Latest news with #RMITUniversity
RNZ News
2 days ago
- RNZ News
Six months out from social media ban, age-checking tech mistakes kids for 37-year-olds
Face-scanning technology tests could only guess age within an 18-month range in 85 percent of cases. Photo: Supplied/ABC Children as young as 15 were repeatedly misidentified as being in their 20s and 30s during Government tests of age-checking tools, sowing new doubts over whether the teen social media ban is viable. ABC News can reveal that face-scanning technology tested on school students this year could only guess their age within an 18-month range in 85 percent of cases. "It's definitely a problem," said Andrew Hammond, general manager of software consultancy firm KJR, which was tasked with running the trial. "So far, it's not perfect and it's not getting every child, but does that mean it's no good at all?" The full results of the age assurance technology trial were not expected to be released until later this year, but preliminary data had experts worried. "I don't think the ban is viable," said RMIT University information services professor Lisa Given, who had closely analysed the Government's policy. "Parents are definitely headed for a rude shock, in terms of what this legislation will actually deliver to them." Under the social media ban, more than 20 million Australians will be required to demonstrate they are 16 or older to log in to most major social media platforms. The ban is due to take effect in December, but the Government has yet to decide how it will be implemented, amid ongoing questions over whether age-checking technology is up to the job. The Government's technology trial, which has been running for eight months, was meant to provide some answers, but Professor Given said the public may be disappointed. "The accuracy level at 85 [percent] is actually quite low and an 18-month range is significant, when you're trying to identify a very particular age grouping," she said. "We are going to see a messy situation emerging immediately, where people will have what they call false positives, false negatives." Some students at Canberra's John Paul College, who previewed the technology as part of the Government's trial, were surprised, when their results were up to decades off the mark. Sixteen-year-old Andy was misidentified as 19, 37, 26, and 23 years old by various face-scanning tools he used. "I don't think the technology is ready yet to become a full-fledged primary defence system," he said. "It's pretty inconsistent." Seventeen-year-old Beth was given results ranging from 14-32. "I usually get told by other people that I don't look 17, I look older, so when it says 14, I thought… that's interesting." Her results from the other end of the spectrum were unwelcome for different reasons. "It's a bit insulting, because that's how old my aunty is," she said. "I don't want to look 32 just yet." Seventeen-year-old Nomi was especially concerned, when one tool mistook her for a 13-year-old. "I'm almost 18," she said. "If I try to sign up to an app and it tells me 'you're not meeting an age requirement', even though I am, that would be a problem for me." While the face-scanning results from the trial may not seem promising, Hammond said he was confident the ban would still work, because it did not rely exclusively on that tech. "If the solution to implementing the legislation was just facial age estimation, I'd say, 'Yep, it's probably not good enough'," he said. "However, it's just one of the tools in the toolkit that could be used." Age-verification providers are not discouraged by the early results either, arguing that other tech was always going to be necessary as a complement to get precise results. "You would never rely on age estimation for people who are literally at the age of 16," said Iain Corby from the Age Verification Providers Association, the industry body for age-check companies. "It was never going to be good enough for that," he said. One tool mistook Beth, 17, as being 32 years old. Photo: ABC News Corby said the early data reported by ABC News, showing an accuracy rate within 18 months for only 85 percent of students, is roughly what he expected. "I think even the best-in-class achieves about a year and a month, on average, above or below your real age." Among the methods tested were other age-estimation techniques that rely on biological traits, such as voice and hand movements, to guess the age of a user, but those methods struggled with the same accuracy issues and fewer companies offered the service. Another avenue was guessing a person's age based on their online activity, but that was also imprecise. Other tools offer a higher degree of certainty by inferring or even verifying a user's age, using data provided by third parties, such as banks, schools or healthcare providers. The strongest proof is a overnment-issued ID, such as a passport or a driver's license, but the legislation prevented social media companies from insisting on it. A last-minute amendment to the Bill, when it was passed back in November, meant platforms would be forced to offer users alternative methods to prove their age. That rule meant many Australians who could not easily provide those more reliable proofs might be forced to rely on less accurate methods, such as face scanning, if they wanted to use social media. "We do know, generally, that young people are going to be less likely to have a Government-issued ID that would satisfy some form of age verification," Given said. If facial scanning was on offer, under-16s who wanted to dodge the ban might be tempted to choose it anyway, in the hope they could fool