Age Verified Login to Use Any Search Engine Required from End of 2025

GordonD on 02/07/2025 - 18:54

Its the old quote from the pre-Nazi days in Germany. It starts with "first they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist". I hope everyone is acquainted with history to know how it goes from there. And that it ends with "… and then they came for me."

Well, first they came for our kids, telling them the government would decide in their interests what they could see on social media. But I didn't speak out because I wasn't a kid. Now, we are told, the government's eSafety Commissioner has decided that from the end of this year, me and you, all us grownup adults who are just as able to decide what's good for us on the internet as the government, will, to be allowed to do an internet search, have to have an account with that search provider, which will require us to provide them with proof of identity, and be logged on, so the eSafety nazis can decide what we can see.

https://theconversation.com/australians-will-soon-need-their…

I can tell you, I won't be searching how to vote Labor, it'll be how not to.

And won't that database be great pickings for anyone to hack into and steal.

(Yes, I'm well aware of Godwin's Law, but sometimes …)

Poll Options

  • 24
    I need the government to tell me what its safe for me to be allowed to see on the internet.
  • 284
    I don't!
Internet

Comments

    • mskeggs on 02/07/2025 - 19:58
      +6

      You don't see any downsides of proof of age requirements for accounts on social media?

      • um on 02/07/2025 - 20:12
        -1

        red herring fallacy

        • mskeggs on 02/07/2025 - 20:16
          +10

          Ok, I see considerable risks with age verification to have an account on social media.
          I have issues with privacy risks, I don't trust the government or enterprise to take effective security measures to protect my personal data, and there is no redress in this country if they fail.
          I also don't like the idea of putting infrastructure in place that can be expanded by future governments.

          • um on 02/07/2025 - 20:29
            +2

            @mskeggs: sorry, i should've been more clear - i don't think the person you replied to is necessarily for the ban, they're just pointing out that search engines probably won't be affected by it

            • mskeggs on 02/07/2025 - 20:34

              @um: Ta, I didn't read the post heading but have read about the law so I got the wrong end of the stick.

          • CocaKoala on 05/07/2025 - 13:58

            @mskeggs:

            have an account on social media.
            I have issues with privacy risks, I don't trust the government or enterprise to take effective security measures to protect my personal data

            You are just making assumptions. Large corporations are very good with security. For example, take someone like Optus, Telstra, medibannk, etc. You can't really break through their security.

            /s

    • Protractor on 02/07/2025 - 20:30
      +1

      It's pretty obvious you haven't read the article or the code.

      Ironic, innit?

    • joshash on 03/07/2025 - 07:36

      What a joke the regulations are. Just log out, and you can do whatever you want..

      • Grunntt on 03/07/2025 - 12:06
        +1

        Just log out, and you can do whatever you want..

        Why do people log in anyway?

      • tenpercent on 03/07/2025 - 16:31
        -1

        What if your place of employment uses Google Workspace?

        • boirganz on 03/07/2025 - 19:22
          +2

          If youre on a work computer every single thing you look up, click on, type etc is usually logged and tracked anyway and it’s in your employment contract so the net change is 0

    • trapper on 05/07/2025 - 17:48

      for end-users who are not account holders.

      What about end-users who are account holders. Do we all have to ditch gmail etc

  • try2bhelpful on 02/07/2025 - 20:00

    Ya know it was a lot easier growing up in the 60s and 70s. If the predators wanted to groom kids it had to be face to face or by snail Mail.

    The paranoia on this website is astonishing. People are not going to end up in the gas chamber with these laws, ya might just have a tad more trouble watching porn or being a troll. Something does need to be done to protect kids and if it inconveniences me then so be it. They can modify it if it turns out not to work.

    If I was living in America, Russia or Israel I might be a tad more paranoid about how my Government was tracking me but not so much out here.

    In the meantime take a chill pill and don’t run around like chicken little.

    • bbinc on 03/07/2025 - 11:26
      +6

      Yeah/Nah

    • tenpercent on 03/07/2025 - 11:44
      +8

      If I was living in America, Russia or Israel I might be a tad more paranoid about how my Government was tracking me but not so much out here.

      What if Dutto had won the last election? Would you still be fine with this invasion of privacy?
      What if someone like Dutto wins a future election? Will you still be fine with it?

