SB648

I vehemently oppose considering age verification as outlined in this bill a useful tool to keep children safe: it is NOT the same as walking into an adult venue and presenting an ID to prove individual ability to remain in the space. I have read already from studies and articles that well-intended policing legislation such as SB648 instead leads to dangerous outcomes the send folks to lesser-known or less-monitored websites, creates a gross demand for pirated intimate material; and have seen minors use a parent’s ID anyway, since a computer program cannot be a bouncer at a club (who is looking at the person holding the ID and knows they are underage and attempting to use a fake). There are larger privacy and data risks involved for the general public, not only folks who search pornographic material, and I see this legislation questions the right to free expression which is thoroughly misaligned with New Hampshire’s insistence to ‘Live Free…’ It is the duty of a parent or guardian to keep their child safe while navigating the internet. There is no legislation that can directly replace the time and care needed to teach media literacy and online safety to our youth. There are tools on cell phones and computer devices (akin to child locks) that can and should be used in these instances, rather than passing bills that affect the public as a whole for an issue that is specific. I urge the committee to reject SB648.

I listened to the testimony today on SB 648, and I felt there was too little discussion of how the internet actually works in practice. Age verification bills, no matter the state, seem to do very little to stop minors from accessing adult material while creating real privacy risks for adults. Minors can visit sites outside the United States, including free tube sites, many of which do not follow U.S. laws. For example, if a site in Europe does not comply with a U.S. age verification law, minors could still access adult material there without even needing a VPN. Meanwhile, adults in the United States are being asked to hand over sensitive personal information online, often to third parties we know nothing about. One part of this bill I still do not understand is the percentage threshold. New Hampshire is proposing 50 percent. If I understand that correctly, a site like Reddit or Twitter would not have to verify age, meaning minors could still see hardcore adult content there without any age verification. I feel that really defeats the purpose of the bill. It just does not make sense. These bills do not appear to stop minors so much as push them elsewhere, often to less safe and less accountable corners of the internet. I have read quite a bit about device-based age verification, and there is also software parents can place on their children’s devices to block adult content. I have several friends who do this. Why not focus on a shared approach that includes parents, device-based tools, and responsible websites, rather than placing the burden entirely on adult sites, search engines, social media platforms, sex educators, magazines, sexual wellness websites, and others? A combined approach would make far more sense, especially if the goal is to protect minors without forcing adults to hand over sensitive personal information online.

I do not believe this bill protects children. Many websites outside the United States will not follow New Hampshire law, so minors may still be able to access this material. What this bill does do is create privacy risks for adults by requiring them to share sensitive personal information repeatedly in order to access adult content. A device-based approach may offer a better balance by helping protect minors while also limiting how much personal information adults have to share. https://cdn.icmec.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Digital-Age-Assurance-Act-Technical-Whitepaper-FINAL-Feb-07-2025.pdf

I am opposed to SB648 for the following reasons. All anyone needs is a VPN (Virtual Private Network) which are free these days; the individual visiting a pornographic website, their IP address is spoofed, and it doesn't look like the individual visiting the pornographic website is in New Hampshire. When the pornographic website is hosted outside of the USA (which a majority of them are). That pornographic website will not need to comply with this New Hampshire requirement. Thank you for reading this.

This age verification bill is nothing more than a way turn New Hampshire into a surveillance state

This bill is harmful to residents of the state and does not actually protect children, it restricts adults. Age verification should not be up to websites or services that can keep and sell the data (even though they aren't supposed to), but rather the ISP should be required to know the age of the user and filter the internet that way. In addition, parents should just parent their children without the government getting involved.

It will be an inconvenience to adults accessing the content.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.