A highly anticipated Australian trial of cutting-edge age-assurance technology has delivered a sobering verdict, concluding that some errors are 'inevitable' in the quest to verify users' ages online. The findings throw a significant question mark over the federal government's ambitious proposal to ban children under 16 from accessing social media platforms.
The comprehensive report, commissioned by the eSafety Commissioner, subjected a range of cutting-edge verification methods to rigorous testing. These included facial estimation, digital tokens, and third-party provider checks. While some methods showed promise, the trial could not identify a single, foolproof solution capable of delivering 100% accuracy.
The Inevitability of Error
Perhaps the most striking admission from the report is its stance on fallibility. It explicitly states that a system permitting no errors is currently 'not feasible,' acknowledging that both 'false accepts' and 'false rejects' will occur. This means some minors would inevitably bypass the controls, while some adults could be unfairly locked out of their accounts.
A Complex Landscape of Solutions
The trial explored various technological avenues:
- Facial Age Estimation: Analysing a user's face via their device camera to estimate age.
- Digital Token: A secure, verified token stored on a user's device that confirms their age across platforms without sharing new data.
- Third-Party Verification: Relying on services that use official documents like driver's licences to confirm age.
Each method presented its own set of trade-offs between accuracy, privacy, security, and accessibility, with no clear winner emerging.
Privacy at the Forefront
The report heavily emphasises the immense privacy implications of collecting sensitive biometric or government-issued data for age checks. It calls for any future system to be subject to the highest standards of privacy and security, ensuring that the cure isn't worse than the disease when it comes to protecting Australians online.
This landmark study serves as a crucial reality check for policymakers. It suggests that a simplistic, outright ban for under-16s may be technologically unworkable at this stage, pushing the conversation towards a more nuanced approach that balances safety with practical reality and fundamental privacy rights.
