# Is this the End of the Anonymous Internet? **URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/is-this-the-end-of-the-anonymous-internet/30090 **Category:** Videos **Created:** 2025-08-17T21:10:31Z **Posts:** 32 ## Post 1 by @jordan — 2025-08-17T21:10:31Z Age verification laws are unfortunately starting to come into affect around the world, this means that platforms are starting to request identification documents and facial scans from users. In this video we break down how age verification systems work, where this additional verification will be required, why giving broad control to the government to decide whether certain content is sensitive is a major issue and how it’s a huge threat for your privacy even if you’re an adult. This video is based on the fantastic article by @em that was released in May: [Age Verification Wants Your Face, and Your Privacy - Privacy Guides](https://www.privacyguides.org/articles/2025/05/06/age-verification-wants-your-face/) We wanted to get this out as soon as possible because there has been a lot of concern about this in our communities. I’m excited to hear what you all think about the video, let me know what you think :smiley: https://neat.tube/videos/embed/aR4toTWJpcBZamUdQQpGRu --- ## Post 2 by @jordan — 2025-08-17T21:11:10Z --- ## Post 3 by @beantaco — 2025-08-18T01:47:53Z Inaccuracy of age verification does cause its own problems, but I don’t think it is an issue we should focus attention on. This is easily rebutted by the pro age verification camp asserting “accuracy will improve.” Criticism of (in)accuracy is not a winning argument. Same for facial recognition technology. Instead, I believe we should focus on the personal/cultural/social/political harms of age verification technology on the assumption it works perfectly (100% accurate and foolproof) but still causes more problems than it solves. Further, I believe we should also consider these arguments with the possibility that “privacy-preserving” technologies (zero-knowledge proofs for instance) that never sends identity documents, face scans or other sensitive data may be adopted. There is an emerging “privacy technology” industry that is attempting to build “privacy-preserving” technologies. In that light, we should consider these “privacy-preserving” solutions may still leak information about people’s identities and activities (due to theoretical technological limitations, poor implementation or mis-assumption that age verification operators can be trusted), and adoption of these “privacy-preserving” solutions will be neither immediate nor universal and may remain niche. Personally I believe websites/operators confirming adulthood by asking “Are you over 18? Yes / No” and by blurring NSFW content are sensible/proportionate measures that websites/services can adopt if they have not yet. While without doubt “privacy-preserving” solutions are better than having people upload IDs, I think age verification mandates that go beyond should not exist at all. I think these points below could be considered, even if they cannot be pitched as winning arguments, and I’m sure others can think of more. - Human rights and civil liberties introduced by any form of age verification, particularly loss of privacy/anonymity and its consequences - Security risks of “non-privacy-preserving” age verification methods, particularly leakage of people’s IDs - “Protect the children” merely a pretext for more government power and control, particularly censorship - Risks of scope creep and abuse of age verification mandates - Flaws of the law/safety “both online and offline” argument, for instance flaws of the “it’s like showing ID at the liquor shop” analogy - Splintering of the global internet into jurisdictional boundaries, and complex cross-jurisdictional legal requirements/processes that websites/services must navigate - Exclusion of small website/service operators who cannot comply with age verification mandates, for instance servers of federated services like Mastodon and Peertube - Techno-solutionism: framing of age verification as the only viable solution - Framing and dis-empowerment of children, parents, schools and other guardians as irresponsible and incapable of taking care of themselves or their own children, instead of empowering them to do what they are supposed to do - Psychological/cultural normalization of permission culture, intrusive data collection and mass surveillance: routinely having your own face scanned or ID uploaded, requiring permission every time you visit websites, fearing every online interaction is logged/analyzed/aggregated/evaluated, etc. The above is just my opinion though. I’m curious to hear what others think. Other recent threads that discuss age verification. - [First Porn, Now Skin Cream? ‘Age Verification’ Bills Are Out of Control | EFF](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/first-porn-now-skin-cream-age-verification-bills-are-out-of-control-eff/25574/) - [Soatok: Age Verification Doesn’t Need to Be a Privacy Footgun](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/soatok-age-verification-doesn-t-need-to-be-a-privacy-footgun/29626/) --- ## Post 4 by @SwampTrainer — 2025-08-18T05:34:06Z As usual, a ton of this is predicated on: - Normal people know exactly zero about