Latest news with #technologytrial
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.
The Guardian
29-05-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
Tech trial for Australia's social media ban ‘broadly on track' amid concerns under 16s could circumvent systems
The technology trial for Australia's social media ban is 'broadly on track', the government says, despite a month-long delay of a key report on the best ways to keep under 16s off the platforms. It comes as the company behind the age assurance trial has revealed only one type of technology has been tested on children so far and some internal stakeholder concerns about how young people may circumvent the age ban systems. The federal government has also been sitting on a separate report, costing more than $275,000, that it commissioned last year on Australians' attitudes to age assurance technology. It was delivered to the government on 2 January but has not yet been released. The UK-based company recruited to run the trial, Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS), was due to publish its age assurance report in June. The report will focus on what technology could be used to prevent under 16s gaining access to social media and under 18s accessing adult websites. The federal communications department has confirmed the ACCS report would now be delivered in July, and the minister would decide when to publish it, a spokesperson said. 'The independent trial of age assurance technologies remains broadly on track, in line with project delivery timeframes,' the spokesperson said. Briefing documents from Senate estimates in February, released under freedom of information laws, stated the final report 'is due in June 2025'. ACCS had previously stated the report was due 'at the end of June', and it would independently publish it. One of the first tasks for the new communications minister, Labor's Anika Wells, will be to assess the outcome of the trial, to decide which technologies are applicable and to which platforms they will apply. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Affected platforms must have age assurance systems in place by December. Wells must be satisfied that the platforms – expected to include Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat – are taking reasonable steps to stop under 16s accessing their services. In an update on the age assurance trial from ACCS last week, it said the only type of technology trialed so far is facial age estimation tech, which examines a photo or video of a user to try to estimate the age based on their facial features. A total of 1,580 tests have been conducted on 485 students, in years 7 to 12. Aside from this testing, further work has been limited to interviews with dozens of potential vendors, and statements outlining how their age ban enforcement technology could work. The trial will try to confirm those claims through 'a combination of practical testing and a vendor interview'. About half of the interviews have been completed. Technologies deemed sufficiently mature to include in the final report will be tested by another company – the Australian-owned KJR – or through schools testing or mystery-shopper type testing. Mystery-shopper testing is a 'real-world environment, where users will have a variety of equipment, light conditions and access to required resources, be that an ID document or a bank account'. ACCS said there will only be 'enough testing' to confirm claims made by vendors 'and that may be achieved with a relatively modest level of practical experimentation'. The March meeting minutes for the stakeholder advisory board overseeing the trial reported stakeholders had raised concerns about gaps in the testing, particularly around how children may circumvent the age ban systems. A spokesperson for the department said a preliminary report, provided in April but not released publicly, gave the government 'anticipated findings in relation to age verification, age estimation, age inference, successive validation, parental control and parental consent methods'. Sources close to the trial told Guardian Australia they believed it was unlikely the report on the trial would be finalised by the due date – or that if it was, it would have not been adequate to inform government decisionmaking on the best technology to use. One concern raised was that other countries, including New Zealand and the United States, are looking to Australia's trial to guide their own plans. Those who supported the policy wanted it implemented correctly, rather than rushed through with technology that could later present privacy or other issues. The Social Research Centre was commissioned in August, and paid $278,000, to research attitudes to age assurance. This included an online survey of 3,140 adults, and 870 people aged 8 to 17 years. A spokesperson for the department said it was a matter for the minister on when that report, delivered to government in January, would be released. A spokesperson for the Albanese government did not directly respond to questions on the timing of the tech trial report or the Social Research Centre report release. 'The government looks forward to receiving the age assurance report and progressing our reforms to protect children from social media harms,' the spokesperson said.