      • CaptainJack on 03/07/2025 - 16:21
        +1

        And would they have brought up America if Kamala had won? Nope. It's all about who's doing it, not what's being done with these sorts of people.

      • Binchicken22 on 05/07/2025 - 06:07
        -4

        To be fair, it's only left wing western governments that are prosecuting people for the things they say online… So realistically, it's more of a concern that albo won.

        • tenpercent on 05/07/2025 - 07:32
          +4

          Yeah, there's totally no precedent for right wingers to round up thought criminals and people who oppose them politically or for them to collaborate with private corporations to censor online discussions on certain topics. /s

          In all seriousness, it's NOT a Left vs Right issue. It's an authoritarians vs the people issue. Up vs Down.

          • Binchicken22 on 05/07/2025 - 12:03
            -3

            @tenpercent: Yeah you are right about the authoritarian bit, but yeah my comment that we should be more concerned with albo winning is still relevant.

    • CaptainJack on 03/07/2025 - 16:17
      +4

      The idiots droning on about protecting the kids from imagined dangers are the ones being paranoid and running around like chicken little.

      • boirganz on 03/07/2025 - 19:29
        +1

        If you mean attempting to reduce the harm of porn, social media etc on children it’s not an imagined danger.

        These things are well researched and have clear negative effects.

        They’re bad enough on the rest of us, and we have more mature brains.

        Sure maybe an outright ban isn’t the best approach, but is it worthwhile trying something ? Yeah it is. We’re currently well into (profanity) up the next generations with the way we’re raising kids and their massive consumption of addictive and manipulative social media.

        As a parent I look forward to it. “Yeah nah you can’t have a mobile and be on tik tok. It’s against the law” is a lot easier than “I don’t care if all your friends are and you’re now being socially isolated…”

        • CaptainJack on 03/07/2025 - 20:27
          +6

          If you did care about the negative effects on your kids, its easily within your power to be a good parent and already be limiting what they can access. But no, you're lazy and want to outsource parenting to the government, meaning the rest of us that aren't bad parents get stuck with more government overreach.

          • boirganz on 04/07/2025 - 08:15
            +1

            @CaptainJack: There’s no lazy involved here mate. I’m just in favour of government doing its job which is to provide services and rule of law that improves our lot in life and benefits society as a whole.

            I happen to think this particular item - social media restriction for youth - falls within that scope. You don’t. That’s ok - we don’t need to agree as that’s the benefit of a democratic society with checks and balances. In this case the majority (so far) are aligned that this is a good practice and at least worth a shot as there is very little downside.

            Now whether it can be implemented in a reasonable fashion is another argument. I’m very skeptical.

            • CaptainJack on 04/07/2025 - 08:47
              +4

              @boirganz: You're welcome to your opinion, but if you truly think there's very little downside that's just incorrect.

              • boirganz on 04/07/2025 - 10:30

                @CaptainJack: I’m interested - in a well managed implementation - what are the major negatives in your opinion ?

                Maybe I’m missing something.

                • CaptainJack on 04/07/2025 - 11:03
                  +6

                  @boirganz: There's a long list, but for one, you don't see any negatives with the government controlling what people can see on the internet? Its already moved on from stopping kids getting bullied to we need to know and control what you can search for.

                  Perhaps you can explain why I need to give up my anonymity, because you can't parent your kids properly.

                  And come on, no one thinks the implementation will be well managed. You can bet your bottom dollar they'll waste a tonne of taxpayer money of something that doesn't work.

                  • boirganz on 04/07/2025 - 13:59

                    @CaptainJack: Well none of what you just mentioned is grounded in the facts or reality, so what's an actual problem? With restricting social media from being consumed directly by those under a certain age?

                    That's the boundary of what is proposed, and that's the boundary of what I'm talking about. Nothing more.

                    The rest is just hyperbole and slippery slope logical fallacies.

                    • CaptainJack on 04/07/2025 - 14:09
                      +4

                      @boirganz: Fact: The government will be (aiming to) control what people can see on the internet.
                      (Almost Certain) Reality: It will not be well-implemented.
                      Fact: Uploading personal identification is a risk, and even well-intentioned companies may have had security breaches.
                      Reality: Any benefits of the bill could be achieved through good parenting.
                      Fact: You don't understand what a slippery slope fallacy is.