it. "They might put glasses on, they might put make-up on, different hairstyle, different lighting, just to see if the system is actually able to accurately see that they're underage or over 16," Given said. The Government was expected to decide how the ban would work in the coming months, but one possible solution for the shakiness of facial scanning was a cascade-style system, similar to what we've see in bottle shops. Users might use face-scanning tech as a first hurdle and only be asked for further proof, if their result was within a 5-10-year margin of 16. "If you're within that margin for error, then you have to go to a second stage and find some other way of confirming that somebody is over the legal age," Corby said. Even so, everyone agreed it would not be perfect. "I'm optimistic, having seen the results," Hammond said. "Not necessarily making sure every 16-year-old doesn't get access, but making sure that most 16-year-olds don't get access to social media. "There's a number of solutions… and they have a level of accuracy. Now, whether the accuracy is good enough is a different question." Professor Given saw the end of the tech trial as an opportunity to reconsider the ban. "A responsible decision from Government would be weighing up the evidence in front of them and deciding whether that's actually a robust approach," she said. In the meantime, public expectations of the policy remained undeterred. "I think it's a really positive move for our young people," said John Paul College principal Craig Wattam. "I think that limiting their exposure to places that are potentially really dangerous is a really liberating thing." On the question of the tech's accuracy, he was also optimistic. "I guess this is the whole purpose of a trial," he said. "I'm confident that by the time we get closer to December… they may well have figured out more accurate ways to verify students' ages." A spokesperson for Communications Minister Anika Wells told ABC News the Government would be guided by advice from the eSafety Commissioner on how best to implement the ban. "We know that social media age-restrictions will not be the end-all, be-all solution for harms experienced by young people online, but it's a step in the right direction to keep our kids safer," they said. - ABC
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Australian universities suffer a dramatic fall in global rankings
Australia's reputation in global higher education has taken a major blow, with the 2026 QS World University Rankings revealing a steep decline for more than 70 per cent of the nation's universities. A total of 25 Australian universities dropped in rank this year, with only two now remaining in the world's top 20. The University of Melbourne continues to lead domestically but fell six spots to 19th globally, down from 13th last year. The University of New South Wales also declined slightly, slipping from 19th to 20th. The University of Sydney suffered the most significant fall among the top-tier institutions, dropping seven places from 18th to 25th, removing it from the prestigious global top 20 altogether. Monash University was the only Australian university to improve its standing, edging up from 37th to 36th. Angela Calderon of RMIT University, a member of the QS Global Rankings board, described the rankings as 'a wake-up call' in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald. 'We are experiencing an acceleration in the pace of change in higher education globally. Universities from emerging, middle-income economies and Asian countries are now global standouts,' Calderon said. The rankings arrive amid growing criticism that Australia's university sector is failing to meet the evolving needs of students and society. Professor John Quiggin, an economist at the University of Queensland and author of a recent report for the Australia Institute, was scathing in his assessment. 'Australia's universities are plagued with scandal and failing dismally,' he said. 'Australian universities are overseen by Vice-Chancellors who are paid vast sums of money, yet they are presiding over a sector which is failing staff, students and the broader community,' Quiggin added. The sector has also drawn fire for its heavy reliance on international student enrolments, which provide a major source of revenue due to significantly higher tuition fees. Government data shows 1,095,298 overseas students were enrolled in Australian universities, colleges, and schools in 2024, a 13 per cent increase from 969,307 in 2023. In response, the federal government has implemented measures to curb international enrolments, aiming to reduce the number to 270,000 this year. Despite the surge in student numbers, Australia ranks poorly on staff-to-student ratios, sitting 26th lowest in the world. This follows years of staff cuts across the university sector. Western Sydney University recently became a flashpoint for growing unrest, with protests erupting after it announced hundreds of job losses due to a 'large deterioration' in enrolments. The university forecasts a deficit of $79 million by 2026. Similarly, the University of Technology Sydney has announced it may cut up to 400 positions as part of a $100 million cost-saving drive. Macquarie University meanwhile also announced course cuts and reduction in staff, which would see around 75 jobs go. The QS World University Rankings is published annually by global higher education analysts QS Quacquarelli Symonds. It is based on data from 8,467 institutions, insights from 127,041 academics and 82,096 employers, and analysis of 19.8 million academic papers and 200 million citations.
