Age verification

I don’t know that there’s any other way to resolve this than to reach out to government and make a complaint. AI might figure this out. But for now, there’s really no way around it unless you get somebody to help you, which essentially obliterates your privacy.

A lot of people on this website jump to lawsuits. But in this case, we might actually have a worthwhile claim. We might have to go as far as to get a lawyer and sue the pants off of the government.(s). this might even eventually fall into a class action space.

This is going to be a interesting topic. Some would want you to give a picture of your lisence or in the US state ID. Not doing so. My info would be all over.

I really don't like the way this is going. If you do manage to complete this successfully somehow, does it then act as a key for everywhere or do you need to authenticate for each service?

For something like Spotify, I subscribe anyway so they have my card information. Does this count or do I still need to do this? I think one of the ways you can authenticate is by holding up a credit card?

This feels to me like the cookie warnings all over again but 10 times worse. What happens to my face once I've scanned it? Does it get stored on someone's server there? Is it handed over to ChatGPT for training?

I get why this is coming into force, and there are good intentions behind it I'm sure, but it feels like it is going to be hugely detrimental for most people.

Assuming it isn't going to be overturned, what I hope is that Apple can build something that works across my devices and once I've proved myself to Apple they can just pass an assurance onto other companies. I trust Apple to handle my data much more than I would some company I've never heard of.

I was reading a little more about this in relation to Spotify. It sounds like they may use algorithms to decide if you need age verification at all, and then it's apparently only to access mature content. But if you fail the check your account can become deactivated and even deleted if you don't take action soon enough.

I'm still unsure as to where the line is. Is it anything with rude enough words that it can't be played on the radio? Or does it have to be more explicit than that?

I was certainly able to listen to some potty-mouthed lyrics from Mclusky without being hassled. So maybe that kind of thing is OK. Or maybe it's not rolled out everywhere yet. Or perhaps Premium subscribers get away without this.

I'd certainly be interested to hear from anyone that has had this forced upon them.

In order to publish a book through Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing, you must verify your identity, and part of that process involves photographing your ID. I was unable to get through this process independently. Eventually my sighted spouse was able to help me through it, but it was a struggle even for her.

I contacted Amazon KDP support, told them I was blind, requested accessible accomodations, and was told sorry, this is the only way. I requested the issue to be escalated as it is a clear violation of the US ADA. Support thanked me and pledged to raise the issue internally, That was in May, and I haven't heard a peep since.

I don't see how this can work if you have to repeat it every time you use a single service.

That is going to make a lot of what we take for granted now a pretty miserable process. I'll need to get ready a few hours in advance if I want to watch something on my TV that might have a bit of coarse language on it.

It feels to me like this could result in a boom to online piracy as people try to find ways round this. Already VPN downloads are going through the roof although that won't last long I'm sure.

This is making me very anxious. I guess some of this will come out in the wash, and it is early days.

There are already a third party app for it but it got hack and people still use it. Do not recall the name.

I don’t understand where this whole ID verification process came from. Out of nowhere, companies are suddenly acting like verifying our identities is the new norm. What exactly are we doing here? You want my face now? You want my card? I’ve never used my real name or personal info online, and I rarely— if ever —use a credit card unless it’s for something absolutely necessary. If it’s a frivolous purchase, I use gift cards. Always have.

But apparently, this is all being rolled out under the excuse of “protecting kids from mature content.” Really? Come on. You and I both know kids today are way smarter than most adults give them credit for. Whatever you’re trying to hide from them—they’ll find it. They always do. What’s wild is that this shift happened practically overnight. YouTube, Spotify, Amazon—suddenly they all decided this was going to be the new model. Like they all had a secret meeting while we were sleeping. Now you’re telling me I’m going to have to verify myself? I’m not even living in the U.S., so I’m not sure if it’s going to hit my region yet, but it’s starting to look like this is the way things are going to go from here on out. Why? Why now? Why not 10 or 15 years ago? What do you think this is gonna solve by implementing this policy? Children have existed ever since the beginning of time. Like, which event triggered this? No warning. It came out of the blue. If the goal of this whole ID verification is to protect the babies, then what does that even mean? Should we ban fast food next? Kids can buy too much McDonald’s. You know, too much fast food. Totally rots the brain. Or maybe that should be regulated too. Or how about banning television altogether? After all, kids can watch content on TV that they’re not supposed to see. Sure, TVs come with restricted access settings, but so do online platforms. Should we also ban the radio? Someone could be listening to programs filled with government propaganda or content not meant for their innocent little ears. It feels more like they’re trying to figure out who is using which account. And once they have your name and personal information, it becomes harder for anyone to hide behind anonymity online. Maybe that’s what this is really about—surveillance under the mask of “safety.” Because right now, the logic doesn’t hold. That’s the excuse, but it’s a flimsy one at best.

Which brings up another question—if verification becomes mandatory, does that mean we’re all going to be forced to use our real names now? How exactly are they going to identify people using a screen name or a fake username? Nearly everyone I know online uses a nickname or a handle. Especially on platforms like YouTube. So how is that even supposed to work? Supposedly, AI will be the one determining if you’re an adult or not. Yeah, that inspires so much confidence. I saw the uproar on Twitter—people were furious, especially those who let their kids watch cartoons on their adult accounts. I don’t think it’s that deep. Would going incognito work? In this case, make a separate profile for your kids. That’s what YouTube Kids is for, right? Now, I get that not every service has a “kids version,” but come on—this isn’t going to protect anyone forever. And as someone who is blind, I’ve already had to give up far more privacy than I would like. It’s exhausting. Each platform requires a different verification method, and, according to them, your info is not stored anywhere, but we all know that the government knows how much you eat, sleep, and shower, long before even you know that you're going to do it, so, it's a mood point, I guess.

And don’t even get me started on that whole “we’re not going to monetize AI-generated content” policy. Do you honestly think it’s because they care about creativity or humanity? Please. It’s because they need humans to keep making original content. Why? So they can train their AI models. That’s what this is about. They want fresh, authentic, human-made data to feed back into ChatGPT, Gemini, and every other AI system. They don’t value your voice. They value your data . It’s not about protecting creativity—it’s about protecting their business model . Because AI can’t learn from content made by AI. It needs people—actual people—to keep the system growing. That’s why they’re trying to push people back into the content grind. So no, you’re not winning. You’re being harvested. I don’t know where all this is going, but one thing’s for sure: this isn’t a tech update. This is the beginning of a new world order. Guys, the end is near.