how technology works, especially things like zero knowledge proof systems. - Moral panic - Business opportunity via exploiting points 1 and 2 Just my opinion, but this is not going to go well for anyone. People who can’t stand the idea of being locked out of their walled gardens will comply immediately - early adopters who are not the typical early adopters of anything else. The bumps will be worked out on their backs, and as their data leaks. The Moral Panic element means that the “iT’s fOr tHe cHilDrEn!!!” crowd will demonize anyone like EFF who provides any sort of warning whatsoever. The irony of which won’t be appreciated until 20 years from now young people ask us “WTF were you thinking?” like with leaded gasoline or teflon pans. “Well, most people weren’t.” Scams are going to be the biggest problem, and scammers are already developing infrastructure to harvest the naive and unsuspecting. These systems are simply not designed to work with ID systems that aren’t already secured and 100% digital. If Estonia wanted to do this, then I would give it the time of day. It’s preposterous that I should show a hard copy document or submit to a facial scan and that should satisfy any sort of government compliance, both because it’s so easily faked by anyone creeping weird parts of the internet, and because the massive risk of identity theft is simply unacceptable. Not to mention the fact that some sites will simply not be able to comply, or not have clever workarounds in mind, and will just fold up, like [GamingOnLinux](https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/1hhyeil/the_gamingonlinux_forum_is_shutting/). Personally, I hope this site has workarounds in mind - like how I’ve posted about how my knees hurt and I’m starting to need reading glasses at my age. Find my subtle clues, algorithm! We all have the responsibility to educate our friends and family now about the risks, and to think up clever workarounds to achieve minimum effort compliance. --- ## Post 5 by @KevPham — 2025-08-18T14:49:52Z Too bad nobody is talking about personal responsibility out in policy circles. Why can’t we normalize encouraging parents to talk to their kids and monitor their behavior? Instead of handing out tablets to their toddlers, they should ACTUALLY monitor their internet usage and promote responsible behaviors. Underage persons will always find a way to circumvent restrictions. If parents actually talked to their children and encourage them to touch grass, maybe less will be stuck on social media, watch adult content excessively, or become radicalized on niche political forums. --- ## Post 6 by @judgeadam — 2025-08-18T15:10:50Z Weeeeeeeee! Slippery slopes are fun. When the UK started their BS I was telling everyone like a crackpot that sites are gonna just say f it - make it worldwide. Now with the Roblox Trojan horse here in the US being used to push renewed age verification bills we are cooked. Unfortunately it looks like the future at least for now so I’d def start making privacy moves. It’s gonna get worse before it gets better. Most ironic part? None of it is gonna protect any kids who wanna see porn just adults who aren’t tech savvy any anything big brother wants to make it harder to see. And, as always, it will make some people somewhere a TON of money as a cottage “age verification industry” pops up. Always comes back to money and control in order to make more money. Gonna come full circle and we will end up back on IRC where we started in 94 to get away from prying eyes in the first place. --- ## Post 7 by @dngray — 2025-08-18T15:45:43Z I think corporate compliance is going to mean as much for commercial platforms, fortunately there is good forum software like this one, so maybe a return to on-topic bulletin boards? To some extent I think that might be possible, of course the internet is a larger place than it used to in the 90s and so on. Fortunately we do still have chat platforms that are decentralized like Matrix, so even if [matrix.org](http://matrix.org) in the UK does something, like this, it won’t force every server to do the same. What will be interesting is if the UK then produces a piece of legislation that says you can’t communicate with any network which also doesn’t do verification, (like how would a service operator even know that) but I think that simply will be not feasible to police due to resources, imagine that for things like email :joy: . I think a lot will simply cave and provide their details as they’ve been brainwashed by years of “real name policy” being “acceptable” by companies like Facebook who want your data for advertising purposes. What can be certain is big tech is not going to “step in” and save us, that is not within their interests really anyway. In terms of parents taking a greater role in what their children see online, I think that’s doubtful. A lot either do not care and also don’t care for this legislation or are already taking the steps they feel are necessary. I also think a lot simply are too busy with real world problems such as cost of living issues etc to have the luxury to be spending a lot of time on this. --- ## Post 8 by @Atlas — 2025-08-18T16:03:11Z So, are we dealing with this sht just because parents failed on taking care of their children and now governments have to fill the gap? I find it pathetic. --- ## Post 9 by @em — 2025-08-18T16:09:11Z This is such an excellent video Jordan! I love it :green_heart: Thank you so much for making this and bringing more attention to this very important issue! --- ## Post 10 by @dngray — 2025-08-18T16:20:34Z I actually don’t think it’s parents at all, they’re simply too busy with other things. I think it’s two things actually: 1. Governments trying to find a useful scapegoat for extra spying apparatus. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies have bureaucrats which perceive any technical regard to privacy as a hindrance making their work more difficult with little concern for privacy protections or benefits. For example you **never** see them arguing that companies should be more responsible for data breaches, or the data they lose to hackers, eg harsher penalties for the loss of that data, except perhaps in the EU. 2. Companies who want to have useful identifiers to track users, to satisfy advertising industry. I think this goes hand in hand with enshitification is really a trend which is the result of the constant pursuit of infinite growth in business. Advertisers want to always make more and so do the companies with a product. They have a captive audience that are addicted and simply won’t leave in significant enough numbers no matter how bad it gets. --- ## Post 11 by @RottenLeader — 2025-08-19T02:19:12Z How about Japan ? Does Japan require verify age ? --- ## Post 12 by @Natha — 2025-08-22T00:53:19Z If you are based in the EU, you can still do something about it. > **[Fight Chat Control - Protect Digital Privacy in the EU](https://fightchatcontrol.eu/)** > > Learn about the EU Chat Control proposal and contact your representatives to protect digital privacy and encryption. --- ## Post 13 by @SwampTrainer — 2025-08-22T05:37:54Z It’s a bit of all of the above. Not so much scapegoat, but this is a moral panic hyped up such that it seems unconscionable to even question it, as you rightly note. The only redeeming part is that it’s really focused on large walled garden sites. All us folks out on the fringes are going to end up like the folks on the reservation from Brave New World. --- ## Post 14 by @nomad — 2025-08-22T12:13:44Z Sorry all I see now is parents refuse to parent and “I want to be my child’s best friend” approach it’s NOT something that is to be outsourced to some bureaucrat following a political agenda. --- ## Post 15 by @Natha — 2025-08-22T13:10:55Z Parents are very much part of the problem. One, they want schools to do everything for them. Two, they aren’t even educated about these things in the first place. --- ## Post 16 by @anon57862721 — 2025-08-22T13:24:59Z My bare bones attacking the logic with which the nation states are going about this is - not my children, not my responsibility, and not a reason to give up my freedoms for any “benefit”. The obvious response to this is “so you don’t want to save kids and want them to get hurt?”. Again a failed logical fallacy because not wanting one thing doesn’t mean wanting the opposite by default either. This entire thing is coming down to critical thinking skills of the populous, or lack thereof. Also the monumental ineptitude and illiteracy of the politicians pushing this or whomever more powerful is behind this onslaught against internet freedoms. – Don’t be sheep people: the goal is surveillance. Plain and simple. Fight now before freedom ends forever. The West is in reckoning and don’t realize how well they have had it compared to the rest of the world and learning this the hard way is not going to be pretty. --- ## Post 17 by @dngray — 2025-08-22T19:29:12Z > **[4chan will refuse to pay daily UK fines, its lawyer tells BBC](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq68j5g2nr1o)** > > The online message board's lawyers say UK safety laws shouldn't apply to a business based in the US. For once I actually agree with 4chan on something, what a whacky world. > Ofcom has previously said the Online Safety Act only requires services to take action to protect users based in the UK. With all seriousness though this is **exactly** how laws like this should be treated, refuse to do business in the UK market and remove services from them. The reason is because otherwise every other country will ask for “special treatment” regarding users of their country. It becomes a nightmare of compliance to run a website with many countries all wanting their citizen’s private information retained, and analyzed. The UK is a fairly small country, what if a large country like China or India wanted this? Even outsourcing the processing/analysis of that data for age verification purposes would likely have enormous costs to a site which runs off donations essentially. --- ## Post 18 by @tomasz86 — 2025-08-22T19:54:25Z > [@RottenLeader](#): > > How about Japan ? > > Does Japan require verify age ? Not sure about Japan, but these kind of systems have been in place in South Korea for decades at this point. You don’t only need to verify your age, you also need to verify your identity when you register on all larger Internet portals, forums, etc. (which is defined by the number of users), and the system confirms that you are who you are by connecting your phone