ABC News
2 days ago
- Politics
- ABC News
Six months out from teen social media ban, age-checking tech mistakes kids for 37-year-olds
Children as young as 15 were repeatedly misidentified as being in their 20s and 30s during government tests of age-checking tools, sowing new doubts about whether the teen social media ban is viable. ABC News can reveal that face-scanning technology tested on school students this year could only guess their age within an 18-month range in 85 per cent of cases. "It's definitely a problem," said Andrew Hammond, general manager of software consultancy firm KJR, which was tasked with running the trial. "So far, it's not perfect, and it's not getting every child. But does that mean that it's no good at all?" The full results of the age assurance technology trial are not expected to be released until later this year, but preliminary data has experts worried. "I don't think the ban is viable," said Lisa Given, professor of information sciences at RMIT University, who has closely analysed the government's policy. Under the social media ban, more than 20 million Australians will be required to demonstrate that they are 16 or older to log in to most major social media platforms. It is due to take effect in December, but the government is yet to decide how it will be implemented, amid ongoing questions as to whether age-checking technology is up to the job. The government's technology trial, which has been running for eight months, was meant to provide some answers, but Professor Given said the public may be disappointed. "The accuracy level at 85 is actually quite low, and an 18-month range is significant when you're trying to identify a very particular age grouping," she said. "We are going to see a messy situation emerging immediately where people will have what they call false positives, false negatives". Some of the students at Canberra's John Paul College, who previewed the technology as part of the government's trial, were surprised when their results were up to decades off the mark. Sixteen-year-old Andy was misidentified as 19, 37, 26, and 23 years old by various face scanning tools he used. "I don't think the technology is ready yet to become a full-fledged primary defence system … It's pretty inconsistent," he said. Seventeen-year-old Beth was given results ranging from 14 to 32. "I usually get told by other people that I don't look 17, I look older. And so when it says 14, I thought … that's interesting." Her results from the other end of the spectrum were unwelcome for different reasons. "It's a bit insulting because that's how old my aunty is … I don't want to look 32 just yet," she said. Seventeen-year-old Nomi was especially concerned when one tool mistook her for a 13-year-old. "I'm almost 18. If I try to sign up to an app and it tells me 'you're not meeting an age requirement' even though I am, that would be a problem for me," she said. While the face scanning results from the trial might not seem promising, Mr Hammond said he is confident the ban will still work because it does not rely exclusively on that tech. "If the solution to implementing the legislation was just facial age estimation, I'd say 'yep, it's probably not good enough'," he said. "However, it's just one of the tools in the toolkit that could be used." Age verification providers are not discouraged by the early results either, arguing that other tech was always going to be necessary as a complement to get precise results. "You would never rely on age estimation for people who are literally at the age of 16," said Iain Corby from the Age Verification Providers Association, the industry body for age-check companies. Mr Corby said the early data reported by ABC News (showing an accuracy rate within 18 months for only 85 per cent of students) is roughly what he expected. "I think even the best-in-class achieves about a year and a month, on average, above or below your real age." Among the methods tested were other age-estimation techniques that rely on biological traits such as voice and hand movements to guess the age of a user. But those methods struggle with the same accuracy issues, and fewer companies offer the service. Another avenue is guessing a person's age based on their online activity, but that is also imprecise. Other tools offer a higher degree of certainty by inferring or even verifying a user's age, using data provided by third parties such as banks, schools, or healthcare providers. The strongest proof is a government-issued ID, such as a passport or a driver's license, but the legislation prevents social media companies from insisting on it. A