                      • boirganz on 04/07/2025 - 16:19

                        @CaptainJack: Those are all opinions and speculations, and everyone is welcome to them. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at the outcome though, and if you are, or become a parent at any stage, will be thankful if it does end up getting implemented in a minimally-invasive way.

                        • CaptainJack on 04/07/2025 - 16:31
                          +5

                          @boirganz: You even stated earlier that you could achieve the same thing for your kids yourself, but it'll be easier if the government does it for you. So even if the fourth item is only an opinion (its not), its an opinion you've acknowledged is correct.

                        • boirganz on 04/07/2025 - 16:40

                          @boirganz: I don’t parent all the kids in Australia.

                          The current generation coming through the school system at the moment need all the help they can get, and I’m happily in favour of reasonable measures by the government to do so.

                          (I mean really on a scale of things to fix this is pretty darn low given if they fixed the childcare and housing situation we’d have more present parents and less of a problem. But that’s a hard problem to fix and not short/medium term solvable)

                    • tenpercent on 05/07/2025 - 07:35
                      +3

                      @boirganz: The boundaries always get pushed. We are seeing it happening in real time.

    • Pussqunt on 07/07/2025 - 22:16

      You realise we have people we pay to entrap our youth?

      I didn't mind my state funded friend. I ignored their dumb ideas, never gave them anything useful and in return they eventually drove me around, got me drunk and realised they were wasting their time.

  • tenpercent on 02/07/2025 - 20:59
    +3

    so the eSafety nazis can decide what we can see.

    And so they can know what you are looking up.

    • boirganz on 04/07/2025 - 08:18
      -2

      Except they won’t. And they don’t give a shit despite what conspiracy minded people think.

      You know who does want to know everything you browse and look up and mostly already does ? Meta. Google. OpenAI. Their profits rely on it.

      Government isn’t the problem (outside of oppressive societies like China and Russia). Follow the money.

      • tenpercent on 05/07/2025 - 07:46
        +4

        Except they do. Even during covid times our Government was collaborating with private corporations to censor online discussions (is that fascism?) and oppress political dissent.

        Germany wasn't an oppressive society at one point and then suddenly it was.
        America was an oppressive society for certain sections of the community and gradually became less so; maybe it is becoming oppressive again. Similar in Australia (previously very oppressive for certain groups). There's little reason it can't shift back to being more oppressive.

        So what you're saying is that by the government implementing this measure, they are just gifting to private corporations higher quality and more valuable data (i.e. data that is linked to users whose id has been verified, rather than what they have now which is mainly just linked to real people via inferences and user-declarations)?

        Follow the money.

        That's a good point. Where did this proposal actually originate and what financial ties do those groups/people have to these big corporations who stand to profit the most?

        • boirganz on 05/07/2025 - 08:23
          +1

          Except the age verification system can be implemented in a way that the requesters get a “yes this person is over 18” response without any identifying details being shared.

          I don’t think you understand the technology space and what is already possible from the players with all the data vs what is being proposed.

          The only advantage in data and info they would have over now is age verification. That’s not really a gift. Which, given the masses of data points we throw at them already, they already have high enough confidence on for their market segmentation and targeted advertising. That’s what they need to profit.

          The providers are fighting this tooth and nail because they don’t want to Reduce their target market segments and have millions of kids taken off the platform. It will also cost them $ to implement. They’re not in cahoots with the government - they are vigorously opposed to the momentum here and in Europe.

          I would be vigorously opposed to any actual monitoring of internet usage by private citizens but in no way has this been proposed nor would it be supported or implemented.

          Your Covid reference? Are you referring to the providers obligations to remove misinformation that in a time of crisis was considered to have potential impact in saving / not saving lives ? Not exactly related to age verification or even monitoring of individual internet traffic. Just removing shit from the pile of possible consumption.

          The comparison to Nazi Germany is just ridiculous and I think you’re aware of that. Or at least I hope you are. If not, I’d consider reading some history around Weimar and the rise of Facism, and some civics lessons in how our democratic government system works.

