Australia can use several techniques to implement their social media ban for the Under -16, but all have risks or shortcomings, found in a report.
The government says that its ban, which applies in December, is designed to limit the harmful effects of social media. The policy has been postponed as a world-first and is being closely viewed by leaders globally.
Under the new laws, platforms should take “appropriate steps” to prevent Australian children from creating accounts on their sites, and existing people should neutralize.
Although this step is popular with many parents, experts have expressed concern over the accuracy of data privacy and age verification technology.
The federal government tested the UK-based age check certification scheme, which could test the ways to implement Australia’s ban, and its final report was published on Sunday.
This saw various methods – including government documents, approval of parents, or formal verification using technologies to determine age based on facial structure, gestures, or behaviors – and found that all technically possible.
“But we did not find a single universal solution that would suit all the cases of use, nor did we find the solutions that all used to guarantee to be effective in deployment,” said this.
Verification was quoted as the most accurate method using the identity documents, but the report identified the concerns that the platforms could keep the data for longer than the requirement and were estimating to share it with the regulators, leaving the privacy of both users at risk.
Australia – Most of the world – like a series of high -profile data violations in recent years, which include many where sensitive personal information was stolen and sold or published.
Facial assessment technology was 92% accurate for people aged 18 or more, but is a “buffer zone” – about two to three years on either side of 16 – in which it is less accurate. The report states that this would cause false positivity, cleaning children for accounts, and false negative, stopping users who should be allowed.
There are also concerns of privacy and accuracy along with methods of approval of parents.
It was recommended that methods should be “layered” to create the strongest system, and it was highlighted that many technology providers were looking at documents and ways to address the circumference through things such as VPN (virtual private network), which obscure the user’s country.
Communications Minister Anika Wales stated that “there was no one size-fit-all solution”, that the report shown that the age investigation could be “private, skilled and effective”.
He told reporters on Monday, “These are some of the richest companies in the world. They are at the forefront of AI. They use the data that we give them to a wife of business objectives. I think it is appropriate to ask children to use the same data and technology to keep children online safe.”
“There is no excuse for social media platforms not to combine age assurance methods in their platforms ready for December 10.”
Under the ban, tech companies may be fined up to $ 50m ($ 50m ($ 32.5m; £ 25.7m)) if they do not take “proper steps” to people under 16 years of age. These steps still have to be defined.
Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube are among the affected platforms.
Voting indicates that most Australian adults support a ban on social media for children under 16 years of age.
Although some mental health advocates say that the policy has the ability to cut children from connections, and others say it may push children from at least 16 Internet corners to less-integrated corners.
They suggest that the government should focus on better policing of harmful materials on social media platforms and children should prepare for the reality of life on the web.