Control disguise as concern.

From my very limited understanding, this so-called protection policy doesn’t seem to be about shielding kids from explicit content. Based on what I’ve been reading, the way they determine whether you’re an adult or not has less to do with actual age verification and more to do with your content behavior. Let’s say you have a Spotify account or a YouTube profile, and you usually watch or listen to content that isn’t necessarily for kids—maybe animated videos or cartoons that are not intended for children. Then one day, you go to watch or listen to something explicit. That’s where the system steps in. The AI watches your activity, and based on patterns like “this account usually interacts with cartoon-style content,” it flags you as potentially underage. Then suddenly, you’re told to verify your age with ID.

But that logic makes no sense.

There’s a ton of content that falls into that gray area. Animation isn’t only for kids—adults watch it all the time. And what about adult artists who have a lot of young fans even though their content is not labeled explicit? Are their entire audiences going to be flagged? How exactly is this supposed to work? It seems backwards. They’re not protecting children—they’re monitoring your behavior. Watching what you consume. If it doesn’t line up with what they think an adult would normally watch or listen to, you get flagged. And if you don’t verify with government ID, your account could be deleted. That’s the new policy.

Some of these companies are getting too big for their boots. I don’t think this is about safety anymore. I think it’s about control. There’s obviously more going on behind the scenes. This feels less like a protection plan and more like the early stages of a new kind of surveillance state. A digital compliance system disguised as a child protection law. Where does it end? If you’re regulating what we do online, what about offline? Will we have to scan our ID to buy an album in a store? To hear a song on the radio? Are these policies going to bleed into real life too? Let’s be real: people will start using VPNs. Fake IDs will spike. It’ll create new problems while pretending to solve old ones. I’m not sure where this is going, but it’s starting to feel like a massive overreach. Maybe if enough of us stop using these platforms, or boycott the services enforcing this kind of monitoring, something will shift. Maybe new platforms will rise up that respect privacy again. But right now? I’m confused. I don’t know what this is turning into, and that scares me more than any so-called “explicit” song ever could.

One thing that confuses me is that you are only going to be asked by Spotify to do this if you try to access certain content. Yet at that point if you fail to complete the process your account may be deactivated and later deleted.

I don't understand why this is so heavy handed. Sure if I don't manage to verify then I understand if the content I was trying to access is going to be blocked to me, but why should I be unable to access anything at all in the case?

If my Spotify account gets deleted, that will be the final straw. I am going to throw all my electronic equipment off the nearest bridge and go live in a cave.

Sorry if I'm being thick, but how exactly does this benefit a company like Spotify?

Before this law, all these companies like Spotify and YouTube have been constantly tracking our behaviour and storing who knows what data about us.

So what extra data are they collecting here? My worry is not that Spotify have my face or ID, more that some random other company does and I don't know who they are let alone trust them with a copy of my passport or face.

In Spotify's case, if they are going to end up deactivating and deleting accounts, not to mention the bad press this whole thing is going to get, then I can't see how this really benefits them. They will lose business from it, guaranteed.

I would imagine that at some point we will end up with some kind of virtual ID probably owned by the Government. So we prove ourselves to them, and then that's the only thing passed around. That makes more sense to me and feels less intrusive. However, we all know how good the Government is at keeping hold of sensitive data and not infringing on our civil liberties.

I'm not in the UK but if this reaches over to the US which it's looking like, no no and, more, no! Nobody is getting my ID if AI claims that I'm not over 18. I'll be putting a stand to stop this as many of us in the US are going to do! I don't get why this even needs to be a thing in the first place! The internet is not responsible for children. The parents should take full responsibility to have their devices locked down when needed! If online services and websites are gunna be doing this and if even one of them pulls this on me I'll no longer use any, of their stuff! I would say more of what I'd think but I'm not bout to get political, as much as this topic is already is in the first place Lol.

Of course I have no concrete proof of this, but my thoughts are going like this:
• Use systems like this "Age Verification" to collect marketing data under the guise of "protecting children from illicit content".
• Sell data to shady marketing companies who will gladly pay top dollar for this information in order to turn around and spam you with marketing ads.
• Send out a ton of emails soliciting consumer goods and services in the form of marketing ads.
• Profit!

As someone who has a free Spotify account, I already get quite a bit of email adverts from Spotify about upcoming concerts, merch I absolutely, must, buy, etc. I imagine for those of you being forced into this new system, the adverts are going to double, at the very least.

AnyWho, just my 2¢.

Privacy is important, sure—but let’s not pretend the government doesn’t already know everything about you, whether you gave them permission or not. These companies already know your information, and even if they don't, they will make something up once it fits their agenda. It's only because they choose to not act on it since it's not beneficial to them yet. It’s smart to protect yourself and your assets, absolutely, but beyond your face and your ID, what makes you think they don’t already have copies of everything about you stored somewhere? The truth is, we’ve already been sold into a form of modern slavery, and the scariest part is most people don’t even realize it. As someone who’s blind, I understand wanting more privacy than someone who can see. But the moment you go to the mall, the park, or any public space, cameras already have access to your face. You upload a photo, a video, or maybe you’re caught in the background of someone else’s post—you’ve been captured. Not to mention satellites. Good luck hiding from those. Companies say they care about consent, but really, it’s not a question of if you’ll comply with their rules—it’s a question of when compliance becomes mandatory. The investors and corporate heads don’t worry. They already have access to everything that matters: your time, your energy, your money, your attention, your data, and your decisions. Whether they know you or the version they think they’ve built from your digital trail, they don’t care. If you don’t give them what they want willingly, they’ll put you in a position where you don’t have a choice.