last-minute amendment to the bill, when it was passed back in November, means platforms will be forced to offer users alternative methods to prove their age. That rule means many Australians who cannot easily provide those more reliable proofs may be forced to rely on less accurate methods, such as face scanning, if they want to use social media. "We do know generally that young people are going to be less likely to have a government-issued ID that would satisfy some form of age verification," said Professor Given. If facial scanning is on offer, under-16s who want to dodge the ban might be tempted to choose it anyway, in the hope they can fool it. "They might put glasses on, they might put makeup on, different hairstyle, different lighting, just to see if the system is actually able to accurately see that they're underage or over 16," said Professor Given. The government is expected to decide how the ban will work in the coming months, but one possible solution for the shakiness of facial scanning is a cascade-style system, similar to what we see in bottle shops. Users might use face scanning tech as a first hurdle, and only be asked for further proof if their result is within a five or 10-year margin of 16. "If you're within that margin for error, then you have to go to a second stage and find some other way of confirming that somebody is over the legal age," said Mr Corby Even so, everyone agrees it will not be perfect. "I'm optimistic, having seen the results," said Mr Hammond. "Not necessarily making sure every 16-year-old doesn't get access, but making sure that most 16-year-olds don't get access to social media. "There's a number of solutions … and they have a level of accuracy. Now, whether the accuracy is good enough is a different question." Professor Given sees the end of the tech trial as an opportunity to reconsider the ban. "A responsible decision from government would be weighing up the evidence in front of them and deciding whether that's actually a robust approach," she said. In the meantime, public expectations of the policy remain undeterred. "I think it's a really positive move for our young people," said the principal of John Paul College, Craig Wattam. "I think that limiting their exposure to places that are potentially really dangerous is a really liberating thing," he said. On the question of the tech's accuracy, he is also an optimist. "I guess this is the whole purpose of a trial," he said. A spokesperson for Communications Minister Anika Wells told ABC News the government would be guided by advice from the eSafety Commissioner on how best to implement the ban. "We know that social media age-restrictions will not be the end-all be-all solution for harms experienced by young people online, but it's a step in the right direction to keep our kids safer," they said.
Sydney Morning Herald
3 days ago
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
The weapons used as fighting between Israel and Iran rages
The F-35 and the war for the skies Israel's strategy has been to quickly establish control over Iran's airspace, allowing its air force to bomb Iranian targets unhampered. This has been a multi-step strategy. Israel struck Iran several times last year, hitting air-defence facilities, including several S-300 mobile surface-to-air missile systems supplied by Russia. On Friday, the latest conflict's first day, Israel struck the remaining air-defence systems, building an unobstructed strike corridor for its planes to bomb Tehran. Many of these strikes were carried out by Israel's fleet of American-supplied F-35s, complemented by F-15s and F-16s. The F35 is a fifth-generation stealth fighter, designed to be all but invisible to air defences. Its listed combat range is smaller than the distance between Israel and Iran, suggesting Israel has managed to modify its fuel reserves without compromising its stealth capacity. That newly extended strike capacity will put other Middle Eastern countries on notice, said Dr Binoy Kampmark, a lecturer at RMIT University who focuses on armed conflict. Iran's air force is entirely outmatched. The country has a few hundred patched-together planes dating from the 1970s: Russian MiG-29s, American F-14s, some Chinese F-7s. Iran has claimed it has shot down at least three of the F-35s using surface-to-air missiles. Israel has described those claims as fake news. 'Both sides are exaggerating for propaganda purposes,' said Hashim. 