  • 6079 Smith on 02/07/2025 - 21:00
    +16

    Just want to flag that the eSafety Commissioner role was created by Abbott, the current one was appointed by Turnbull and her term extended for 5 more years by Morrison in early 2022

    • tenpercent on 02/07/2025 - 21:01
      +4

      It's a tag team approach.

      Uniparty FTW!

    • CaptainJack on 03/07/2025 - 20:27
      +1

      Uhhh yeah that doesn't make it ok.

      • belongsinforums on 05/07/2025 - 00:00
        +3

        Op blamed Labor for the esafety commissioners actions

        • Protractor on 05/07/2025 - 12:12
          +1

          jv blames labor for everything.

    • Binchicken22 on 05/07/2025 - 06:09
      -1

      Hence why the conservatives got stomped at the last election, even me as a conservative don't want to vote for them.

      Unfortunately with the new leader the picked they are going to get rekt again at the next election… Maybe they'll pick up a couple more votes from sexist women who'll only vote for someone their own gender, but it's not going to be enough.

      It really is a just a left wing uni party in this country.

  • Wiadro on 02/07/2025 - 21:19

    just change your dns
    like always

  • dantrax77 on 02/07/2025 - 23:17
    +2

    Just scrap the internet & social media for all - life was better without it!

    • tenpercent on 05/07/2025 - 07:47
      +1

      Just scrap the internet & social media for all

      He says while commenting in an online forum.

  • DingoBilly on 02/07/2025 - 23:33
    -4

    🤣.

    Looks like the covid anti-vaxxers have their new devil to complain about.

    I don't really care and it's not a problem. I'm sure it'll be easy to circumvent. I guess if you're a child which you might be it looks scary though.

  • 400TX on 03/07/2025 - 07:33
    +3

    I think some here are vastly overestimating the power and effectiveness of the eSafety Commissioner.

  • joshash on 03/07/2025 - 07:36
    +4

    "Providers of internet search engine services are not required to implement age assurance measures for end-users who are not account holders."

    Why are we wasting millions of dollars paying the wages of bureaucrats for meaningless regulations?
    There is simply zero respect for taxpayers money in this country.

    • bbinc on 03/07/2025 - 11:32

      “Providers of internet search engines are not required to implement age assurance measures for end-users who are not account holders.”

      For lots of stuff you need an account eg YouTube premium
      I think I am automatically logged into Safari by my Apple account, similar with Microsoft?

      • surfingedge on 03/07/2025 - 16:55

        Then use another browser. And at least macbooks can be used without an apple account being logged in

    • RiseAndRuin on 04/07/2025 - 19:11
      +2

      You're very wrong, there is a lot of respect for taxpayers money in this country, there is simply zero respect for taxpayers…

  • Subere on 03/07/2025 - 07:51
    +2

    I can't see the likes of duckduckgo and brave adhering to this other than a check box stating "I am over 18"

    • tenpercent on 03/07/2025 - 16:30
      -1

      Can you see them withdrawing from the Australian market though (i.e. blocking web traffic originating in Australia) in order to not break the Brave New World laws?

      • SpicyStew on 03/07/2025 - 18:47
        +1

        wow the australian market is big, can't miss out on that!

        • tenpercent on 05/07/2025 - 07:48

          You missed the point.

  • Kayrhcp on 03/07/2025 - 09:05
    +1

    This will not happen. I will bet money it won’t.

    Stop spouting ‘Nazi’ accusations like a baby.

    • bbinc on 03/07/2025 - 11:33
      +1

      Yeah, Nah

    • tenpercent on 03/07/2025 - 16:28
      +1

      Why won't it happen?

      • Kayrhcp on 05/07/2025 - 09:05
        -1

        I’m not here to discuss this, I’m here to put my money down and only come back after whatever time period you put down for the bet expires and I win.

  • jackspratt on 03/07/2025 - 16:02

    So to put it at its simplest - don't login to your google (or whatever search engine) account, and you can search (sort of) anonymously to your heart's content.

    I can't remember ever signing in to google to perform a search.

    • tenpercent on 03/07/2025 - 16:28
      +3

      It won't be anonymous. There's browser fingerprinting and all sorts of other tracking methods besides logging into a government ID verified account.