Sure, you could throw your phone into a lake, pack up your stuff, and run off to the middle of nowhere with a few alpacas—but let’s be honest: can you live without Spotify, Netflix, Uber Eats, Amazon Fresh, Instacart? If you’re not giving up your information today, they’ll corner you into doing it tomorrow. It’s only a matter of time before you’ll need to show ID in the form of a polygraph test to buy groceries, watch a movie, go swimming, or enter a club. Cancel all your subscriptions if you want, but they already know you won’t. And even if you do, they’ve still got millions who won’t. The people at the top already made their money. They don’t even want actual people anymore. Haven’t you noticed? Look around—more and more companies are pushing for artificial intelligence to take over. But if you’re replacing all your workers with AI, who exactly do you think is going to keep buying your products and services? Is money going to become a display item—a dusty dinosaur relic of the past that rich people collect and admire in glass cases, rather than actually spend?

We’re heading toward a high-tech barter system. Only now, the product being traded is human attention, human energy, human behavior. People themselves are the commodity. And for all our talk of leaving, disconnecting, and escaping—it’s all talk. These companies know that. They know most people will come crawling back. Even if they need us for their business, they need us in a way that we will never need them. And that’s the part that should scare you the most. Instead of moving forwards, the world is only moving backwards.

If they want privacy protection, they can use our face ID in our devices to confirm who we are and not to leave to the net. In our contact we have our info and age and so on. If they want to confirm something just scann our face ID or finger print and leave it at that. I am not going to load any info about me. Do not trust third party apps or google or whoever. This will not work because many will complain about it. Long live America.

Hi,
If you need help taking a picture, set up Aira on your phone, and do a free five-minute call. You can share your screen with the agent, and they'll be able to see you and what's on your screen, and they can direct you. I did this to take a picture of my passport for the Revolut app. I haven't seen this age verification here for any apps or services yet. I'm on Spotify premium, and I tried playing some explicit Limp Biscuit content the other day just to see if I'd get the age verification come up, but nothing. I wasn't using a VPN. But you could always use a VPN anyway. I use Express VPN on Windows and my iPhone sometimes. For those living outside the UK, we knew this was coming. The online safety act has been on the cards for a long time. It's a long story and off topic.

No. I would not share it. It has more than your photo.

this shouldn't be a thing at all, it's the parents job to see what there kids are doing on line and to protect them, screentime and other parental controls exist for this, what the UK government is doing is about control, if this ever comes to Canada i am gonna avoid it for as long as i can

People are no longer responsible. They want others to do the job that they suppose to do. Sad but there it is. Curious what will happen to the google feature of incognito.

In a form or another that is. for example one has to take a similarly impossible live selfie to get linkedin verified. Never been able to crack that one. Sure, having to verify for using something like spotify is going to affect more folks and does have other concerns associated as discussed above... So yes, the problem is two-fold; accessibility and privasy...

I have a question, and maybe it sounds a little unintelligent—possibly even a bit stupid—but I’ve always believed that if you don’t ask questions, you never really learn. So here goes:

I understand that security and privacy are huge issues, especially when it comes to identity verification. But speaking from the perspective of someone who is blind, I figured companies working in tech, especially accessibility-aware ones, would consider this. My question is: why do we have to upload a live photo of our ID document? I mean, if I already have a clear picture of my ID saved on my phone—why can’t I upload that instead of having to take a new one through the app or website? Wouldn’t that image still contain all the same information?

Even more than that, why is uploading a full photo of the entire document required? Couldn’t I input the relevant number from my national ID, passport, or tax registration? Or if they need some image-based verification, couldn’t we upload a cropped version or only the part with the actual identifying number? I’m not entirely sure why an entire picture of the document is necessary for identity verification.

Then there’s the issue of selfies. Some services ask you to upload a selfie as proof of identity—but again, what if I already have a few saved selfies? Why can’t I choose from those instead of having to snap a new one every time? Is it really that risky to let users upload existing photos? Are people seriously out here using someone else’s pictures to sign up for services they’re not authorized to use? Which brings me to a related thought. What’s stopping someone—like a cheeky younger sibling or cousin—from picking up your phone, snapping a quick photo of your ID, and using that to sign up for a service behind your back? I know this might sound paranoid or sci-fi, but it’s not unrealistic. Blind users, or anyone really, could be vulnerable to that kind of misuse. Is there anything in place to prevent it?

And when it comes to technologies like Face ID—how do these systems verify that the person is who they say they are? Like, if someone registers an account with a fake screen name but verifies using a real face, is that enough? Is the legal name cross-referenced somewhere along the line? Or is that not even part of the process?

I remember hearing about a YouTube video ages ago (I think it was the Dolan twins or someone like that) where they tested whether Face ID could be tricked because they were identical twins. I never saw the full thing, but the idea stuck with me—if twins with nearly identical faces can confuse facial recognition, how secure is it really? Can it tell them apart by minor details like a mole or skin texture? And if someone altered their appearance—like with makeup or cosmetic changes—would that still fool the system?

And to stretch it a little: what about clones or doppelgängers? I know we’re getting into sci-fi territory now, but I’m genuinely curious—how do these systems work under the hood, and what are their limitations? From where I'm standing, this doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Hi! Just thought I'd chime in with an answer to the twin question.

I can't speak to the rest of your questions since I honestly don’t know, lol.

But regarding whether a twin can unlock your phone with Face ID — I can confirm that it’s possible on an iPhone. I have a twin, and he’s able to unlock my phone using Face ID.

That said, I *can’t* unlock his laptop with my face, so it looks like Microsoft is doing something a bit different.

In general, Face ID isn’t the most secure option. You’d probably be better off using a fingerprint instead. But really, every form of biometric ID has its own quirks and limitations.

They can be exactly alike, down to the smallest detail, with the exception of fingerprints. There are absolutely no two fingerprints that are the exact same. Even with identical twins.
Why Apple ever thought face ID was more secure than touch ID is beyond me ...

@Winter Roses,

I may have an answer to your first question, the one regarding why you can't just use a saved photo, and have to take a new photo for verification purposes. I, believe, it has to do with a meta-data that can be found in the information that your image will be providing, when you use that software to take a picture for verification purposes.
Don't quote me on this, it's just my belief and understanding, Based on logic and things I've read around the Interwebs.

I am personally in the there are no dumb questions camp. We are born ignorant, so having questions is pretty normal, and even if it wasn't, I would still attribute more value to the people who ask honest unframed questions than on people who just make assumptions or ask loaded questions, and yours are totally unloaded so in my opinion they are perfectly legitimate and provide a lot of value in a public debate.

