{"id":22927,"date":"2023-03-05T17:00:02","date_gmt":"2023-03-06T01:00:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.privateinternetaccess.com\/blog\/?p=22927"},"modified":"2023-04-18T01:21:21","modified_gmt":"2023-04-18T08:21:21","slug":"louisiana-adult-site-verification","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.privateinternetaccess.com\/blog\/louisiana-adult-site-verification\/","title":{"rendered":"Louisiana Mandates ID Verification for Pornography Online – 11 Other States Follow Suit"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Preventing children from accessing adult material is well-intentioned, but politicians and legislators often go the wrong way about it. UK, Australian, and German authorities previously investigated implementing measures to prevent access to porn sites without some sort of age or ID verification<\/strong>. It didn\u2019t work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That didn\u2019t stop Louisiana lawmakers from passing legislation that mandates online ID verification in early 2023. Inspired by the Louisiana porn restrictions, Eleven other states proposed similar bills, and in states like Virginia, Arkansas, and Utah they already passed the First Chamber.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Private Internet Access does not support this type of legislation and believes that collecting IDs for age verification is a recipe for disaster when it comes to data privacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where It All Started: Louisiana Adult ID Verification (HB142)<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Louisiana residents must provide their government-issued IDs to access websites that have more than one third pornographic material. This is because of the HB142 bill, which passed last year and came into effect shortly after New Years. Rep. Laurie Schlegel (R-LA) proposed it, and Gov. John Bel Edwards approved it in June 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bill makes websites liable for distributing harmful material to children<\/strong>. That said, harmful material appears to refer only to pornographic text and media. The second paragraph, presumably written by Rep. Schlegel, states:\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Due to advances in technology, the universal availability of the internet, and limited age verification requirements, minors are exposed to pornography earlier in age. Pornography contributes to the hyper sexualization of teens and prepubescent children and may lead to low self-esteem, body image disorders, an increase in problematic sexual activity at younger ages, and increased desire among adolescents to engage in risky sexual behavior. Pornography may also impact brain development and functioning, contribute to emotional and medical illnesses, shape deviant sexual arousal, and lead to difficulty in forming or maintaining positive, intimate relationships, as well as promoting problematic or harmful sexual behaviors and addiction.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The law doesn\u2019t affect all websites though. Platforms are required to verify their visitors\u2019 age, preferably through government-issued IDs, if they contain a \u201csubstantial portion\u201d of pornographic material. The problem is that \u201csubstantial portion\u201d is still not clearly defined. The law states:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Substantial portion\u201d means more than thirty-three and one-third percent of total material on a website, which meets the definition of \u201cmaterial harmful to minors\u201d as defined by this Section.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Websites with at least 33.3% adult material<\/strong> now require age verification. There\u2019s no clear indication how the porn percentage is determined, and no explanation as to why sites with 33.2% or less are fine. It also seems to assume that government authorities should be able to access all content on a site to determine whether it falls below the 33.3% threshold, which is a whole other can of technical worms.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 33.33% doesn\u2019t seem to be substantiated by much. It\u2019s a copy of the UK\u2019s Digital Economy Act\u2019s threshold. As a reminder, this act proposed to implement age verification for adult sites, and prevent children from seeing pornographic material. It was later dropped due to privacy concerns<\/strong> and technological limitations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Louisiana\u2019s porn restriction law doesn\u2019t seem to stir much privacy concerns among the general public yet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the meantime, popular adult websites like Pornhub already implemented age verification. Louisiana officials created a state ID verification app called LA Wallet compatible with driver\u2019s licenses. Rep. Schlegel advised tech companies to use it for age verification processes, which sparked some debate on whether a government app should have access to this data<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PIA does not support this law, as it\u00a0 poses significant concern over digital freedom and censorship. What\u2019s more, if effective, bill HB142 could be the forerunner for other means to restrict online access,<\/strong> not just for children, but for adults as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At a federal level, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) pushed Internet Obscenity Definition Act (IODA) and Shielding Children\u2019s Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net (SCREEN) Act in December 2022. The acts aim to define obscenity on a national level, and require all adult websites to implement age verification and restrict access to minors.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

