In a strongly-worded open letter released Monday, hundreds of leading security and privacy academics are calling for a global pause on the implementation of age checks for social media and other online services. The letter, signed by 418 researchers from 30 countries, warns that current age-assurance technologies are not only ineffective but also pose significant risks to privacy, security, and individual freedoms.
As governments worldwide move to bar children from social media platforms, the need to verify users’ ages has become a central policy issue. However, the academics argue that the technologies being developed for this purpose are fraught with problems. “It is dangerous and socially unacceptable to introduce a large-scale access control mechanism without a clear understanding of the implications,” the letter states.
The signatories include some of the most respected figures in the field, such as Ronald Rivest, a recipient of the Turing Award, and Bart Preneel, president of the International Association for Cryptologic Research. They warn that mandatory age checks would require all users, including adults, to prove their age for routine online activities like chatting with friends, reading news, or searching for information—far beyond what is currently required in offline life.
The letter
Ineffectiveness and Circumvention Risks
The letter highlights several critical concerns. First, the academics argue that age checks are easily circumvented. Minors can use borrowed credentials, fake IDs, or virtual private networks (VPNs) to bypass restrictions. Even sophisticated biometric age-estimation tools, such as those using facial recognition or behavioral analysis, are prone to error and bias, particularly for minority groups.
Moreover, the academics warn that the infrastructure required to support robust age verification—such as government-issued digital IDs with cryptographic protections—would be difficult to build and maintain at a global scale. Such systems could also exclude large segments of the population, including the elderly, undocumented immigrants, and those without access to smartphones or digital literacy.
Privacy and Discrimination Concerns
The letter also raises alarms about the privacy implications of widespread age verification. The collection and processing of sensitive personal data, such as biometrics and browsing history, could lead to increased surveillance and profiling. The academics note that attempts to regulate or restrict the use of VPNs—often used to protect privacy—could leave vulnerable populations, such as journalists, activists, and victims of domestic abuse, even more exposed.
Additionally, the researchers warn that age-assurance systems could deepen existing inequalities. Those unable to provide proof of age may be locked out of essential online services, exacerbating digital divides.
Calls for a Global Pause and Further Research
Instead of rushing to implement age checks, the academics are calling for a global moratorium until there is a scientific consensus on the benefits and harms of age-assurance technologies, as well as their technical feasibility. They emphasize that the current push for age-based access control lacks sufficient evidence that it will improve children’s mental health or safety.
The letter proposes that policymakers explore alternative solutions, such as regulating the algorithms that promote harmful content or empowering parents with better tools to manage their children’s online experiences.
Global Context
Several countries are already moving forward with age-related restrictions. France plans to ban children under 15 from social media by September, while Germany, Denmark, and Spain are accelerating similar measures. Australia became the first country to implement such a ban in December 2025. However, none of these countries have yet determined how such bans will be enforced.
The open letter concludes by urging regulators to prioritize thorough, independent research before mandating the deployment of age-assurance technologies at an internet scale. “Deployments should not proceed unless it is proven that the benefits greatly outweigh the harms,” the academics write.
Like my content? Support me with a tip!
