SB 260: Updating IDs in the Digital Age

Libertas supports this bill. However, given our previous positions opposing attempts to identify people online, we feel an explanation is owed.

For years, Utah and other state legislatures have fought to pass bills that would keep teens out of adult content online. The intent behind these bills, to put the decision-making in the hands of parents, has never been an issue. While there are many beneficial reasons to be online, such as education and community, giving parents some say in their kids’ online activity is not a problem. The only problem has been the execution – chiefly, “age-verification,” or the process of figuring out who is a minor and who is an adult using some form of identifying information.

The primary flaw with age verification, as it’s understood today, is that it violates the First Amendment to require a person to turn over an ID in order to speak. Especially when it comes to constitutionally protected anonymous speech, age verification ruins anonymity. The process of uploading identifying information, moreover, is an unnecessary privacy risk that people would need to shoulder in order to do something as mundane as connecting with family members online.

We have opposed these bills in the past. We will oppose them in the future. Despite the overwhelming support for the purpose of these bills, the damage to the First Amendment, and the risk to individual privacy is too great.

However, just because age verification runs afoul of the above doesn’t mean it cannot be done in a way that is privacy protective and constitutional. It would, however, require a systemic redesign of the way people may identify themselves and prove that identity is theirs. 

In that vein, SB 260, sponsored by Senator Kirk Cullimore, would direct the Department of Government Operations to figure this out. The bill sets a high bar for what a Digital ID should look like following an ambitious policy prescription of privacy protection, individual autonomy protection, and anonymity. 

There are many components that, if possible, would solve a wide range of technical issues holding back policymakers from effectively regulating the Internet – including their efforts to keep kids out of adult content. Particularly relevant for our decision to support this bill is found on lines 110 – 139:

“(2) The state may not endorse an individual's digital identity unless:
…
(e) the state-endorsed digital identity enables an individual to:
…
(ii) verify that the individual's age satisfies an age requirement without revealing the individual's age or date of birth.”

The recommendations that come out of the Department’s study won’t be known for some time, with the earliest possible reporting to take place in October 2025. However, in terms of proactive governance, this bill is an important first step toward a future of identification for the digital age.