[antiquoom]

This is false, they're not building a "porn preference register", they're requiring age verification for pornographic websites.

Submitting one's identity documents to access such websites is of course very easily avoided, by simply choosing not to consume pornographic materials online.

[aaronmdjones]

If the website is tracking what you visit when logged in (which, they will be, as their business model is serving you relevant videos so you stay on the site longer to see more ads), and now the law is going to require them to verify that your account belongs to a person over the age of majority by storing your biometric information, then that is exactly what this law is doing.

Anyone who breaches that website's database (whether an inside job or not) is now going to learn not only what videos RandomUser782 has watched but also who they are, where they are, their birthdate, and what they look like; and if they chose to prove their identity via driving licence, also, their home address.

If this doesn't strike you as completely fucking nuts, I don't know what to say.

[theodric]

This is an extremely short-sighted and crypto-moralistic position masquerading as reasonableness. Why should I be forced to provide a government ID to a random third party simply because I want to view legal images? One does not follow logically from the other; and moreover, secular people should not be forced to live according to the moral strictures of the conservative and/or religious.

[fortyseven]

The ol' "if you did nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about" way of thinking, eh?

[cynicalsecurity]

I'm sorry, what? Are we still living in a democracy or is it already back to the USSR?