Dear Members of Congress,

I write to you as a concerned citizen deeply invested in the intersection of technology, privacy, and family welfare, particularly in light of emerging legislation on age verification across digital platforms. With California's Digital Age Assurance Act set to take effect on January 1, 2027, and federal proposals like the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and COPPA 2.0 gaining traction, we stand at a pivotal moment where policy decisions could profoundly shape the digital landscape. My intent is to urge a thoughtful recalibration of these efforts, drawing on the political dynamics of bipartisan collaboration and the scientific realities of software engineering to foster solutions that empower parents without unduly burdening innovation or individual rights.

At the heart of this issue lies a tension between protecting children from online harms and preserving the open, innovative ethos of the internet. Politically, these bills reflect a commendable bipartisan push to address parental anxieties amid rapid technological change. However, scientifically, mandates for age verification at the operating system level—such as those in California's law—pose significant implementation challenges. Requiring age classification during device setup or account creation, even for open-source systems like Linux, demands intricate software integrations that could introduce vulnerabilities, from data breaches to algorithmic biases in age estimation tools like facial recognition or behavioral analysis. These technical hurdles underscore the need for policies informed not merely by abstract expertise, but by the grounded, hands-on experience of those who have built and navigated complex digital systems.

To this end, I strongly encourage consulting with congressional colleagues who possess direct backgrounds in computer science and software development. Figures such as Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA), a video game developer with degrees in engineering and artificial intelligence; Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), a former software engineer and AI policy leader; Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA), who pursued advanced studies in machine learning; Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), with early experience in systems engineering; and Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), a former programmer, bring invaluable insights. Their real-world immersion in coding, AI ethics, and system design equips them to evaluate the feasibility of verification mechanisms—such as zero-knowledge proofs for privacy-preserving age checks or federated learning to minimize data exposure—far beyond what theoretical experts might offer. Politically, their cross-party affiliations could bridge divides, ensuring legislation evolves through evidence-based dialogue rather than ideological fiat. Heeding their ideas is crucial because, as history shows in fields like cybersecurity, policies crafted without practitioner input often falter, leading to unintended consequences like user circumvention or market fragmentation that disadvantages American innovators against global competitors.

Yet, even as we leverage this expertise, the focus must shift from expansive regulations toward empowering genuine parenting. State-sponsored interventions, while well-intentioned, risk morphing into overreach that encroaches on family autonomy and privacy. For instance, broad mandates for content filtering or data collection could normalize surveillance, eroding trust in digital ecosystems and stifling the creative freedoms that drive technological progress. Scientifically, research in human-computer interaction highlights how restrictive approaches often fail due to adaptive user behaviors, whereas tools that enhance parental agency—such as customizable app controls, AI-driven content moderators integrated into family devices, or educational platforms teaching digital literacy—yield more sustainable outcomes. Politically, this aligns with conservative principles of limited government and liberal emphases on individual rights, offering a unifying path forward.

The implications of prioritizing regulations over parental tools are stark. On privacy, mandatory ID uploads or biometric scans could amass vast troves of sensitive data, vulnerable to hacks or misuse, as seen in past breaches of government databases. Innovation-wise, smaller developers might be priced out of compliance, consolidating power among tech giants and hindering breakthroughs in areas like educational software or secure communication apps. Socially, underserved communities could face access barriers, exacerbating digital divides. By contrast, investing in parent-centric solutions—perhaps through incentives for voluntary tool adoption or public-private partnerships—could foster a healthier online environment without these drawbacks, grounded in the science of behavioral economics that favors nudges over mandates.

In exploring these political and scientific dimensions, it becomes clear that consulting those with authentic technology experience is not just prudent but essential. Their perspectives can illuminate paths to child safety that respect privacy, spur innovation, and reinforce parental roles, avoiding the pitfalls of state overreach toward dependence. I urge you to engage these knowledgeable representatives in refining current bills, redirecting emphasis toward empowering families with practical, science-backed tools.

Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.

Sincerely,

Jason Page