      • mboy on 03/07/2025 - 17:14

        It won't be anonymous. There's browser fingerprinting and all sorts of other tracking methods besides logging into a government ID verified account.

        That's right. Even if you're signed out of your Google account (or don’t have one at all), Google can still profile you, infer your identity, and link data to that profile using browser cookies, your IP address, and device identifiers - not just when you're using Google's websites or services, but across any site that has Google trackers installed, which is the case for most popular websites (including Ozb).

      • Protractor on 03/07/2025 - 17:30

        Every time we are online.Already. Especially google.

      • SpicyStew on 03/07/2025 - 18:52
        +1

        there's also browser spoofing, vpn, tracker blockers, tor, proxies
        should i go on?

  • mboy on 03/07/2025 - 17:05

    I'm against this, but if we're going to have a discussion about it, OP can you stick to the bloody facts.

    to be allowed to do an internet search, have to have an account with that search provider

    No, you don't have to have an account with the provider to do an internet search. But if you do have an account (like a Google account or Microsoft account), you'll be required to validate your age by the end of 2025 to keep using that account.

    • tenpercent on 03/07/2025 - 19:19

      But if you do have an account (like a Google account or Microsoft account), you'll be required to validate your age by the end of 2025 to keep using that account.

      Are you sure? Or is it: you'll be required to validate your age by the end of 2025 to keep using that account and use their search engines? For example suppose you don't use Google search but you do use Gmail, would you still have to prove your identity or would you simply be unable to do a Google search until you submit your papers?

      • mboy on 03/07/2025 - 22:30

        Are you sure? Or is it: you'll be required to validate your age by the end of 2025 to keep using that account and use their search engines? For example suppose you don't use Google search but you do use Gmail, would you still have to prove your identity or would you simply be unable to do a Google search until you submit your papers?

        Yeah not sure, it might just be related to search - that bit is unclear.
        What is clear though, is that it’s not like OP said about needing an account.

    • CaptainJack on 04/07/2025 - 11:12
      +1

      If you don't have an account, I assume you'll be limited in what you can search for (i.e., it assumes you're under 16?

      So it really depends what you mean by 'do an internet search'. It's like saying you can go see a movie. But only if its a G-rated movie.

  • welcomeUniverseWorld on 03/07/2025 - 18:02
    +2

    I am 150 years old. How do I verify?

    • Protractor on 03/07/2025 - 20:59

      Halve yourself and count the growth rings.

  • n3ck3ntry8bort0rgasm on 03/07/2025 - 18:31
    +1

    idk I think there have been a few of these posts, I posted one of them.

    but uh after reading through the comments of the other ones I kinda concluded, we don't really know how.
    all these clickbait headlines (the other one was like, I quit and LEAK) are just trying to get ragebait views. probably 50% chance one of them even happens.

    no point discussing really if they are having trouble figuring out how it's going to work.

  • SpicyStew on 03/07/2025 - 18:39

    good luck getting around tor.
    good luck getting around vpn.
    good luck getting around ai search.

    this eSafety thing is going where neighbourhood watch program went from the 80's
    trying to centralize a system that is going decentralized

  • liongalahad on 03/07/2025 - 18:50
    +1

    For me, in an ideal world:
    1. everything one publishes on the internet, every post or comment on social media or what not, should be traceable back to the author actual identity. This should be only accessible by authorities when investigating crimes. People needs a good dose of accountability on what they do online. Obviously technically hard to impolement when someone uses VPN… but I said it was in an ideal world…
    2. Whatever one watches or visits, without contibuting, should stay completely anonymous and untraceable
    3. The underage should be forbidden to access any porn - this is also not easy to implement without compromising privacy of point 2.

    • tenpercent on 03/07/2025 - 19:33
      +3

      For me, in an ideal world:
      1. everything one publishes on the internet, every post or comment on social media or what not, should be traceable back to the author actual identity. This should be only accessible by authorities when investigating crimes. People needs a good dose of accountability on what they do online. Obviously technically hard to impolement when someone uses VPN… but I said it was in an ideal world…

      Are the authorities always good and well behaved though? Are authorities ever corrupt? Should all crimes be crimes? For example it is illegal in WA to collect or remove bird or bat poo and if you do so you risk up to 1 year in prison.

