The Internet Wants to Check Your I.D. – The New Yorker

Report on Digital Identity Verification and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: The Global Trend Towards Mandatory Digital Identification

A new wave of global legislation, including the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act (OSA) and the proposed Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) in the United States, is mandating online identity and age verification. While the stated intention is to protect minors from harmful content, these regulations are fundamentally altering the nature of the internet. This report analyzes the implications of this shift, framing the issue through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The analysis indicates that these measures, in their current form, pose significant risks to fundamental freedoms, equality, and access to information, running counter to the core principles of several SDGs.

Analysis of Impacts on SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Target 16.10: Ensuring Public Access to Information and Protecting Fundamental Freedoms

The move towards mandatory identification directly challenges the principles of open access to information and the protection of fundamental freedoms, such as anonymous expression.

• Erosion of Anonymity: The requirement to link real-world identity to online activity effectively ends the era of relative online anonymity, which has been a crucial component of free expression and access to sensitive information.
• Restriction of Adult Access: By forcing platforms to verify age for all users to filter content for minors, these laws “shrink the internet for adults.” Access to legitimate communities and information, such as forums for Alcoholics Anonymous, medical cannabis, or menstruation, is now being placed behind identity verification barriers.
• Chilling Effect and Exclusion: The mandate creates a significant chilling effect, particularly for individuals who lack official identification credentials. This erects new barriers to digital inclusion, undermining the goal of universal access to information and communication technologies.

Target 16.9: Providing Legal Identity for All

The new regulations create a de facto requirement for digital identity that is tethered to official government or financial documentation. This has profound implications for global equality.

1. Individuals without access to formal identification, such as a government-issued ID or a bank account, risk being excluded from significant portions of the digital world.
2. This trend exacerbates existing inequalities, creating a digital divide between those with documented identities and those without.
3. It effectively makes participation in online civil society contingent on credentials that are not universally available, conflicting with the goal of universal legal identity and inclusion.

Analysis of Impacts on SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

SDG 5: The Paradox of Digital Safety for Women

Initiatives designed to enhance women’s safety online highlight the complex trade-offs involved in identity verification. The case of the “Tea” app, a digital network for women, serves as a critical example:

1. Objective Alignment with SDG 5: The app was created to provide a protected space for women to share information and warn each other about potentially dangerous individuals, directly addressing Target 5.2 (Eliminate all forms of violence against women).
2. Verification as a Tool: To maintain this safe space, the app required users to submit selfies and photo IDs to verify they were women.
3. Systemic Failure and Increased Risk: A significant data breach exposed this highly sensitive verification data, including photos and private messages. This failure turned a protective measure into a tool that could be used to target and harass the very women it was meant to protect.
4. Conclusion: This incident demonstrates that identity verification systems, if not perfectly secure, can create new and severe vulnerabilities, potentially undermining the goal of women’s safety and empowerment online (Target 5.b).

SDG 10: Exacerbating Inequalities for Marginalized Groups

Blanket surveillance and identity verification mandates disproportionately harm marginalized and vulnerable populations, directly undermining the goal of reducing inequalities.

• Risks to Vulnerable Communities: For marginalized groups, such as LGBTQ+ individuals in hostile regions, online anonymity is not a matter of preference but of physical safety. Tying their online presence to a government ID exposes them to potential persecution.
• Exclusion of the Economically Disadvantaged: Verification methods often rely on credit cards or bank accounts, excluding those who are unbanked or lack financial instruments.
• Impact on Youth: Activists report that young people, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds, fear losing the online communities that often serve as their primary or only source of support and belonging.

Conclusion: A Misalignment with Global Development Goals

The current legislative approach to online safety, centered on mandatory identity verification, is fundamentally misaligned with the inclusive and rights-based framework of the Sustainable Development Goals. In the effort to protect one group (minors), these laws risk implementing a system of blanket surveillance that compromises privacy, restricts access to information, and endangers the most vulnerable adult populations. This approach challenges progress on several key goals:

• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): It undermines fundamental freedoms and public access to information.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): It creates new barriers for marginalized and undocumented individuals.
• SDG 5 (Gender Equality): It introduces new privacy risks that can compromise women’s safety.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): It restricts access to vital online health and support communities.

