Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank everybody for being here today.
I'm glad that Mr. Krishnamurthy is back, because I'd like to address the following question to him.
There is no question that everyone present here and engaged in this important discussion in other forums, both nationally and abroad, perhaps wants one outcome above all others, and that is to ensure that children are interacting free from threat or violation when online. Also, I think that we all agree on the importance of outlining and establishing safety standards to see that this is achieved. The issue, however, seems not in the “what” but in the “how”.
Mandatory age verification technology, as we know, is still in the early stages, not just in its refinement but also in its conception. It's an important element of the conversation, but it has been tried and it has failed in multiple U.S. states, such as Louisiana, Utah and Texas. As you likely know, VPNs, or virtual private networks, exist as a means of circumventing both the age restriction controls for children and the means of tracking offenders. This is an important nuance to consider. These tools can significantly hamper the utility of existing age verification technology as they relate to offenders and victims.
Here is the question: How does age-appropriate design and language seek to address these issues and improve the safety standards for children?