As for your questions, the answer unfortunately is that the people in power tend to be quite ignorant, and in addition they tend to surround themselves with assessors who are supposed to know better but are either almost just as ignorant or are motivated by some kind of agenda. The bottom line is that you can simply not trust any information coming from a user's device because it can be easily manipulated, and since software is pretty easy to replicate, there's really no way to prevent even people who lack the proper knowledge to work around the protections from using solutions created by those who possess that knowledge. There are certain problems that are simply not worth attempting to solve because the only possible solutions end up creating more problems than the one they're supposed to address, and many times aren't even that effective in addressing the original problem anyway. You might only be noticing this now, but in the tech field we've been trying to inform people about these things for many years, as many politicians tend to believe that somehow there's a way to create an encryption backdoor that cannot be leaked or misused.

This kind of totally disproportional solution is, in my opinion, a huge red flag about the health of a democracy, because it shows a tendency towards taking sovereignty away from the people. Unfortunately most people are not sensitive to any of this, only waking up to reality long after the situation has passed a point of no return, after which they no longer have the ability to fight back, because they let the legal instruments that they could use to do it either get dismantled or turned into domestic surveillance to quickly squash any dissident movement before it has a chance to gain momentum. This is especially concerning now since, with the help of AI, it's pretty easy to automate the job of keeping tabs on everyone so mass surveillance has never been easier, so after a regime finishes its transaction to fully blown authoritarianism in the modern era, the only chance to fight back might be if the people in power demonstrate an astronomical level of incompetence.

I hate the word should. It’s a fantasy word. It doesn’t exist in real life. Everybody on this website should see. We should all be very wealthy. We should all have great jobs. The world shouldn’t have to deal with micro plastics. It should be a nice day today. It’s a terrible lazy word. And it makes the people that use it alleviate responsibility from themselves. Literally everything we do in the world requires a license, except one thing. You have to have a license to cut hair, to do nails, to be a doctor, to drive a car. But anybody annd everybody can have as many children as they want. and nobody even blinks. And the vast majority of people Make terrible terrible parents. Even if they’re good people.

I’ve said my peace in terms of what’s needed. If this were something that affected the deaf community, they would be at an uproar; and completely unified. This so-called community, however… it seems like all you guys can do is complain about what should be. As opposed to really considering what is, and what we can do together to fight it. I’m not even necessarily against the idea of verification. As long as it’s accessible. But repulsively, it’s the same old same old here.

out of all the comments, only one of you had any shred of awareness to even provide a possible solution. And that makes me so disgusted.

you did absolutely nothing when it came to the discriminatory policies put into place regarding guide dogs/airlines in the US and Canada. Let’s see what you’re going to do when it comes to this.

There you go. How about shell. Privacy is the thing today. Will see how affect those who are blind.

Hi,
If you absolutely must verify your age, if you don't want to use a VPN or whatever, then here in the UK, using Aira for a free five-minute call is the next best thing if you haven't got a sighted friend or family member around. I suggested Aira because this law is affecting the UK only. No other countries are having to do this. I won't be advocating for an accessible age verification thing because I don't believe age verification should even be a thing to start with. I can't advocate for accessibility if I don't even agree with the service I'm advocating for. I can either use a VPN, vote for a certain political party who say they'll repeal the online safety act if they get into power or not use certain services at all. If people want this to be accessible, either write to your local MP, set up a social media campaign or write to the RNIB Tech Talk podcast and they can highlight the issue.

Okay… and you think your rant changed anything?

You call out this community for “doing nothing” about the guide dog policy — so let’s start there. Did you? If not, then using that issue to shame others is pure hypocrisy. And even if you did act — good. But don’t assume everyone else could. Not every blind person uses a guide dog. And even among those who do, not everyone lives in the U.S. or Canada, where the issue took place. In fact, most people on AppleVis aren’t even from the U.S. or Canada. So if they didn’t have a dog, and didn’t live in those regions, what exactly were they supposed to do?

And before you even try the next move — saying, “Well, even if someone didn’t have a guide dog, they should’ve taken action out of principle” — that argument fails, too. People can’t always take meaningful action on issues they aren’t personally affected by, don’t fully understand, or literally don’t have access to. As an example, someone who’s used a cane their entire life, maybe has a phone and a few mobility tools, but has never used a guide dog — how do you expect them to be informed on this issue, much less to advocate effectively? Yes, research exists — but research only goes so far, especially when it comes to something as involved and high-stakes as guide dog handling. You can’t expect people to mobilize around something they have zero firsthand knowledge of and no lived context for.

Your line about the Deaf community being more unified? That’s not just a weak comparison — it’s condescending and manipulative as hell. Every community — Deaf, blind, disabled, or otherwise — has internal disagreements, divisions, and friction. Pretending they’re perfectly united just to guilt-trip this community into action isn’t solidarity. It’s pressure posing as insight.

And that “only one person here had awareness” claim? No. One person agreed with you. That’s not awareness — that’s alignment. Everyone else had different views, and your disgust doesn’t make them less valid. And just to be clear — no, you’re not the only one here capable of critical thinking. What you’re doing isn’t insight — it’s entitlement masked as superiority. The way you talk down to everyone else, as if disagreement equals ignorance, is arrogant, condescending, and self-important. You’re not pushing for change. You’re just lashing out and pretending it’s leadership. There’s a difference.

Now — to everyone else:

This push for digital ID and AI verification isn’t new. None of it is. Facial recognition? If you’ve traveled internationally, you’ve already had to put your face up to a kiosk. Shopping malls, public spaces, movie theaters — you’re already being recorded constantly. And if you’ve ever used Seeing AI, you know how easily expression, lighting, or facial hair throws off those so-called “smart” age estimates. The idea that AI can verify age accurately is just marketing fluff with a badge on it.

And this whole panic about privacy? That ship sailed a long time ago.

If you have a Google account, your data’s already archived. Your phone number, your IP, your location, your behavior. Use a credit card? Tracked. Pay with PayPal? Tracked. Apply for a passport? Tracked. Fly internationally? Your biometric data is scanned and matched against databases. Order food from Uber Eats? Tracked. Subscribe to Netflix? Tracked. Activate your phone? That too. Even gift cards and cash purchases are logged through store surveillance, metadata, and transaction history.