Ultimately, a framework that sacrifices the anonymity and privacy of all users to protect some may not make the internet safer, but rather less free, less equal, and less accessible, thereby hindering the achievement of a sustainable and equitable digital future for all.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

Explanation of Relevant SDGs

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  The article begins with the case of the “Tea” app, a “digital whisper network for women” designed to create a safe online space. The subsequent data breach and the risk of men retaliating against women who posted about them directly relate to the safety and empowerment of women in digital environments.

• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

  The article focuses on the internet, a key piece of modern infrastructure. It discusses new regulations (Online Safety Act, KOSA) that fundamentally alter how digital platforms (Reddit, Discord, YouTube) and the “open web” function. The debate centers on building a safe and accessible digital infrastructure, which is a core theme of this goal.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The analysis points out that identity verification laws will have a disproportionate impact on certain groups. The article notes the “chilling effect will be felt especially among those who lack proper identification credentials” and highlights the fears of marginalized communities, such as “queer people fleeing from Texas and Florida,” who are more vulnerable to surveillance. This creates a new form of digital inequality.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This is a central SDG in the article. The discussion revolves around new laws and government regulations (“Online Safety Act,” “KOSA”) and their impact on fundamental freedoms like privacy and access to information. The article questions the effectiveness and accountability of these institutional measures, stating they are “witnessing the real-time destruction of the internet as we know it” and may make the internet “less so” safe by implementing “blanket surveillance.”

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Identified SDG Targets

• SDG 5: Gender Equality
  • Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres. The article highlights a failure to meet this target when the Tea app’s data breach exposed women’s private information, creating a situation where a man “can now go after you.”
  • Target 5.b: Enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology, to promote the empowerment of women. The Tea app itself is an example of technology intended for this purpose, but its failure underscores the challenges in securely implementing such technology.
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
  • Target 9.c: Significantly increase access to information and communications technology and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet in least developed countries. The article discusses a trend that runs counter to this target in developed nations, where new laws “shrink the internet for adults” and create barriers that reduce universal access to online content and communities.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
  • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status. The article suggests these laws will hinder inclusion, as they negatively affect “those who lack proper identification credentials” and marginalized groups who fear making their identities public, thereby losing access to their “online communities.”
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
  • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article critiques the effectiveness of laws like the Online Safety Act, suggesting they have unintended negative consequences that undermine their stated safety goals.
  • Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements. This is the most prominent target, as the article’s central argument is that age-verification laws compromise the fundamental freedom of privacy and restrict public access to information on platforms like Reddit, which has limited access to forums on “Alcoholics Anonymous, medical cannabis, and menstruation.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Mentioned or Implied Indicators

• Legislative and Regulatory Frameworks: The existence and implementation of laws such as the U.K.’s “Online Safety Act (OSA)” and the proposed “Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA)” in the U.S. serve as direct indicators of institutional action related to Target 16.10.
• Public Response to Regulations: The article provides a quantifiable indicator of public reaction to these laws: “one V.P.N. provider reported an eighteen-hundred-per-cent increase in daily sign-ups from the U.K. after OSA age-verification rules went into effect.” This measures attempts by citizens to protect their privacy and freedom of access.
• Community Mobilization: The formation of activist groups is an indicator of public engagement. The article mentions a Discord chat started by an activist to “fight back against KOSA’s proposed policies; it now has more than three thousand members working on campaigns and petitions.”
• Platform Compliance Rates: The number and type of online platforms implementing identity verification are an indicator of the impact on internet infrastructure (Target 9.c). The article names “Reddit,” “Discord,” “X, Grindr, and Bluesky” as platforms rolling out verification.
• Data Security Failures: The “data breach” at the Tea app, where “users’ selfies, I.D. photos, posts, and direct messages began appearing on the anonymous message board 4chan,” is a critical indicator of the failure to protect women’s safety online (Target 5.2).

4. SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

Source: newyorker.com