IODA proposes to define obscene content based on the Communications Act of 1934<\/strong>. Given that the act is almost a century old, it might not be the best basis for laws in our digital world. With our current technology and practices, these laws inevitably mandate privacy-invasive features<\/strong> that can be exploited or abused.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eleven More States Push for Online ID Verification<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Louisiana paved the way for online ID verification, and since then multiple copycats of bill HB142 made their way into legislation. We\u2019ve seen this happen predominantly in the South with bills that mimic the same vagueness of 33.3% threshold.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

States Considering Online ID Verification<\/th>Bill Name(s)<\/th>Bill Passed First Chamber<\/th>Deadline to Pass<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
Louisiana<\/td>HB142<\/td>\u2714\ufe0f<\/td>Passed<\/td><\/tr>
Florida<\/td>SB 472<\/td>\u274c<\/td>May 5, 2023<\/td><\/tr>
Kansas<\/td>SB 160, HB 2301<\/td>\u274c<\/td>May 22, 2023<\/td><\/tr>
South Dakota<\/td>SB 192<\/td>\u274c<\/td>March 27, 2023<\/td><\/tr>
West Virginia<\/td>HB 3339<\/td>\u274c<\/td>March 11, 2023<\/td><\/tr>
Arkansas<\/td>SB 66<\/td>\u2714\ufe0f<\/td>May 1, 2023<\/td><\/tr>
Mississippi<\/td>HB 1315, SB 2346<\/td>\u2714\ufe0f<\/td>April 2, 2023<\/td><\/tr>
Virginia<\/td>SB 1515<\/td>\u2714\ufe0f<\/td>February 25, 2023<\/td><\/tr>
California<\/td>AB 1501<\/td>\u274c<\/td>September 15, 2023<\/td><\/tr>
Utah<\/td>SB 287<\/td>\u2714\ufe0f<\/td>March 3, 2023<\/td><\/tr>
Iowa<\/td>HF 489<\/td>\u274c<\/td>April 28, 2023<\/td><\/tr>
Kentucky<\/td>HB 476<\/td>\u274c<\/td>March 30, 2023<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Some states seem adamant on pushing the bill as fast as possible. For example, Virginia introduced it January 20, and passed it February 7 in the Second Committee seemingly record time. Since the bill passed both chambers within the established deadline, we now have to wait until March 27 to see if the Governor signs it into legislation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Utah also seems to be in a rush to pass its own bill. First introduced on February 3, 2023, the bill already passed both chambers. Proponents also claim that third-party verification would be safe enough.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Ben<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The state of Utah seems to go through a particularly rough time with bills aimed at regulating internet consumption. Sen. Michael McKell introduced SB 152 around the same time. The bill would force social media platforms to give parents access to their children\u2019s accounts. Worse yet, social media platforms would be responsible for not letting minors be online between 10:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Arkansas and Mississippi bills are also dangerously close to passing. At the opposite end of the spectrum, we have Florida and Mississippi claiming that, if passed, the law wouldn\u2019t go into effect until July 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other committees appear not to be convinced about the verification ID being reasonably implemented and preferred to defer the vote. This was the case with South Dakota, despite the bill\u2019s sponsor Rep. Castleberry\u2019s best arguments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

This is not your daddy\u2019s Playboy. Extreme, degrading, and violent pornography is only one click away from our children.<\/p>\nRep. Jessica Castleberry (R-SD)<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Proponents of the age verification bills have started to adopt the phrase \u201cpublic health crisis\u201d when talking about the effect harmful online material can have on young minds. This is the case in Arkansas and South Dakota.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lobbyists opposing the bill are wary of this term being used to instill a sense of urgency in passing the bills. The Covid-19 pandemic recently showed how emergency laws can be enacted to tackle a public health crisis. That said, we have minimal studies on the effects of pornography on teens and not sufficient data to classify the phenomenon as a public health emergency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By this metric, we don\u2019t have enough evidence these bills would have a beneficial impact on youth. But we do have evidence that their implementation would be a serious privacy concern.