Technology to enforce teen social media ban is ‘effective,’ trial says. But this is at odds with other evidence

Technologies to apply the prohibition of social media from the Australian government for those under 16 are “private, robust and effective”. It is according to the preliminary conclusions of a federal trial commissioned by the government which has almost finished testing them.

The conclusions, published today, can give the government greater confidence to move forward with the ban, despite a series of expert criticism. They could also mitigate some of the concerns of the Australian population concerning the privacy and security of the implications of the ban, which should start in December.

For example, a report based on a survey of nearly 4,000 people and published by the government earlier this week revealed that nine out of ten supports the idea of ​​a ban. But he also found that a large number of people were “very concerned” by the way the ban would be implemented. Almost 80% of respondents had confidentiality and security problems, while around half had concerns about the precision of insurance and government surveillance.

The preliminary tests of the trial brush a pink table of the potential for technologies available to check the age of people. However, they contain very few details on specific technologies and seem to be in contradiction with what we know about the age insurance technology of other sources.

From facial recognition to the recognition of hand movements

The ban on social media for under 16s was legislated in December 2024. A last -minute amendment to the law obliges technological companies to provide “alternative age insurance methods” for account holders in order to confirm their age, rather than relying solely on an identity document issued by the government.

The Australian government has ordered an independent test to assess “efficiency, maturity and use preparation” of these alternative methods.

The test is led by the Check age certification system – a UK based company that specializes in tests and certification of identity verification systems. It includes 53 suppliers who offer a range of insurance technologies to guess people’s age, using techniques such as facial recognition and hand movement recognition.

According to the preliminary conclusions of the trial, “age insurance can be carried out in Australia”.

Tony Allen’s project director, said that “there are no important technological obstacles” to ensure people of people online. He added that the solutions are “technically possible, can be flexibly integrated into existing services and can support the security and rights of online children”.

However, these statements are difficult to compete with other evidence.

High error rate

ABC yesterday reported that the trial revealed that facial sweeping technologies “have misunderstood children” as young as 15 as in their twenties and thirties several times. These tools could only guess the age of the children “in an 18 -month fork in 85% of cases”. This means that a 14 -year -old child could have access to a social media account, while a 17 -year -old could be blocked.

This complies with the results of global testing of scanning technologies carried out for more than a decade.

A series in the course of study on age estimation technology by the National Institute of States and Technology of the United States shows that algorithms “fail considerably when they try to differentiate minors” from various ages.

The tests also show that error rates are higher for young women than for young men. Error rates are also higher for people with darker skin tones.

These studies show that even the best age estimate software currently available – Yoti – has an average error of 1.0 years. Other software options confuse the age of someone 3.1 years on average.

This means, at best, a 16 -year -old could be estimated at 15 or 17 years; At worst, they could be considered 13 or 19 years old. These error rates mean that a significant number of children under the age of 16 could access social media accounts despite a ban in place, while some more than 16 could be blocked.

Yoti also explains that companies need to check the exact ages (like 18 years) can set higher age thresholds (like 25), so fewer people under the age of 18 go through age control.

This approach would be similar to that taken in the retail sector in Australia, where the sales staff check the identity document for anyone who seems to be under 25 years of age. However, many young people have no identification issued by the government required for an additional age check.

It should also be remembered that in August 2023, the Australian government recognized that the age insurance technology market was “immature” and could not yet meet key requirements, such as working reliably without bypass and balancing privacy and security.

Outstanding questions

We do not yet know exactly what methods of methods will use to check the ages of account holders. Although facial scanning technologies are often discussed, they could use other methods to confirm age. The government trial has also tested voice and hand movements to guess the age of young people. But these methods also have precision problems.

And we do not yet know what people will have if their age is poorly identified. Will parents be able to complain if children under the age of 16 will have access to accounts, despite the restrictions? Can older Australians who are incorrectly blocked can appeal? And if so, to whom?

There are other outstanding questions. What prevents someone who is under 16 from asking someone over 16 to create an account on his behalf? To alleviate this risk, the government could demand that all social media users check their age at regular intervals.

It is also not known what error in age estimation, the government can be willing to accept in the implementation of a ban on social media. Legislation indicates that technological companies must demonstrate that they have taken “reasonable measures” to prevent those under 16 from having social media accounts. What is considered “reasonable” has not yet been clearly defined.

Australians will have to wait later this year that the complete results of the government trial will be published and know how technological companies will react. With less than six months before the entry into force of the ban, social media users still do not have all the answers they need.

This article is republished from the conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.