      Your 'ideal' world sounds absolutely dark. Like a boot stamping on a human face - forever.

    • BuzzBuzzBuzz on 03/07/2025 - 20:02
      +4

      Your first point is bananas. Your last point is impossible.

      • Protractor on 03/07/2025 - 20:37

        You don't think there's a social benefit of ppl owning their words and ideologies, and being held to account for the outcomes thereof, where a crime or potential crime is committed??
        Why?

    • CaptainJack on 03/07/2025 - 20:28

      Wow, talk about dumb ideas.

    • Protractor on 03/07/2025 - 20:31

      I'm in on the accountability tenet.

  • AddNinja on 03/07/2025 - 19:17
    -2

    This will make some of you cross, but as it stands, it looks ok to me.

    For example, if you have a kids account (or even better, no account at all), your search results are SFW with no advertising. For everyone, that will be an improvement for most searches. And if you want unfiltered results, or porn, or racist crap, or lies, or "the truth the woke libs are hiding", etc:
    a. Use a logged in search engine and risk being tracked by google and consequently the govt. or
    b. Use a VPN.

    I don't know, but it looks like an adult could navigate these options with ease - a kid's account for most things and crucially, no advertising, an adult account for best behaviour, a VPN for anything else.

    • tenpercent on 03/07/2025 - 19:35
      +2

      This looks like a convenient way I can outsource more of my parenting to the State.

      • AddNinja on 03/07/2025 - 20:03

        It may be worth taking your point seriously and considering when the state does do a better job at parenting than parents.

        For example, a parent who allows their son to become radicalised by Tate is failing as a parent and creating a genuine threat to society that everyone else will suffer for. Given parenting like that, should the state step in earlier? Likewise for religious radicalisation, etc?

        Or to put it another way - if you allowed your kids to access Tate, self harm groups, violent porn, batshit crazy conspiracy groups, etc perhaps your parenting would be better outsourced to anyone else? Even the state?

        • tenpercent on 03/07/2025 - 20:15
          +2

          Given parenting like that, should the state step in earlier? Likewise for religious radicalisation, etc?

          No, the state should not. You're proposing some kind of pre- pre- pre- crime policing justification for this Orwellian privacy invasion of everyone in Australia.

          Likewise for alphabet soup radicalisation where American Tik Tok twats try to convince young girls to chop of their breasts and sterilise themselves. That is a problem that is not for the state to solve.

          • AddNinja on 04/07/2025 - 07:48

            @tenpercent: I see where you are coming from - I'm not even sure where I stand on this.
            As implemented, I agree that this system is a privacy invasion (though far less Orwellian than the data google/meta collect). That is not a good thing.
            But you have to balance that with what's happening in the real world - social media is a contributing factor in the spread of dangerous misinformation/radicalisation. Namely - dangerous to life (denial of climate change, vaccines), dangerous to women (Tate, violent porn), dangerous to society (rise of right wing authoritarianism).

            This is not handwringing, it is a genuine problem. We have people that genuinely believe that 5G towers spread covid, we are at risk of losing the most powerful democracy in the world, CO2 levels are the highest in a million years.

            Against that, I am not convinced "business as usual" doesn't really cut it.

            Anyway - I don't know what to do, but if we can't get on top of these threats, things are going to get very bad.

    • Protractor on 03/07/2025 - 19:40

      TLDR.
      The internet is coming home to roost.

  • xslasherzz on 03/07/2025 - 20:07
    +2

    Yes, first they say 2 weeks to slow the spread, then 2 more weeks, 2 more after that, then haha, kidding let's drop the pretense, do what we say and maybe we will let you out.

    Government and power, give them some, and they take that as a permission to grab more soon.

    • tenpercent on 03/07/2025 - 20:16
      +3

      We're not going to make Digital ID mandatory… you just won't be able to do basic things like banking or searching the internet.

    • Protractor on 03/07/2025 - 20:53

      It's 2025, look to America.If you think govts, as such, are the threat you're misguided. The tech giants + their AI are behind (and profit from) and seek and will get ultimate control, long before the puppets in govt wake up to what they're doing.Or why.

      • xslasherzz on 03/07/2025 - 22:16

        Are pharma giants included?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join