And even if you just step outside? You’re still being tracked. In today’s world, there’s almost no public space without a camera. Stores, intersections, building lobbies, transportation hubs — sooner or later, you’re going to pass in front of one without even realizing it. You don’t have to “give consent” to be recorded anymore. Just existing in public is enough.

Whether you wanted it or not, whether you’re aware of it or not — your data is already out there. That’s not theory. That’s fact. And in 100% of cases? It was handed over willingly, just to exist in modern life. The moment you participate — digitally, financially, socially — you’re in the system.

So when Spotify or YouTube eventually ask for ID or a selfie? Don’t act like that’s the breaking point. You’ve already given that same data to immigration agencies, banks, streaming platforms, government registries, food delivery services, app stores, phone carriers, and every street camera you’ve ever walked past — probably hundreds of times without a second thought.

And if you think that’s where it ends? It doesn’t. Your phone calls can be logged. Your text messages can be scanned, stored, and flagged. Metadata — who you contacted, when, for how long — is already being tracked by telecom infrastructure. Your voice assistants are always listening for wake words. Your location history is mapped down to the meter.

And to be clear — no, this level of deep surveillance isn’t applied indiscriminately or without legal pretext. It’s not “normal,” and your calls or texts aren’t being monitored arbitrarily. Typically, access to that kind of data happens through law enforcement requests, subpoenas, or fraud investigations — like tracking a stolen phone, identifying credit card abuse, or locating a suspect. But the infrastructure to extract and analyze that data — including metadata, device identifiers, location history, and usage patterns — is already in place and actively used. So if you think you have privacy, you don’t. You never did. Not in this system.

I agree with you about advocacy. Fighting your corner takes time and patience, and it takes even longer for change to happen. Patience is something I don't have regarding these issues, I'd rather use something like Aira or use a VPN in this case. At least it gets the job done. What I was saying is that there are ways round this particular issue. And I wouldn't advocate for anything to do with guide dogs because I haven't got one and don't want one. My agreement with Ash was more to do with taking proactive immediate action to solve your issue. Use Aira or get a VPN rather than advocacy if you can't or don't want to advocate. And yep your data is out there. But a bill like this makes it even easier for a government to track what you're doing.

I think regarding the privacy aspect, I mostly agree with you. But I think there are a few considerations.

1. Are we consenting to that data being taken? In a shopping mall, the answer would be no. Here we are being asked to hand it over freely.
2. Do we trust who we give it to? I think at an airport security check, we tend to trust the authority figure. Or at least we are scared enough of them not to question it. But it's maybe a different matter when you are talking about some random third party on the internet where you have no idea who they are or what their intentions are.

I think what will happen is that this will be normalised - it's just another little slip down that already slippery slope. And random popups on the internet asking us not only to accept cookies but now also to hand over our ID will just be something people do without thinking because it will be everywhere.

As I said before, I would be a lot happier if I was entrusting this with Apple who could then simply answer a yes or no question of a web site in a trusted way - ie "am I of a particular age or not?". Sites don't need my birthday or my passport number or anything else, they just need a yes or a no with a bit of assurance behind it.

I think the aira solution is OK for those that know about it and can cope with it, but that will be the minority. And if you have to do it more than once in a month then you will start having to pay further blind tax just to work the system.

There's no reason why accessibility should be a problem here. We have plenty of tech that can tell us if we are looking at a camera or not. It's difficult at this stage when most of us haven't had to confront the problem yet. I'm not sure I want to send off my face just for the sake of testing an app's accessibility out. It does feel sensible to try to get some podcasts onto the subject. I think if genuinely we are being blocked then even mainstream media might be persuaded to get involved, the Verge springs to mind but I'm sure there are others.

@Tara, I get where you’re coming from. Using Aira or a VPN as a quick workaround? Makes sense, and I respect the pragmatism. But here’s the catch: shortcuts get the job done for now—they don’t fix the system. And every time we lean on a temporary solution, it gets easier for the system to justify keeping the barrier in place. So while I totally understand not wanting to advocate, especially when you’re not directly affected, the problem doesn’t disappear—it just waits for someone else to deal with it.

@MrGrieves, your points are well thought out. But here’s the issue: this “slippery slope”? We’ve already slid halfway down it. The idea that this bill “makes it easier” for governments to track you assumes it was hard before. It wasn’t. As I mentioned earlier—credit cards, PayPal, phone metadata, GPS, facial recognition at airports, surveillance cameras in public, even basic app usage—this data’s already flowing in a dozen directions. What this bill does is drop the mask and formalize what was already happening in the background.

On consent: most of the systems you mentioned never asked for consent. No one asks you if you want to be tracked in a mall, or if you’re okay with your face showing up on ten security feeds just walking to a bus stop. The consent argument falls apart when the entire structure is built on assumed compliance.

And about trusting Apple to answer “yes or no” about your age—that’s ideal in theory. But the second they become the middleman? That trust will erode too. And then we’re just back where we started, only with prettier branding.

This doesn’t mean we throw our hands up—but it does mean we stop pretending we were ever standing on solid ground to begin with.

The problem with this argument is that we say we have already admitted defeat so what’s the harm in just going that little bit further.

(Edit - messed up first time. This is why I don’t tend to use my iPhone to write anything! lol)

Sorry just going back to the Apple thing - right now companies like Spotify etc are deciding which companies to use for the verification systems. I think it would be much better if I could make that decision. Maybe I trust Apple, or - don’t laugh - Google or someone else. I think it would be better if that was up to me, not someone else. As right now we are going to have loads of these companies providing these services and not all of them are even going to be genuine in the first place, let alone trustworthy going forwards. A bit like choosing a password manager.

I don’t talk about what I do. for all you know, I’m actively advocating for various policies to be changed. Moreover, this isn’t about me being better than anybody. At No point have I ever said that. And even if I don’t agree with people, I support them wholeheartedly. And my being disgusted doesn’t mean that I’m criticizing the individual. Rather, I’m criticizing the situation that we find ourselves in. I don’t care if you think I’m behaving that way. Ultimately, I’d rather you and others be uncomfortable, angry at me, and actually become motivated to do something other than talk about how the ship has already sailed.

in terms of community, I’m not talking about internal struggles. I’m talking about the fact that the deaf community exists and the blind community doesn’t. whatever internal struggles they have, they generally support each other, whether it affects a small portion of that community or the whole group. The so-called blind community does almost nothing. They can’t even agree on if guide dog users are equal to white cane users. The whole point is to have solidarity and actually work together. Because one thing doesn’t ever just stay one thing. It evolves. It changes. And at some point, they might not let a person with a white cane on a plane. and yes, I do think that what I said has changed an kmpacg. Because even if one person gets motivated enough to do something, then that’s the point.

