youth participation can hurt the cause and called for critical evaluation of how young people are meaningfully involved in technical solutions

What are the liability frameworks for companies regarding age verification errors and privacy breaches?

Speaker

Natálie Terčová

Explanation

She noted companies face penalties for letting minors through but questioned consequences for excluding legitimate users, highlighting an imbalance in accountability

How do age verification technologies perform across different demographic groups and what are the bias implications?

Speaker

Tatiana Tropina and Natálie Terčová

Explanation

Both speakers mentioned performance issues with different skin tones, medical conditions, and age ranges, but more comprehensive research on bias is needed

What constitutes effective digital literacy programs that actually reduce online risks for different age groups?

Speaker

Multiple speakers

Explanation

While digital literacy was frequently mentioned as an alternative, specific research on what makes these programs effective was identified as needed