Data Protection laws aren’t suitable
Closely related to the above is how much protection Data Protection laws can provide.
When discussing the amendment referred to above, Lord Paddick responded to the Minister:
“The Minister said that the Information Commissioner’s Office is responsible for data protection, but the Information Commissioner’s Office is designed to ensure that people who voluntarily put their personal information into the internet are protected—and this is not a voluntary process. This is making it compulsory for anybody who wants to access adult material to give their personal data, which they would not otherwise have to do. We therefore think that the protections should be greater than those provided by the Information Commissioner’s Office.
As the Minister himself said, privacy is more important when it comes to accessing pornography than it is when accessing, for example, gambling sites. We are not reassured. Th draft guidance that the Government have issued is only guidance that a regulator should have regard to; it does not have teeth at all. We therefore find both the draft guidance and the explanation given by the Minister inadequate for protecting the identities of those who seek age verification.”
In short, as Pandora Blake puts it, “the Bill contains no safeguards against AV providers compiling databases of our porn browing histories which will be deeply vulnerable to leaks, hacks and data breaches.”
See here for details of other things that are wrong with Age Verification