First, what the article describes is awful. It's a full onslaught on privacy, once more under the "won't anyone think of the children" banner. Of course, they d

First, what the article describes is awful. It's a full onslaught on privacy, once more under the "won't anyone think of the children" banner. Of course, they don't care about the children, it's just an appeal to the purity of their blessed, little souls, as if encountering an inappropriate website will immediately condemn them to hell. Anyway, measuring age with e.g. just a webcam is quite feasible. It's not perfect. I mean: I was well in my 30s when people were still asking for my student id, so there's an error margin. I do suppose these methods cannot circumvented by holding a picture in front of the camera or judicious application of some make-up. Adolescent boys looking for porn are not going to give up just because an age filter declines them access. It's not phrenology, not in a technical sense, nor in the sense which the article appeals to. And that appeal is a bit pathetic, indeed, but more born from despair than the will to kill of a few million people.