Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
Legislation under consideration in Minnesota that would require any website that may “reasonably likely be accessed” by minors to take certain steps to protect them would actually have severe unintended consequences affecting the privacy and security of both kids and adults.
While the authors’ goal is admirable, the reality of this legislation is troubling and falls short for a number of reasons.
Under the proposal, billed as the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (HF 2257/SF 2810), companies with websites “likely to be accessed” by a minor (aka every website) will be forced to require proof of age. This may include a wide range of personal information such as birth dates, addresses, pictures and government IDs.
In practice, this legislation will result in every website amassing a massive trove of data on every one of its users — be they adults or children. This will be a ripe target for hackers and criminals. The fact that every website will have to comply means that the protection of users’ data is only as good as the weakest security of any single website they visit.
Data breaches have become more and more common. According to Flashpoint National Security Solutions’ 2024 Global Threat Intelligence Report, cyberattacks in 2023 resulted in the exposure of more than 17 billion personal records. What’s more, according to Javelin Strategy & Research, approximately 1.7 million children were affected by data breaches in 2022. With these cybercrimes on the rise, we must be cautious about collecting any more of our children’s personal information.
Besides the obvious risk to kids’ privacy and security, this bill has serious issues handing the power over what our children consume online over to company executives in boardrooms instead of parents. The broad language of the legislation will force companies to make wide-ranging, subjective determinations for what is in the “best interests of children,” as the bill mandates, raising significant First Amendment concerns.