Age assurance technologies are not “guaranteed to be effective” in all applications, with usability among the main issues, an independent trial has found as the deadline for Australia’s social media ban fast approaches.
But the trial reveals no “substantial technological limitations”, and the UK-not-for profit commissioned by the government to conduct the trials insists “age assurance can be done in Australia”.
Preliminary findings from the trial were released on Friday, providing the federal government with the first supporting evidence that its social media age ban is technically feasible.
The age ban, which will come into effect in December, will require designated social media platforms like Meta’s Facebook and TikTok to demonstrate they are complying with bans on young users or preventing access to adult content.
A consortium led by Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS) has spent the last three months trialing a range of technologies from 53 companies for age verification, age estimation and age inference, as well as parental controls and parental consent.
On Friday, it said that its testing with children and parents shows that age assurance can be “private, robust and effective”, with a “plethora of approaches that fit different use cases in different ways”.
Few details were provided, however, as the Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS) is still to complete “procedural fairness checks” with the companies that took part in the trial and hand the final report to government.
The high-level finding that “age assurance can be done in Australia” prompted concern from one member of the Stakeholder Advisory Board overseeing the trial “that that kind of a statement could create false expectations from parents”, Professor John Rouse, Stakeholder Advisory Board chair, said.
While “no significant technological barriers to implementation” were uncovered, neither was a “single ubiquitous solution” for all use cases – a strikingly similar result to the eSafety Commissioner in 2023.
Opportunities for “technological improvement including improving ease of use for the average person and enhancing the management of risk in age assurance systems” were also identified.
“This could include through one-way blind access to verification of government documents, enabling connection to data holder services (like digital wallets) or improving the handling of a child’s digital footprint as examples,” the report said.
Tony Allen, the trial’s project director, said some technologies were easier to implement than others, with a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of seven or above eventually capable of integration to a user journey.
“There were some areas where some systems were easier to implement than others, and some were easier to use than others. Certainly, some systems, particularly those with a lower TRL, weren’t as capable,” he said releasing the findings.
The trial also found “concerning evidence” that some technology providers were pre-empting the needs of regulators and law enforcement agencies by over collecting data they thought they might need in the future.
“Some providers were found to be building tools to enable regulators, law enforcement or coroners to retrace the actions taken by individuals to verify their age which could lead to increased risk of privacy breaches…”.
Mr Allen said this “did give us some cause for concern” and was “possibly something to have a closer look at”, adding that they were “over keeping information that actually would never end up being used or needed”.
At the same time, the report also said “providers had a robust understanding of and internal policy decisions regarding the handling of personal information by trial participants”.
Limited evidence that parental control and consent systems “could cope with the evolving capacity of children” and “were effective and secure in the management of a child’s digital footprint”.
A final report from the trial is expected to be published in August.
Do you know more? Contact James Riley via Email.