Latest news with #privacyconcerns
SBS Australia
17 hours ago
- Business
- SBS Australia
Will the tech behind the teen social media ban work? These questions remain unanswered
Technologies to enforce the Australian government's social media ban for under 16s are "private, robust and effective". That's according to the preliminary findings of a federal government-commissioned trial that has nearly finished testing them. The findings, released on Friday, may give the government greater confidence to forge ahead with the ban, despite a suite of expert criticism. They might also alleviate some of the concerns of the Australian population about privacy and security implications of the ban, which is due to start in December. For example, a report based on a survey of nearly 4,000 people and released by the government earlier this week found nine out of 10 people support the idea of a ban. But it also found a large number of people were "very concerned" about how the ban would be implemented. Nearly 80 per cent of respondents had privacy and security concerns, while roughly half had concerns about age assurance accuracy and government oversight. The trial's preliminary findings paint a rosy picture of the potential for available technologies to check people's ages. However, they contain very little detail about specific technologies, and appear to be at odds with what we know about age-assurance technology from other sources. The social media ban for under-16s was legislated in December 2024. A last-minute amendment to the law requires technology companies to provide "alternative age assurance methods" for account holders to confirm their age, rather than relying only on government-issued ID. The Australian government commissioned an independent trial to evaluate the "effectiveness, maturity, and readiness for use" of these alternative methods. The trial is being led by the Age Check Certification Scheme — a company based in the United Kingdom that specialises in testing and certifying identity verification systems. It includes 53 vendors that offer a range of age assurance technologies to guess people's ages, using techniques such as facial recognition and hand-movement recognition. According to the preliminary findings of the trial, "age assurance can be done in Australia". The trial's project director, Tony Allen, said "there are no significant technological barriers" to assuring people's ages online. He added the solutions are "technically feasible, can be integrated flexibly into existing services and can support the safety and rights of children online". However, these claims are hard to square with other evidence. On Thursday, the ABC reported the trial found face-scanning technologies "repeatedly misidentified" children as young as 15 as being in their 20s and 30s. These tools could only guess children's ages "within an 18-month range in 85 per cent of cases". This means a 14-year-old child might gain access to a social media account, while a 17-year-old might be blocked. This is in line with results of global trials of face-scanning technologies conducted for more than a decade. An ongoing series of studies of age estimation technology by the United States' National Institute of Standards and Technology shows the algorithms "fail significantly when attempting to differentiate minors" of various ages. The tests also show that error rates are higher for young women compared to young men. Error rates are also higher for people with darker skin tones. These studies show that even the best age-estimation software currently available — Yoti — has an average error of 1.0 years. Other software options mistake someone's age by 3.1 years on average. This means, at best, a 16-year-old might be estimated to be 15 or 17 years old; at worst, they could be seen to be 13 or 19 years of age. These error rates mean a significant number of children under 16 could access social media accounts despite a ban being in place, while some over 16 could be blocked. Yoti also explains businesses needing to check exact ages (such as 18) can set higher age thresholds (such as 25), so fewer people under 18 get through the age check. This approach would be similar to that taken in Australia's retail liquor sector, where sales staff verify ID for anyone who appears to be under the age of 25. However, many young people lack the government-issued ID required for an additional age check. It's also worth remembering that in August 2023, the Australian government acknowledged that the age assurance technology market was "immature" and could not yet meet key requirements, such as working reliably without circumvention and balancing privacy and security. We don't yet know exactly what methods platforms will use to verify account holders' ages. While face-scanning technologies are often discussed, they could use other methods to confirm age. The government trial also tested voice and hand movements to guess young people's ages. But those methods also have accuracy issues. And it's not yet clear what recourse people will have if their age is misidentified. Will parents be able to complain if children under 16 gain access to accounts, despite restrictions? Will older Australians who are incorrectly blocked be able to appeal? And if so, to whom? There are other outstanding questions. What's stopping someone who's under 16 from getting someone who is over 16 to set up an account on their behalf? To mitigate this risk, the government might require all social media users to verify their age at regular intervals. It's also unclear what level of age estimation error the government may be willing to accept in implementing a social media ban. The legislation says technology companies must demonstrate they have taken "reasonable steps" to prevent under-16s from holding social media accounts. What is considered "reasonable" is yet to be clearly defined. Australians will have to wait until later this year for the full results of the government's trial to be released, and to know how technology companies will respond. With less than six months until the ban comes into effect, social media users still don't have all the answers they need. Lisa M. Given is a professor of information sciences and director of the Social Change Enabling Impact Platform at RMIT University.
CBC
12-06-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Are there 'snooping provisions' in Carney's massive border bill?