number with your national ID (which are all stored in a database administered by the government). This applies to both Korean citizens and also foreigners residing in South Korea, so basically the reality is that you cannot anonymously participate in any activity on the Internet there (unless you just view sites without registering anywhere :sweat_smile:). In addition to that, you also cannot do anything without a valid phone number that is tied to your real identity. --- ## Post 19 by @mangomango — 2025-08-24T12:42:05Z Thanks for the video Jordan, it was good. I am also looking forward for your next video about the importance of privacy. --- ## Post 20 by @Carey — 2025-08-24T21:45:11Z I actually will be mentioning this on my podcast tomorrow - hope it brings you more people! --- ## Post 21 by @dngray — 2025-08-25T01:34:46Z > **[UK commissioner suggests govt stops kids from using VPNs](https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/19/uk_commissioner_suggests_govt_stop/)** > > : Dame Rachel de Souza says under-18s are laughing off the Online Safety Act’s age blocks VPN providers are not going to start asking for verification so that’s a non starter. --- ## Post 22 by @hiccups1980 — 2025-08-25T01:49:02Z It really scares me. I don’t want to send my ID to companies I don’t know. I’m 45 years old and don’t think I need to be mothered by the state. Why isn’t a data protection-friendly solution being sought here? There is parental control software available; parents could be educated and supported. Perhaps even an internet list could be compiled that is suitable for different kids age groups. No, instead, governments are relying on total suspicion and total surveillance. In any case, I hope the internet will fight for its rights. --- ## Post 23 by @dngray — 2025-08-25T01:50:24Z > [@hiccups1980](#): > > It really scares me. I don’t want to send my ID to companies I don’t know. I’m 45 years old and don’t think I need to be mothered by the state. You won’t and VPN companies are not going to ask for that information. They will simply treat the UK like some other repressive regime. The VPN industry is worth so much that they literally have money to burn on advanced deep packet inspection circumvention techniques so, the government again will lose with “blocking” in any technical means. --- ## Post 24 by @hiccups1980 — 2025-08-25T01:53:13Z > [@dngray](#): > > You won’t I’m from germany and EU is planning to implement the same BS as UK. Maybe with more privacy but if it will be private and secure? Who knows? > [@dngray](#): > > the government again will lose with “blocking” in any technical means. I hope so. :+1: --- ## Post 25 by @dngray — 2025-08-25T01:58:34Z > **[Fresh concern over ‘fat cat’ academy boss pay](https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/21504015.fresh-concern-fat-cat-academy-boss-pay/)** > > So-called ‘fat cat’ pay of some academy trust chiefs running schools in Suffolk has been called into question again amid calls for salaries to… > Dame Rachel de Souza, chief executive of Inspiration Trust, which runs East Point Academy in Lowestoft, receives an overall remuneration package worth £150,000-£155,000. The Norfolk-based trust runs 12 schools. [https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Salary/Children-s-Commissioner-for-England-Salaries-E620653.htm](https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Salary/Children-s-Commissioner-for-England-Salaries-E620653.htm) > The salary for the Children’s Commissioner for England has been reported as being between £120,000 and £130,000 per year, according to a [GOV.UK](https://apply-for-public-appointment.service.gov.uk/archive/announcements/1927) announcement, though [Glassdoor](https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Salary/Children-s-Commissioner-for-England-Salaries-E620653.htm) estimates it could be around £144,999 based on employee data. The salary can vary significantly by role within the organization. So that’s the busywork price the UK is paying for this alone person, not including all the work they’re creating for others. --- ## Post 26 by @beantaco — 2025-08-25T04:53:21Z > [@dngray](#): > > VPN providers are not going to start asking for verification so that’s a non starter. > [@dngray](#): > > The VPN industry is worth so much that they literally have money to burn on advanced deep packet inspection circumvention techniques so, the government again will lose with “blocking” in any technical means. How sure are you that VPN providers won’t either comply or withdraw from the UK market? The article claims the UK government has VPNs in their crosshairs. They may become reckless/malicious enough to add VPN restrictions when they see their grand “protect the children” plan failing. --- ## Post 27 by @dngray — 2025-08-25T05:55:00Z > [@beantaco](#): > > How sure are you that VPN providers won’t either comply or withdraw from the UK market? There isn’t much point existing if you have to tie an identity to all VPN accounts whether adult or child. It also opens the door for any other government to ask for exactly the same thing. Something obviously [Apple wasn’t keen on either](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdj2m3rrk74o). I do think this largely Rachel saying some stuff and