I think that there are two issues here, and I touched one of them in my previous reply but apparently not in a way that could be connected to anything so here's my clarification.

While believing one's information is not already out there would be foolish, at the moment we still have this thing called due process which allows us to challenge any decisions made against our interests based on information that was not legally collected, as the lack of due process raises lots of reasonable questions about its reliability. Not only that but, there's also a huge difference between information being only made available to a government and being available to the general public, because whereas in the former case one is only vulnerable against that government, in the latter case one is vulnerable against everyone, so regardless of whether world governments already have access to one's information, people should still be sensitive to the erosion of their freedoms and privacy rights because it can actually get a lot worse.

I am personally of the opinion that the only effective way to fight this kind of problem is by voting on people who respect due process, because once we get someone who doesn't in power, the safeguards are gone and our ability to stand for our rights is compromised.

I think there is a case here. It might take a while, but isn’t this worth fighting against? Especially as it changes how we all will have to use our devices. All is needed is one lawyer who is willing to take a chance on it.

I would love to help the blind community more, but I can barely help myself most days. I wasn't aware of the situation in Canada regarding the guide dogs. I don't have a guide dog myself, and having one wouldn't be feasible in Jamaica because of the culture here. I wouldn't say individuals are as animal-loving as they are in America, Canada, or the UK. The guide dog idea sounds great in theory, but there are far too many complications for it to work here. From my understanding, to get a guide dog, you need to be proficient in orientation and mobility with a cane first. I've seen videos and spoken to individuals who have guide dogs, and for me personally, it's a pretty big responsibility. Having a dog is kind of like having a kid; you have to feed them, walk them, and take care of them. I've also heard too many horror stories of people going places or trying to get a ride from mini taxi companies, Uber, for example, and being refused because of their dog. I understand that some people have a fear of dogs, or they don't speak English, so it's hard for them to understand. Plus, I know that depending on the passengers you're picking up afterward, some passengers are allergic to dogs, and it can be fatal for them to get into a car where a dog has been. Not to mention the dog's hair or slobber. I've heard too many stories of people getting close to the dogs and distracting them, basically ignoring the blind person. You have many persons who have their pets or emotional support animals, and it makes it harder for people to accommodate individuals who are blind with their guide dogs. Traveling with guide dogs, if you're not prepared, can be a bit of a hassle.
It’s hard to navigate the system. These decisions were made before I was even born, and now we’re the ones living with the consequences. I remember one case a few years ago—a woman lost her eyesight after her partner attacked her with a broken beer bottle in a drunken fit of rage. She used to comb hair from her home because she didn’t feel safe traveling. But customers took advantage of her—they’d hand her two separate 50 dollar bills and claim it was $1000 or $2000, depending on the price of the hair style. Thankfully, Jamaica now has tactile markings on our currency to help people identify bills, but even that isn’t foolproof. If someone’s determined to scam you, they still can. You might go to a shop and be told a bottle of pepsi costs $100 when it’s really $50, and you’d have no way of knowing. OK, a different scenario. There was a lady who took the bus once, and she gave the driver $500. The fair was $150. So, she's standing there, and waiting for her change, and the driver tells her, no, you gave me the exact amount. Even though she knows she's right, what is she gonna do? She can't risk getting into a confrontation and quite possibly getting hurt in the process. Yes, this is a public place, downtown, but who are they gonna believe? You, or the other person? If you go to the cops, like, who has time for that? And, if the officer says, well, you're blind, so how do you know? Even when you're right, they still want to treat you as if you're stupid. This was before the markings on the money, by the way, but the results, are more or less still the same.
The challenge is that folks are dealing with so much already—poverty, lack of education, broken family structures. There’s too much happening at once, it’s hard to even know where to start or which issue to tackle first. And sadly, sometimes the blind community can be even harder on each other than the outside world is. I’m not saying we all need to get along, but the level of division and toxicity in our own spaces is disturbing. Yes, I know toxic behavior exists everywhere, but in our community, it gets taken to a dangerous level.
How can I help? Like, what do I actually do? I can’t make international calls because of the charges, so who do I email? Who do I talk to? I’m not doing interviews or putting myself out there like that—at least not right now—but I don’t even know if that would help. Are we supposed to start a YouTube channel and talk about our stories? Are we interviewing people from different places to get their perspectives? I want to see more pushback in are areas, guide dogs, independence, housing, government assistance, poverty, mainstream and specialized education, and legalities regarding blindness caused by medical negligence from birth. So seriously, what steps do I take? Who do I contact? Who do I message or email to get the ball rolling? I’ve shown up at a few places where I live, trying to get help or at least some kind of feedback—trying to make change—but nothing. You show up, and they tell you to make an appointment, but then no one answers the emails or picks up the phone. So, what are we doing here? What are we even proposing? What’s the plan? Because at the end of the day, let’s be real—these systems are so deeply embedded. The companies hold all the power. And if they wanted to, they could make my life harder out of pure spite and bitterness, simply because they can. I don’t have the leverage to fight that on my own. So genuinely—help me. What do I do? I’m confused and tired.

'that's it. That's the post.