Social Sharing Conservatives and New Democrats don't agree on much, but it appears both have issues with provisions tucked into Bill C-2, the Carney government's Strong Borders Act. The 140-page bill would modify many existing laws, from the Criminal Code to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Canada Post Corporation Act and the Oceans Act. Much of it is about the border and the movement of people and goods, licit and illicit, across that border, as its full name suggests: An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures. But some MPs are having difficulty seeing how everything in the bill is at all "related" to the border. WATCH | Privacy concerns over Liberal border bill: Strong Borders Act raises concern about police access to personal data 1 day ago Duration 2:28 Civil liberties groups are concerned that the federal government's proposed Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, will give law enforcement agencies sweeping new powers, like making it easier for police to search your internet activity and data without your knowledge or a warrant. "I think the title of the act is for show for the Trump administration," said New Democrat MP Jenny Kwan. "A lot of the components in the bill target Canada's own processes that have nothing to do with the U.S." Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner said C-2 includes "snooping provisions" that are "a massive poison pill." A long fight over 'lawful access' Perhaps the most controversial parts of the bill relate to police powers and "lawful access," the ability for police to demand subscriber information from internet providers and other online companies. Police have been seeking such powers for two decades in Canada, and there have been several attempts to pass legislation. The last determined effort to expand police powers over the internet was made by Stephen Harper's government in 2014, when it was packaged as the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. It fell apart after Public Safety Minister Vic Toews challenged critics to either "stand with us or stand with the child pornographers." The Carney government also turned to the spectre of child pornography to make the case for their bill. And indeed, those who work in child protection have long advocated for a version of lawful access that would compel internet providers to co-operate with law enforcement. Wait times for warrants "There are pieces of information that are only in the possession of [internet] companies," said Monique St. Germain, a lawyer with the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. She said it can take months to obtain authorizations to link a computer's IP address to a suspect, and sometimes that means important evidence is lost. WATCH | Critics worry about alignment with U.S.: Critics say new border legislation aligns Canada's immigration system with the U.S. 7 days ago Duration 2:43 And Thomas Carrique of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police says communications and encryption technology used by criminals have raced ahead of existing legislation. "We are certainly not advocating to have unfettered access," he said. "[C-2] lays out in law what the police would have access to based on reasonable suspicion. And in a modern technical society, this is bare-minimum information." Reasonable expectations of privacy But the Supreme Court of Canada ruled its landmark 2014 decision R v. Spencer that the information police hope to gain through the border bill is within the bounds of a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. "I frankly thought that the prospect of government going back to legislation without a warrant, without court oversight, was simply gone," said Michael Geist, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. He says it now feels like there's an effort to "sneak" old provisions from failed legislation into this bill — "about which there's very little to do with lawful access." He expects Canadians will "feel that they've been duped" as they learn that a bill "designed to deal with the border and border safety" has elements that "have nothing to do with the border." Content off limits The data at issue would not include the actual content of messages exchanged over the internet. In order to listen to conversations or read emails, police would still need a warrant. Rather it is biographical information about the sender that is at issue, and there is a debate about how significant the privacy interest in that is. "I think what's being asked is relatively limited, but I acknowledge that's not a universally shared view," said Richard Fadden, former director of Canada's intelligence agency, CSIS. "If you go back 20 or 30 years you had telephone books which allowed the police to do more or less the same." But Geist said police could obtain a lot more through C-2 than they ever could through an old phone book. He said law enforcement could ask an internet company what kind of things a customer has been doing online, when they were doing them and where. Geist says providers would also have to disclose what communications services the subscriber users, such as a Gmail account. WATCH | Public safety minister says C-2 is in line with Charter: Public safety minister says border bill is in line with Charter 9 days ago Duration 0:54 Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree said Bill C-2, known as the Strong Borders Act, strikes the right balance between expanding the powers of border agents and police officers, while also protecting the individual rights of Canadians. Shakir Rahim, a lawyer with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said such information provides "a trove of background about our lives" and that his group has "serious concerns that this bill is not compliant with the Charter." Rahim says the requirement to get a warrant offers "some level of protection" that such access is being sought in a targeted way. "But this legislation changes that. It takes away that protection," he said. That problem is compounded, says Geist, by the very low bar set to allow police to demand such information — "any violation of any act of Parliament" — giving the example of camping without a permit. Opposition parties concerned about snooping Rempel Garner raised those concerns in the House of Commons. "Whether or not I use an online service, where I use an online service, if I depart from an online service, if I start an online service, how long I use an online service, everything that C-2 says it would do — that is my personal information," she said. "That is none of the government's business, certainly not without a warrant. There has to be a line drawn here." WATCH | Conservatives express privacy concerns: Conservatives express privacy concerns over border bill 7 days ago Duration 1:57 Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree, who has a background in asylum and human rights law, said he would never advance a bill that threatens civil liberties. "It needed to be in line with the values of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms," he said the day the bill was tabled. "I fundamentally believe that we can strike a balance that, while expanding powers in certain instances, does have the safeguards and the protections in place like protecting individual freedoms or rights." The NDP's Kwan isn't convinced. "I know the minister says this and believes it," she said. "But in reality, if you look at the bill, the minister is creating a situation where your personal info is being disclosed without your consent." A need for 'careful review' Even some who broadly support the lawful access provisions in C-2 wish they had been presented in a separate bill. Fadden says CSIS is too busy to waste time on fishing expeditions, and he would expect the agency to set its own protocols that agents would have to comply with before contacting internet providers. He doesn't dismiss the risk of abuse and overreach, but argues that those risks also exist under the present system of warrants. Still, he wishes the changes hadn't been buried in an omnibus bill ostensibly about the border. "I understand the desire to do it that way, but I don't think it allows for people to understand what's being proposed," Fadden said. "I'm not sure when parliamentary committees look at the bill in the aggregate, particularly given its focus on borders, that this will get the attention that it deserves … people from the civil liberties side are raising concerns that merit discussion."