being completely of her lane. > De Souza wants the government to explore technical solutions with providers to make sure the tools aren’t being used to evade checks. > > under-18s are laughing off the Online Safety Act’s age blocks Being the ex-principal she is, she doesn’t like it when people laugh at her authority. --- ## Post 28 by @dngray — 2025-08-25T12:22:44Z > **[Is 4chan the Perfect 'Pirate Bay' Poster Child to Justify Wider UK...](https://torrentfreak.com/uk-govt-finds-ideal-pirate-bay-poster-boy-to-sell-blocking-of-non-pirate-sites-250824/)** > > The UK may need a Pirate Bay-style poster child to gain public support for national blocking of non-pirate sites under the Online Safety Act. > You’re Either With Us, or Against Us Not surprising they want to make it such a binary decision. > In the event that the above fails to silence the troublemakers, the UK government has recently been discovered filing requests with overseas companies to delete posts made by UK citizens’ criticizing certain aspects of government policy. A United States Department of State [report](https://www.state.gov/reports/2024-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/united-kingdom), criticizing the UK government for degrading the right to freedom of expression, remains stubbornly accessible. > > Of course, attempting to silence the State Department would be a truly historic mistake, especially in the wake of comments made by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley. > > Last summer Rowley threatened to “throw the full force of the law at people” for unacceptable social media comments, warning that “whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you.” > > Widely interpreted as a warning to citizens of the United States, and by extension a direct threat to their constitutional rights, U.S. officials intervened. Congressman Keith Self warned that “harassing Americans will do absolutely nothing to resolve Great Britain’s internal issues” and risks damaging the US/UK alliance. Full on censorship coming to the UK. --- ## Post 29 by @beantaco — 2025-08-25T23:08:56Z > [@dngray](#): > > There isn’t much point existing if you have to tie an identity to all VPN accounts whether adult or child. It also opens the door for any other government to ask for exactly the same thing. Something obviously [Apple wasn’t keen on either](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdj2m3rrk74o). Then, if their hand is forced, VPN providers may leave the UK market. If this happens, it would be a major win for UK surveillance and censorship. However, what do you think of this possibility? Another possibility I see is the UK government could just criminalize VPN use by underage people. If this happens, the government and schools would then spread the warning that underage VPN use is illegal. This would stigmatize VPNs and deter would-be underage VPN users, while allowing VPN providers to operate in the UK; another step towards UK surveillance and censorship. --- ## Post 30 by @dngray — 2025-08-25T23:31:54Z > [@beantaco](#): > > Then, if their hand is forced, VPN providers may leave the UK market. If this happens, it would be a major win for UK surveillance and censorship. However, what do you think of this possibility? I doubt that, there are other ways to fight back. For example large US companies are appealing and putting pressure through diplomatic channels. For VPN providers - they simply can operate outside the UK. It’s not like restrictive censorship laden regimes don’t exist elsewhere in the world. > [@beantaco](#): > > Another possibility I see is the UK government could just criminalize VPN use by underage people. If this happens, the government and schools would then spread the warning that underage VPN use is illegal. Making something illegal doesn’t stop it. They then have to prosecute those cases and in the case of minors they will just do it anyway. All very expensive and not very effective. Further it would have the roll on effective diverting resources from investigating and prosecuting more serious crimes. Come election time the opposition will be very happy to point out what a failure the existing government was, should it ever take that route and not be dropped. --- ## Post 31 by @jonah — 2025-08-26T04:39:10Z > [@dngray](#): > > All very expensive and not very effective. Further it would have the roll on effective diverting resources from investigating and prosecuting more serious crimes. Thankfully, no government is like this :folded_hands: --- ## Post 32 by @anon39279085 — 2025-08-26T07:28:52Z While Japan is safe from both encryption and age verification it doesn’t mean things couldn’t change. To be honest I think that since crime rates are very low there is no “Protect children” justification here not mentioning the rights citizens have here including privacy. However the biggest problem with Japan is the justice system, the conviction rate is very high and the justice system is to put simply, more unfair than the US so if you’re threat model calls for law enforcement, for that it’s not the best idea. Nothing the last one has to do with privacy but it is important to point out, I’ve seen people who agree the justice system needs to change as thats not helping especially for false arrests.