'I did not think the Iranians had the capability to shoot it down – someone must have given them that capability recently.' Drone warfare Drones have rapidly reshaped the face of warfare. In an operation dubbed 'Spider's Web', Ukraine struck four airbases deep inside Russia this month using smuggled explosive drones hidden inside shipping containers. The crates were taken to near their targets by drivers unaware of what they were transporting, before the drones were remotely activated. Pilots flew them to their targets – or AI was used when the signal was lost. We have less detail about Israel's operations early in the fighting with Iran, but it seems to have pulled off a similar trick. The Israelis appear to have built a one-way drone base in Iran, which they used to strike missile launchers near Tehran. The attacks were supported by vehicles and commandos also smuggled into the country. 'That was not a one-off. This is now a pattern of behaviour. This will now require a rethink of interior defence around the world, including Australia,' said Adam Lockyer, an associate professor in strategic studies at Macquarie University. Iran responded by launching more than 100 drones of its own at Israel. Iran makes its own Shahed drones, which it has sold to Russia for use in its war in Ukraine. Said Kampmark: 'They certainly don't have the same firepower the Israelis do. But they have invested in low-cost technologies en masse. The Shahed drone is their masterpiece.' Loading The drones have a long range and carry 50-kilogram warheads, but they fly slowly. Israel, with assistance from the US, has been able to intercept and destroy most of them. Iran has had more success combining drone and ballistic missile attacks, with the aim of overwhelming Israeli missile defences. Israel's most notable defence network is the Iron Dome – a network of anti-ballistic missile defences spread throughout the country. Israel has also been using a new addition to this system, known as the Iron Beam, in its conflict in Gaza: a high-powered laser cannon that can shoot down drones and missiles. Ballistic missiles Iran has tried to retaliate against Israel by launching hundreds of ballistic missiles. The country has invested heavily in missile development and production and now has probably the best arsenal in the Middle East, said Hashim – ranging from the old to cutting-edge technology. 'Iran has put all its eggs in the basket of ballistic missiles because it has not been able to rebuild its air force,' he said. Iran's missile development program started with Russian-built Scud missiles 'that were totally inaccurate and just pieces of shit', he said. But Iran's weapons are now 'progressively more technologically advanced'. Iran even claims it has developed and, as of Wednesday, deployed 'hypersonic missiles', a key advance. Hypersonic missiles can fly five times the speed of sound while also manoeuvring to avoid air defences. 'That makes it very hard to intercept. Even the Iron Dome would find it hard to intercept some of these particular missiles,' said Kampmark. The country has also claimed to have found ways to confuse the Iron Dome and make it target itself, said Dr Oleksandra Molloy, a senior aviation lecturer at the University of NSW who has published papers on drones for the Australian Army Research Centre, as part of an overall strategy to 'saturate Israeli air defence networks and confuse radar operations'. 'While some will be intercepted, some will still get through.' Social media footage also appears to suggest Iran has deployed multi-warhead ballistic missiles, she said. 'These submunitions – often referred to as bomblets – are released from the missile's warhead during its terminal phase to disperse over a wide area and hit multiple targets,' she said. Bunker busters On Tuesday, several American news outlets reported US President Donald Trump was hoping to use the country's bunker-busting bombs as leverage to bring the conflict to a swift close; Trump has demanded Iran's unconditional surrender. The bunker-buster bombs have assumed central importance because of Iran's Fordow nuclear site, which houses thousands of centrifuges that are key to Iran's purported ability to make nuclear weapons. The complex is buried deep within a mountain. Israel has damaged Iran's other nuclear site at Natanz. But destroying Fordow presents a different challenge: munitions need to penetrate 80 metres of solid rock before hitting the underground bunkers. Only one bomb is capable of that: the US's GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator. The specially hardened shell of the bomb is designed to punch through the ground before exploding. The bomb is GPS-guided, but due to its extreme weight – more than 13 tonnes – it can only be dropped by the US's B2 Spirit stealth bomber.