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Collecting IDs Is a Disaster for Your Privacy<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Sites like PornHub say they don\u2019t collect ID data. But the data age verification apps generate is very attractive to advertisers, data broken, and government authorities. By default, age verification systems collect a lot of data<\/strong> about you. Not only do they store your information like name, date of birth, and address based on government-issued documents, but they collect your every authentication.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This means that these systems know when you watched porn, gambled online, or accessed similar adult-only content. Despite promises that they don\u2019t trace your activity outside their scope, third-party actors can correlate that with your IP address <\/strong>and paint an accurate picture of your browsing history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We also need to consider the implications of security. Age verification systems need to be secure enough to protect user data and prevent data breaches. As the Ashley Madison data breach showcased, privacy is safety. Data breaches have tangible aftereffects on individuals and businesses alike.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Online age verification is a complex matter<\/strong>, laden with lackluster and inefficient proposals and implementations. These systems are either invasive like facial recognition and ID scanning, or easily circumvented like self-declaring the date of birth. With no palpable middle ground can these systems be effectively implemented to protect children online?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A 2022 study found that over half of parents are willing to make exceptions and let children bypass age restrictions provided they have oversight over how their children handle online content. While the study didn\u2019t look at adult material specifically, it does show that most parents feel safer determining their own rules and monitoring systems. Less than a quarter of parents felt comfortable with age verification<\/strong>, be it with their children\u2019s ID or their own. Parents overwhelmingly deemed it invasive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Intrusive digital regulations are a slippery slope. As champions of online freedom and security, we\u2019re committed to safeguarding our users\u2019 data. Federal and state legislation is more often than not ambiguous, so we\u2019re giving you the option to take matters into your own hands.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This credo fueled us to our 50 Servers in 50 States milestone. Private Internet Access<\/strong> lets you secure your data and protect your browsing habits with server locations in all 50 US states. We use 256-bit AES to encrypt your internet traffic,<\/strong> and keep you safer when you browse the internet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you\u2019re looking to access any type of content online with peace of mind, you can connect to our servers in US states not affected by age verification bills. We also provide servers in 83 other countries that you can easily connect to. Besides offering digital privacy, our servers have no bandwidth limitations, no data caps, and no restrictions on VPN download<\/a> speeds, so you can stay protected as long as you want. \u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Be Vigilant About Your Online Data<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Collecting IDs for age verification goes against PIA\u2019s mission to offer online security and freedom, and the privacy risks for individuals cannot be understated.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Online safety for children is a discussion everyone needs to have. The internet is riddled with digital threats and inappropriate content, and we should work towards building a safer experience for children<\/strong>. But this is a task best handled by families in their homes, not through pornography ID laws like in Louisiana. Even when legislation is leveraged for the purpose, its text should better define what is considered \u201charmful material,\u201d not to mention do a better job of protecting individuals\u2019 online privacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Parents that proactively have discussions with their children over online threats seem to have the right idea. Teaching children how to be responsible digital citizens enables them to have a sense of autonomy as opposed to blind restrictions. Unsafe features that pose privacy risks shouldn\u2019t be the price we need to pay for online safety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Parental controls, privacy settings, supervised social media accounts, VPN<\/strong> usage, and firewalls to block malicious and inappropriate domains are useful tools to protect your children in the digital age. It\u2019s not a law that will ultimately protect the children in Louisiana or in any other state, and adult Louisiana residents shouldn\u2019t have to expose themselves to online threats because of the content they consume. \u00a0Louisiana\u2019s porn-blocking attempts can cause more harm than good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n