I kid, I kid, and in a desperate attempt to keep on topic—I am in agreement with at least 4 people who have posted here.
... and no I am not including myself in this. 🙄

• Ash Rein touches on a very valid, and possibly personally motivated, point; that it will take a whole lot more than complaining about it here at AppleVis. If this is something that affects you on a personal level, whether it's morally, socially, or legally, then the worst thing you can do is nothing at all. Sorry if I am misrepresenting you, Ash, this is just what I took away from your initial comment. 😇
• Tara also has some good advice for those of you whom are not as bothered by this new change—or law?—that is happening in the UK. If this law, or similar laws moving forward do not bother you at the individual level, and something as simple as a VPN can give you a sense of persinal security, then by all means go for it.
• João Santos' comment on due process is another very valid point, that while there is a system in place to allow us to be heard, to challenge those in power who collect data on us through illicit means, then we should in fact exercise our rights—especially when/if our privacy is being encroached upon, whther by an individual, a company, or a government. This seems to fall inline with Ash's thoughts and concerns. That may or may not have been his point, but it is what I gleamed from it. 😅
• Finally, I absolutely agree with Igna Triay, our personally identifiable information, or PII, is litterally, "everywhere". Places you have been, or are, or even will be.
Somewhere is a database that has your purchases for the last 10 or more years. Your spending habits, traveling preferences, restaurant favorites, every email, text, and selfie you have ever sent to someone.
Basically if it has traveled the internet, it is stored somewhere. We have no real say in this, just read the Terms of Service of any internet service provider that ever existed. Ever.
... and that includes the data service of your smart phone.

So, while this may not be a big surprise for those in the UK, as Tara suggests, this or something similar could start showing up in other regions. Furthermore, governments and/or companies could expand on this, based on how successful this new law turns out for the UK.

Just some food for thought ... 🤷

Thanks for reading.

I don’t want to sound ignorant, but I still don’t understand exactly where all of this is going. Like… what’s the point? Okay, I understand that your text messages, your phone calls, your shopping habits, the receipt from your gas station, your bank activity, your dentist visit — every single aspect of your life is stored somewhere. But what’s the purpose of all this data collection? Why isn’t the UK cracking down on this? What event triggered these laws or made them feel the need to enforce this so suddenly? I understand that this information — even though it exists in some government database — can’t be accessed by just anyone without going through proper legal channels. Usually, that means a court order, for example.

We already have parental controls and safeguards that are supposed to prevent abuse or overreach. So if this was about protecting kids, or blocking harmful content, wouldn’t that be enough? And if the goal was to make sure people are held accountable for their behavior online by tying their ID to their online identity, let’s be honest — some people online are incredibly nasty. If cyberbullies had access to your ID, your face, your personal details, they’d be able to find your address and basically track you down. So… are they planning to hold those people accountable? Or is this about control?

Because if I’m reading all of this correctly, it means the government already has the data. So why now? Why double down on confirming it? For the sake of confirming? And we both know this has nothing to do with children. Like I said before — kids have been around forever, and kids have had access to the internet since the beginning. Some kids are smart enough to find ways around any filter or block you put in place. Others might not even be interested in adult content — but the minute you tell them “No,” that’s when they start trying to access it. We’ve already given up so much privacy and freedom, and it’s time we start pushing back against these systems. Yes. But at the same time, like I also said, it’s easy to tell people to “resist” when you’re not the one who will suffer the consequences. Because no, I don’t think it’s as simple as saying, don’t comply.” A lot of people are thinking, the government can do whatever it wants, I don’t care — but the government and the people in power are paying attention. They’re the ones raising the price of groceries. They’re making buying a home unaffordable. They’re increasing tuition while not teaching anything relevant in schools. And when people are already dealing with all of that, the last thing they want to do is risk going to war with their government. Because if this becomes the law, and people don’t comply, what do you think will happen? They’ll force you. Through fines. Through arrest. Through threats to your family. I can tell you — this nonsense wouldn’t fly in the Caribbean. I can promise you that.

But from what I’ve been reading online, isn’t America getting involved too? I keep seeing people on Twitter say this kind of thing will start rolling out in the U.S. by August. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but something definitely seems to be shifting. A new world order, maybe?

Something’s happening, and we don’t have the full picture. We probably never will. So, are they counting on the fact that persons are gonna be too stupid to resist? The government wouldn't be implementing this policy unless they knew they could get away with it.

There's no end-game, it's just powerful people acting with ignorance, prejudice, and self-interest in mind ruining everything for everyone else just so they can get a little bit ahead. Information is not collected because it's useful now but because it might be useful in the future, and the collection requirements can be tailored with specific corporate interests in mind.

When you hear about legislation being drafted here in the EU to mandate monitoring everyone's chat messages just in case we might be grooming children, the real motivation is likely benefiting a business lobby selling the alleged machine learning solution to that complex problem, usually in exchange for some kind of benefit for some lawmakers. It doesn't even matter if the solution works out in the end as long as the corporate interests of the lobby are enshrined in law by requiring everyone to depend on and pay for their services. The undermining of people's fundamental rights is a side effect that politicians are perfectly fine with, especially if they also exempt themselves from the same legislation which is also the case in this particular example.

I'm hurt. Oliver was my mum's name.

Regarding reasons, I'm wondering if the hot topic of illegal migration is at least in some part responsible. The truth is, there may be many reasons these things come to pass. Restricting the majority of minors from accessing unsuitable content is a truth; tracking those who also do access such content may also be true.

Maybe there is a valid concern about what children are being exposed to from nefarious quarters; toxicity springs to mind, or any who use children's vulnerability to create a platform which, no matter what the platform is, is wrong.

I'm of the view, with a niece and nephew, that what goes into their eyeballs is just as important as what goes into their stomachs. I know this will be hailed as censorship by such content creators, but the line between censorship and dangerous influence is a fine one.

No doubt, we'll hear a lot about this in the next few months with challenges, etc., but from an accessibility standpoint, we need to contact the verification companies directly to advocate for improvements.

The giant of society takes a step, and we're left scurrying to catch up. It's an old tale; you may have heard it.

what ho, all! I'm going to try and give some context and make some observations on the position and what to do about it. For you litigious fellahs, Bingo has his barrister's wig and gown firmly in place throughout this contribution. And I'll get through the whole thing without getting too political, you see if i don't! For those reading this who also work for Ofcom, or for the special Metropolitan Police taskforce set up following the implementation of the Online Safety Act to watch for mentions of immigration, small boats and asylum hotels, put the extra large bags of Piper's Crisps away, lads - hot work coming up.

On age verification, this is how the not so technological Secretary of State for Science and technology, Peter Kyle, explained it: age verification is supposed to work by your entering your email address. AI then checks that email address for adult-related activity - utility bills, credit card statements, that sort of thing. If it detects that kind of adult activity, you're in the clear. If not, it won't let you through.