The Age
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Age
The weapons used as fighting between Israel and Iran rages
The F-35 and the war for the skies Israel's strategy has been to quickly establish control over Iran's airspace, allowing its air force to bomb Iranian targets unhampered. This has been a multi-step strategy. Israel struck Iran several times last year, hitting air-defence facilities, including several S-300 mobile surface-to-air missile systems supplied by Russia. On Friday, the latest conflict's first day, Israel struck the remaining air-defence systems, building an unobstructed strike corridor for its planes to bomb Tehran. Many of these strikes were carried out by Israel's fleet of American-supplied F-35s, complemented by F-15s and F-16s. The F35 is a fifth-generation stealth fighter, designed to be all but invisible to air defences. Its listed combat range is smaller than the distance between Israel and Iran, suggesting Israel has managed to modify its fuel reserves without compromising its stealth capacity. That newly extended strike capacity will put other Middle Eastern countries on notice, said Dr Binoy Kampmark, a lecturer at RMIT University who focuses on armed conflict. Iran's air force is entirely outmatched. The country has a few hundred patched-together planes dating from the 1970s: Russian MiG-29s, American F-14s, some Chinese F-7s. Iran has claimed it has shot down at least three of the F-35s using surface-to-air missiles. Israel has described those claims as fake news. 'Both sides are exaggerating for propaganda purposes,' said Hashim. 'I did not think the Iranians had the capability to shoot it down – someone must have given them that capability recently.' Drone warfare Drones have rapidly reshaped the face of warfare. In an operation dubbed 'Spider's Web', Ukraine struck four airbases deep inside Russia this month using smuggled explosive drones hidden inside shipping containers. The crates were taken to near their targets by drivers unaware of what they were transporting, before the drones were remotely activated. Pilots flew them to their targets – or AI was used when the signal was lost. We have less detail about Israel's operations early in the fighting with Iran, but it seems to have pulled off a similar trick. The Israelis appear to have built a one-way drone base in Iran, which they used to strike missile launchers near Tehran. The attacks were supported by vehicles and commandos also smuggled into the country. 'That was not a one-off. This is now a pattern of behaviour. This will now require a rethink of interior defence around the world, including Australia,' said Adam Lockyer, an associate professor in strategic studies at Macquarie University. Iran responded by launching more than 100 drones of its own at Israel. Iran makes its own Shahed drones, which it has sold to Russia for use in its war in Ukraine. Said Kampmark: 'They certainly don't have the same firepower the Israelis do. But they have invested in low-cost technologies en masse. The Shahed drone is their masterpiece.' Loading The drones have a long range and carry 50-kilogram warheads, but they fly slowly. Israel, with assistance from the US, has been able to intercept and destroy most of them. Iran has had more success combining drone and ballistic missile attacks, with the aim of overwhelming Israeli missile defences. Israel's most notable defence network is the Iron Dome – a network of anti-ballistic missile defences spread throughout the country. Israel has also been using a new addition to this system, known as the Iron Beam, in its conflict in Gaza: a high-powered laser cannon that can shoot down drones and missiles. Ballistic missiles Iran has tried to retaliate against Israel by launching hundreds of ballistic missiles. The country has invested heavily in missile development and production and now has probably the best arsenal in the Middle East, said Hashim – ranging from the old to cutting-edge technology. 'Iran has put all its eggs in the basket of ballistic missiles because it has not been able to rebuild its air force,' he said. Iran's missile development program started with Russian-built Scud missiles 'that were totally inaccurate and just pieces of shit', he said. But Iran's weapons are now 'progressively more technologically advanced'. Iran even claims it has developed and, as of Wednesday, deployed 'hypersonic missiles', a key advance. Hypersonic missiles can fly five times the speed of sound while also manoeuvring to avoid air defences. 'That makes it very hard to intercept. Even the Iron Dome would find it hard to intercept some of these particular missiles,' said Kampmark. The country has also claimed to have found ways to confuse the Iron Dome and make it target itself, said Dr Oleksandra Molloy, a senior aviation lecturer at the University of NSW who has published papers on drones for the Australian Army Research Centre, as part of an overall strategy to 'saturate Israeli air defence networks and confuse radar operations'. 'While some will be intercepted, some will still get through.' Social media footage also appears to suggest Iran has deployed multi-warhead ballistic missiles, she said. 'These submunitions – often referred to as bomblets – are released from the missile's warhead during its terminal phase to disperse over a wide area and hit multiple targets,' she said. Bunker busters On Tuesday, several American news outlets reported US President Donald Trump was hoping to use the country's bunker-busting bombs as leverage to bring the conflict to a swift close; Trump has demanded Iran's unconditional surrender. The bunker-buster bombs have assumed central importance because of Iran's Fordow nuclear site, which houses thousands of centrifuges that are key to Iran's purported ability to make nuclear weapons. The complex is buried deep within a mountain. Israel has damaged Iran's other nuclear site at Natanz. But destroying Fordow presents a different challenge: munitions need to penetrate 80 metres of solid rock before hitting the underground bunkers. Only one bomb is capable of that: the US's GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator. The specially hardened shell of the bomb is designed to punch through the ground before exploding. The bomb is GPS-guided, but due to its extreme weight – more than 13 tonnes – it can only be dropped by the US's B2 Spirit stealth bomber.
