Opinion: Texas SB 2420 would have killed privacy

Hey all, 

I recently came across Texas Senate Bill 2420. I believe it would be a death sentence to privacy to all. Imagine it like this, you buy a new phone, and you have none of your apps installed, e.g. Google, The Weather Channel, or your preferred email app, such as Gmail, Outlook, etc. You physically cannot install them onto your device from the App Store until they scan your ID or prove your age another way. There are a few things that limit this feasability, but mainly privacy and control is my concern. Why is privacy important? That's for a later post.

Here's the thing, your online identity is now forcibly tied to your legal identity. Google, an app store owner, is a massive single sign on (SSO) provider. Every time you click "Sign in with Google" or similar, they link that to your account. Even Apple has started to offer SSO for some services, e.g. Reddit, X (fka Twitter), Cloudflare, etc. It's centralizing all your digital life, and now your legal life into one account. Now, because Google has to verify your age somehow, likely via ID. Imagine your Google account gets banned. For whatever reason, just search the internet for "google account banned". Now, you can't just spin up a new Google account and use your phone like normal, because remember, Google has your ID. They'll just ban your new one, effectively making your cellphone a brick, as you cannot use your apps, except the ones preinstalled. Which, is pratically none, or locks you into Google services. And considering that AOSP is going to block sideloading apps Soon enough, there will no longer be a way to install apps without going through a market, or "verifying" the identity of a developer. 

So, if your account gets banned for any reason, you cannot install apps, period. You also lose access to all the services and associated accounts that were "Sign In with Google" that you don't have an email login for. 

Now, the privacy section. Remember Edward Snowden? The one who leaked documents that enabled mass surveillance? Now, imagine what would happen that we start collecting the legal identities of every American, and start associating them with their app usage, and app downloads. They can claim that it's for national security all they want, but it doesn't change that it's unconstitutional. What's gonna happen if this became federal, and they start putting people on survalience lists because they started to use Signal, Matrix, Telegram, or other E2E encrypted messaging services? How much are we are going to give up to have national security? Especially when all your actions are tied to your identity.

Thankfully, a court order has temporarily blocked this act from taking place. But, if found constitutional, what's next for us?

A lot of people will argue that this protects children, but at what point will the law have parents parent their children, instead of blaming everything for "protection of the children" and making laws to protect them. Why would I need to scan my ID to download The Weather Channel or Google? It then becomes a cat and mouse game for the state. It's even gotten to a point in some states, they are attempting to ban VPNs. A crucial privacy tool. I am for restricting certain content (sexually explicit content) to people not of age, namely because it actively harms them and causes issues later in life. I believe there should be a federal law then, that a hoster of sexually explicit content, or other items that should be restricted to adults (dating apps, etc.), need to verify the age of it's visitors. Think of it like a bar. There is a bouncer checking IDs before people are allowed to enter. The hoster should bear the burden of age restriction. And if they don't, they should be charged with 18 U.S. Code § 1470 - Transfer of obscene material to minors. Include the hosters, like how the DMCA Safe Harbor provision includes it. If a site is hosting sexually explicit content without completing age verification, block it's access, if not, charge them as well. 

I don't believe this would be implemented though due to lobbying, and the main point of those bills being surveillance, not actual protection of children. 

That's all.

Update: Modified spelling of 18 U.S. Code to be factually correct. 
Update 2: Modified for clarity what I meant for a law to protect youth from porn.