That explanation sums up what is wrong with the Online Safety Act. it's not the intention behind the legislation, or indeed some parts of it. No no, it's that it has been taken through Parliament by the likes of Peter Kyle. Alexander Pope was the one who said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. That explanation reveals very, very little knowledge and the upshot is something very impractical. Not only a difficult age verification process for us, but the censorship of parliamentary material, historical transcripts, legitimate criticism, and even satire. Why? Because the Act creates a plethora of perverse incentives. If you're facing a 10% of your global revenue fine imposed by a notoriously trigger-happy elecommunications regulator, you'll put in place risk averse algorithms, defensive practices and, wait for it, very complex age verification processes. None of this was really anticipated, but that's because most of our politicians are computer-illiterate. the act was a perfectly legitimate response to the need to protect children from online harms, but its bungling attempt to do so has the double effect of censoring legitimate content and making it more likely that parental controls put in place by the likes of BT and sky in the UK will be circumvented by tech-savvy Gen alphas. Sadly, the UK government don't want a mature debate on this subject - the official line being that if you oppose the Online Safety Act you are on the side of Jimmy Saville. No, that is not ~Bingo being controversial - it is the official government line first put outthere by our friend Peter Kyle and subsequently doubled down on by other government ministers, such as the holier than thou Jess Phillips.

To consider how we can deal with this on a practical level, we need to circle back to the point about perverse incentives. Put bluntly, there is minimal incentive to change things to make them more accessible unless more accessible also means equally watertight. Technologically, I'm not sure it does. Identity verification has long been a part of right to work checks in the UK, most of which can now be done remotely. The remote methods are very difficult for us indeed. at least, when it comes to right to work, there are alternative measures (I can ask you to come into the office in person, or we can have a Teams meeting where I can check that you are the same person as the one in your passport photograph). But if you want a purely remote solution, as the likes of Amazon and so on has to have, it's very difficult to see currently how you can have accessibility with security. So Aira is probably the only answer, as Tara said. I've personally had huge difficulty with purely remote identity verification processes as part of my job, and as a hiring manager I have searched in vain for more accessible alternatives. I could be wrong, but the evidence of my own eyes would suggest they are simply not there.

Can anyone sue over this? Well, sue in what cause of action, exactly? You can't just sue someone for not doing what you want them to do. 'This doesn't work for me' isn't a tort. What's more, to the extent that there's discrimination (indirect discrimination in this case) there's a decent argument that it is objectively justified, especially given the perverse incentives aforesaid.

But the perverse incentives will save our bacon, folks. The act will have to change. The government already realises this - why else the stupidity of the Jimmy Saville defence? To put it another way, if there really were a substantive argument in support of the legislation as it now is, surely Peter Kyle would have deployed that one first? Surely it would have emerged in the more than a week that has followed since that ridiculous pronouncement? As it is, the fact that we are avout to give 16-year-olds the vote at the same time as censoring their access to parliamentary debates, the fact that you cannot now read about King Richard III in peace, the fact that the Labour Party's own cartoon of Sir Keir Starmer's head superimposed on a baby to bemoan the fact that our great leader has inspired precisely zero baby boys named Keir this year is forbidden fruit...cumulatively, I say, will result in sensible changes. I don't know what those changes will be, but at least when they happen and age verification is looked at again, it will have to be looked at again from the ground up.

there’s nothing to be sorry about. It’s OK to take care of yourself first. What I’m asking is that when the opportunity arises, if you can send an email, if you can make a phone call, or if there’s any point where you can be her, that you take Advantage of it; even if it doesn’t affect you directly. No one will shun you. No one will ignore you. Your voice matters in all matters. Just like your voice matters here.

My only goal has been the same. And that’s for there to actually be a community for the blind that works together to ultimately help one another. Even if we’re not all going through the same issues.

so ultimately, this is something that mirrors the patriot act in the United States. At least in parts. and even separately from that, ID verification is being implemented on various websites. Our information is gathered, mainly for the purposes of targeted marketing, and making money. Beyond that, it’s also used to track where we are and what we’re doing. this is ultimately in an effort to be able to prosecute us if they want, cancel us if they want, or justify any negative action they want. It’s all about control. And it’s always going to be about control.

some of this is seeing how susceptible we actually are to that control. So our willingness to comply is constantly being tested. If enough people actually complained about this, and said they didn’t want to deal with it, the government and private interests would back off from it. So wherever you live, it could be very, very, very important for you to find an email address or phone number for your local legislator, and tell them how much this affects you as a blind person. Tell them that it would make navigating the Internet much more difficult than it already is. Tell them that 80% of the Internet is already inaccessible to you, and adding this would mean even less access. Tell them that asking a friend or family member isn’t OK because as a human being, you have the right to the same access as anyone else around you. As I said, I believe this is something that can have very far reaching problems for the blind. It’s a great idea to use Be My Eyes or Ira. But it really comes down to privacy. There might be websites we don’t want other people knowing we’re going on. There might be music we’re not ready for others to know that we’re listening to. There might be birthday gifts we want to buy, that we don’t want others to know we’re getting for them.Not because we’re trying to hide anything terrible. But because the right to privacy is sometimes very important.

See, the problem I see here is, what happens in the following situation. You’re supposed to put in your email, and then the system checks like for things like credit card statements, bills etc ut, The problem? Sometimes people use alternative email addresses if not, temporary addresses or sometimes hide my email. For obvious reasons, those are not linked to Things like credit card statements, etc. Which would pretty much make the system useless, or give a false negative anyway, as said there isn't a full proof solution to this, at least not in this point in time. In 50 to 100 years? Maybe; then again many ofus likely won't be around by then if its closer to the 100 years mark than the 50 years mark at which point this will be moot for us at least. The younger generations would be the ones who'd have to deal with this more than likely.

Peter Kyle's explanation blown apart by Igna Triay! That is the level of misunderstanding exhibited by His Majesty's Secretary of State for Science and Technology. If only His Majesty could actually give a view, I imagine the King is more in touch with such things than his own ministers. One can only hope he is expressing his displeasure to the Prime Minister in his weekly audiences with same. Unfortunately, as I say above, I don't think there is a more accessible way of remotely verifying age. The whole technological solution needs to be looked at from the ground up and we blindies don't exert enough pressure to trigger that ourselves. It needs a few more stupidities to come along and do that for us. the good news is that the Act only came into force on 25th July and we've already had plenty of material.