Committee Hears Privacy and Practicality Concerns on Age‑Verification Bill for Pornographic Websites
Loading...
Summary
Senate Bill 648 would require verification on predominantly pornographic websites; sponsor emphasized privacy protections while tech and free‑speech advocates warned about data retention risks and enforcement practicality.
Sen. Tara Reardon told the Commerce Committee that SB 648 would require age verification for websites where more than half the site's content is pornographic and would include protections to delete verification data immediately. She said the bill was crafted after discussions with platforms and technology providers and removed a private right of action to limit frivolous litigation.
Witnesses raised privacy and feasibility concerns. Ava, a lifelong New Hampshire resident who opposed SB 648, said age‑verification regimes are ineffective and may drive users to noncompliant sites outside U.S. jurisdiction while exposing personal data to theft or sale. "Normalizing age verification opens the door for broader internet censorship, mass surveillance, data farming and breaches," she testified.
Industry groups and ISPs sought explicit exemptions to make clear that providers that merely transmit or host content are not liable; Maura Weston of the New England Connectivity and Telecommunications Association sought language clarifying that broadband and ISPs are not targeted. The sponsor circulated amended Senate language intended to address those issues and agreed to file the text for the record.
Committee members pressed on data retention and enforcement: how to detect retained verification records, which agency would enforce prohibitions on sale or storage of personal identifying information, and whether the Attorney General would assume enforcement. Sen. Reardon said the bill contains a penalty for wrongful retention and that the Attorney General would handle enforcement, while members pressed for clarity on fiscal and technical enforcement capacity.
Public commenters with experience in adult entertainment and privacy advocacy argued that third‑party verification and ID scanning can be invasive, may not be hack‑proof, and could chill speech and creator livelihoods. The committee asked for technical follow‑up and language to ensure consumer privacy protections and to clarify the scope of regulated sites.
Next steps: sponsor agreed to submit the missing Senate floor language and the committee requested technical briefings on verification methods, data‑deletion practices, and enforcement responsibilities before advancing the bill.
