Google age ID proposal may not suit Australia's under-16 social media ban, expert says
Google is considering allowing people to store and share identification documents such as their passport or driver's licence on their phone, as part of the Australian government's test of technologies to enforce the upcoming social media ban for under 16s.
But while the proposed system will likely offer benefits for adults who have access to identification, it will probably be less useful for identifying teenagers without ID documents, raising questions about how helpful the technology would be for the ban.
It is seven months until the social media ban for children under 16 is due to come into effect, but how it will work is still being determined.
A trial of the technology that could be used for checking user ages on social media apps will be completed in June. The communications minister is also expected to decide which social media platforms it will apply to in the near future.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS), which is running the trial, did not publicise the progress of the trial during the course of the federal election campaign. However, this week the company released the minutes of a meeting held with stakeholders in March.
In the meeting, the Age Verification Providers Association executive director, Iain Corby, told the meeting that Google was 'considering' submitting a proposal to 'allow users to store an age credential in their Google Wallet and share it with apps and websites when needed'.
Separately, Google announced at the end of April that it would implement ID passes in Google Wallet in the UK – after already making it available in the US.
Under this system, users can take an issued ID such as a passport or licence, hold the information in the wallet, and share their date of birth with a website or app without sharing any other personal information.
In a website or app, it would offer a prompt similar to existing payment verification methods to allow users to share this information, and would use the existing authentication methods like passcode, fingerprint or facial recognition associated with phone-based payments.
Google also announced in February it was testing a 'machine learning-based age estimation model' to determine whether a user is under or over 18.
Google was approached for comment.
Apple announced similar technology in February, but the committee noted in its attempts to ask Apple about the technology, that the tech giant 'has been unresponsive, despite multiple outreach attempts'.
Dr Alexia Maddox, director of digital education at La Trobe University, said Google's proposal could be a 'fundamental misunderstanding' of the social media ban legislation. skip past newsletter promotion
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion
'The bill aims to protect children under 16, but Google Wallet is primarily an adult-oriented service that most children don't have access to,' she said. 'This creates a paradoxical situation where the very users the legislation aims to identify and protect – children – would be unlikely to have the verification tool being proposed.'
Maddox warned against 'retrofitting an existing commercial product rather than developing a purpose-built solution for child protection'.
'For age verification to be effective and compliant with the bill's privacy protections, we need approaches that work for all age groups, preserve privacy, destroy data after verification, and don't further concentrate data in the hands of major tech platforms.'
Before the social media ban legislation passed in December, Meta and TikTok pushed the government to make Apple and Google, as the device makers, bear responsibility for age assurance, but the federal government decided the onus should rest on the app makers.
As part of the trial, more than 1,000 students across five states will participate in testing of at least 25 different age verification or assurance methods, with priority placed on facial age estimation technology.
The trial will test some ways children may try to get around the verification, the meeting heard.
Following the re-election of the Albanese government, consultation will also continue on which platforms the ban should apply to. Guardian Australia revealed last month the chief executive of YouTube personally lobbied the communications minister, Michelle Rowland, less than 48 hours before she announced YouTube would be exempt from the ban.
The news sparked fury from YouTube's rivals, Meta and TikTok, over what was deemed to be a 'sweetheart' deal for the platform.
During the election campaign, the federal infrastructure department, which is overseeing the consultation, wrote to Meta stating 'while the former minister for communications proposed to exclude YouTube, no legislative rules have been made giving effect to this'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Teenagers face two-hour cap on social media apps
A two-hour cap on social media apps for teenagers is being considered by the Government. Peter Kyle, the Technology Secretary, suggested he was considering new limits on scroll time for young people in an attempt to tackle 'addictive' behaviour. It comes as ministers examine a package of potential new online safety measures. Asked whether he was looking at an 'app cap', Mr Kyle told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg show: 'I'm looking at things that prevent healthy activity, I'm looking at some of the addictive nature of some of the apps and smartphones. 'I'm trying to think how we can break some of the addictive behaviour and incentivise more of the healthy developmental… and also the good communicative side of online life.' The potential reforms could include teenagers being blocked from accessing social media sites after 10pm and during the school day, according to the Daily Mirror. Asked what the Government would hope to achieve by such measures, Mr Kyle said: 'I know this is something you and your viewers care deeply about. 'I've not been able to talk publicly about what the Labour approach is because we have the legacy legislation that has to go through first. 'This year we've had illegal content that needs to be taken down, but in July, age-appropriate material must be supplied by platforms, otherwise there'll be criminal sanctions against them. 'And in this time, I've been looking very carefully about what we do next.' 'Safety for a purpose' Mr Kyle added: 'I want to nail down harder on safety, but I want to use that safety for a purpose, which is to understand what is a healthy online life for children in the same way we understand what health means in the physical, offline world, and I'm trying to incentivise the behaviours and stop the barriers towards moving towards that healthy life.' A cap on the amount of time teenagers can spend scrolling online would build on proposals for a social media curfew previously floated by Mr Kyle. Earlier this year, the Technology Secretary told The Telegraph that he was examining the online equivalent of a television watershed for children following concerns that the 'addictive nature' of social media was disrupting their sleep, their families and other aspects of their lives. He said he was 'watching very carefully' the impact of TikTok's introduction of 10pm curfews for under 16s and tools for parents to switch off access at set times, and encouraged other companies to consider similar features. 'Stronger laws needed' However, the father of Molly Russell, the 14-year-old girl who took her own life after viewing harmful content on social media, warned that 'sticking plasters' would not be enough to fix the problem. Ian Russell, who is chairman of the Molly Rose Foundation set up in his daughter's memory, urged the Prime Minister to go further and faster. He told Kuenssberg's show: 'Every day the Government has delayed bringing in tougher online safety laws we've seen more young lives lost and damaged because of weak regulation and inaction by big tech. 'Parents up and down the country would be delighted to see the Prime Minister act decisively to quell the tsunami of harm children face online, but sticking plasters will not do the job.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