The Sun
11-05-2025
- General
- The Sun
We came home from holiday to find nightmare newbuild estate with 129 houses built next door… it's destroying our lives
A COUPLE returned from their holiday to discover a new build estate with 129 houses built next door. Martine Le Barth, 75, and her husband say their mental health has taken a dive and claim that people can see into their bedroom. 6 6 The couple moved to South Molton's Parklands estate in Devon in 1992. Martine claims they were given assurances that the land behind their home would remain undeveloped. But they were "flabbergasted" when they returned home from a six-month holiday and saw two-storey houses built next to their bungalow. They say the ongoing construction of the new homes have robbed them 'their privacy' - adding that they have been awaken with loud banging at 7am. Martine said: "My mental health has been really affected and my sleeping pattern too. ''It is getting me awake at night. Over three nights I must have managed to sleep 6 or 7 hours at the most - it is bad. "Our house went from being the most desirable to the least desirable with those big buildings so close to us." The new houses are part of Tilia Homes' Cashmere Park development, which was approved by North Devon Council in 2021. The scheme includes 129 two to four-bedroom homes, more than 20 per cent of which will be affordable housing. The development will also feature two acres of public open space, a children's play area and biodiversity enhancements. George Michael's £10m London mansion gets modern makeover after row with neighbours over buildings 'left to rot' But Martine claims they were unaware of any formal consultation on the current scheme. She stated: "We were flabbergasted when we came back after Christmas and saw that they built two-story houses next us very very close. "The problem is we didn't know what was going on because they sent us the wrong plan originally which was for another development and then there was a consultation which I assumed was when we were gone for six months when our granddaughter was born. "But then I've realised it was in the summer 2021 when we were here and it says in the minutes of the consultation that no neighbours were there - no wonder because no one was told about it." At first the family's problems began with the banging noises from the builders who would start at 7am and wake them up - taking a toll on the family's mental health. But despite the loud banging issue being resolved, light into the family's bedroom, study and garden has been blocked by the new development, said Martine. She added that she is now unable to dry her clothes outside as the properties block the sun from her garden. She said: "I have been really upset about it. They blocked the sunshine as well because they are on the western side of us so I can't put my washing to dry on the line anymore. "There is no light coming to the family's study. "My grandchildren came for three weeks and when it is sunny we eat in the garden. Those people will see us directly." She claims that despite complaining to the planning department, their requests "have been ignored". Martine said: "We've asked for some frosted windows because we have lost all privacy - they have got a view of our bedroom and the study. "They actually look down into our rooms, our living quarters. Our request for frosted windows as been ignored." Moving out would be a "tall order", added Martine, who says they will likely keep living in the house. She said: "I think we will stay there and live next to those houses but our own house will have lost a lot of value and when we die our children won't get the value the house could have had in the first place. "Our house went from being the most desirable to the least desirable with those big buildings so close to us." A spokesperson for Tilia Homes said: "As a considerate developer, Tilia Homes is committed to minimising disruption to local residents while delivering much-needed homes in South Molton. "We understand that construction activity can be challenging for neighbours, and we are actively working to ensure any impact is kept to a minimum. "Our Cashmere Park development, approved by North Devon Council in 2021, will deliver 129 two to four-bedroom homes, with over 20 per cent allocated as affordable housing." The company said how the scheme includes two acres of open public space and the retention of mature trees. "We have also pledged more than £1.4 million in community contributions for education, public transport, and local infrastructure improvements. Tilia insisted that construction is being carried out in accordance with the approved planning layout. The company also stated that building work is carried out from 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 1pm on Saturdays. The spokesperson added that if residents see workers building outside of the specified working times that they should contact Tilia. Tilia's spokesperson added: "We sincerely appreciate residents' patience during construction, and we will be contacting Mr and Mrs Le Barth to discuss their concerns directly with them." The developer said there had been no amendments to the application since its approval in 2021 and the local planning authority conducted the required consultation process with residents at the time. A spokesperson for North Devon Council said: "This matter is currently being dealt with through our feedback and complaints procedure. "However, the impact of new development on existing and future residents is a matter that is duly considered by planning officers as part of the planning process." 6 6 6 6