UK government looking at social media ‘app caps' for children, minister suggests
Ministers are looking at giving children an 'app cap' or curfew to prevent them becoming addicted to social media, the technology secretary has indicated. Peter Kyle, whose department is responsible for online safety, said he wanted to do more to protect children from excessive use of smartphones, and help them have a healthy relationship with technology. He was pressed on the issue after the Mirror reported over the weekend that Kyle was looking at further restrictions. He is understood to be considering options such as two-hour curfews for social media apps, or blocks on children accessing content after 10pm or during school hours. Asked on the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday whether he was looking at an 'app cap', Kyle said: 'I'm looking at things that prevent healthy activity, I'm looking at some of the addictive nature of some of the apps and smartphones. 'I'm trying to think how we can break some of the addictive behaviour and incentivise more of the healthy developmental … and also the good communicative side of online life.' He said he knew people felt very strongly about protecting children and that new legislation on online safety, being rolled out now, could be strengthened further. 'This year we've had illegal content that needs to be taken down, but in July, age-appropriate material must be supplied by platforms, otherwise there'll be criminal sanctions against them,' Kyle said. 'And in this time, I've been looking very carefully about what we do next. 'I want to nail down harder on safety, but I want to use that safety for a purpose, which is to understand what is a healthy online life for children in the same way we understand what health means in the physical, offline world, and I'm trying to incentivise the behaviours and stop the barriers towards moving towards that healthy life.' Kyle has previously backed away from the idea of a total social media ban for under-16s, saying it is 'not on the cards' for now, but he has also said that all options are on the table in terms of discussing how to keep children safe from online harms. Earlier this year, after opposition from ministers, the Labour MP Josh MacAlister amended his private member's bill that had proposed raising the age of digital consent from 13 to 16, meaning that social media companies would have required a parent's permission to handle the data of a child under that age. The bill now commits the government to researching the issue further rather than implementing immediate change. Nearly a quarter of children spend more than four hours a day on an internet-enabled device, a survey for the children's commissioner suggested earlier this year. A YouGov poll of 502 children in England aged eight to 15 found that 23% spent more than four hours a day using an internet-enabled device with a screen, such as a computer, phone, tablet or gaming console. One in four (25%) spent two to three hours a day on such a device, while a fifth (20%) spent three to four hours a day, according to the survey, which was carried out in March and April. As well as Kyle's proposals, the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, is looking at the effects of smartphone bans in some schools in England, a policy idea supported by the National Education Union amid growing concerns about the impact of social media on children. The current non-statutory guidance states that schools should prohibit the use of mobile phones throughout the school day during lessons as well as at break and lunchtimes, but does not say how schools should enforce the bans. While smartphones are very popular among children, there is also a backlash among some parents. The Smartphone Free Childhood campaign launched a 'parent pact' in September in which signatories committed to withhold handsets from their children until at least the end of year 9, and to keep them off social media until they are 16.
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Boomer homebuyers had to battle the highest interest rates in Australian history - but there's one reason they 'did it tougher' is a big lie
Baby boomers had it much easier than the younger generations buying a house - despite having to pay exorbitantly high interest rates. The generation born after the war were hit with massive 18 per cent interest rates back in the late 1980s. Those repayments were crippling, when they were coming of age in the seventies and eighties, but houses were significantly cheaper compared with typical incomes. That was also back when Australia's population was almost half of what it is today, long before annual immigration levels soared. Baby boomer economist Saul Eslake bought his first house in Melbourne 's St Kilda East for $105,000 in 1984 on a $35,000 salary when he was 26, after benefiting from free university education. With an $80,000 mortgage, he was borrowing little more than double his pay before tax and hits out at any suggestion his boomer generation did it tougher - despite the high interest rates he paid. 'I paid eighteen-and-a-half per cent for some of that but my first house cost $105,000 and it took me less than three years to save up the deposit,' he told Daily Mail Australia. 'Even though interest rates are less than half what I was paying, it was nowhere near as tough as now and I didn't have HECS debt to pay off because I was part of that lucky generation when it was free. 'My generation had it pretty easy - we got free education, we got housing very cheaply and we have made a motza out of the increase in house prices that we have voted for.' In 1980, Sydney's mid-point priced house cost $65,000, or just 4.5 times the average, full-time male wage in an era when a woman would struggle to get a mortgage without a signature from her husband. Real estate data group PropTrack estimated Sydney's median house would cost $338,000 today, or just 4.3 times the average salary now for all Australian workers, if house prices had increased at the same pace as wages during the past 45 years. In 2025, Sydney's middle-priced house costs $1.47million or 14.3 times the average, full-time salary of $103,000. But that price-to-income ratio surges to 18.7 if it's based on the average salary of $78,567 for all workers. AMP deputy chief economist Diana Mousina, a Millennial, said the younger generations were having a tougher time now saving up for 20 per cent mortgage deposit just to buy a home. 'The problem now is just getting into the market - that's what takes the larger chunk of trying to save; it takes 11 years to save,' she said. Boomers battled with sky high interest rates in the 80s - they haven't been that high since - but they had it easier because house prices were much more affordable Melbourne's mid-point house price cost just $40,000 in 1980 or 2.8 times the average male salary. If affordability had remained constant, a typical Melbourne would now cost just $205,400. But the Victorian capital's median house price of $850,000 is now 10.8 times the average salary for all workers. Brisbane's median house price cost $32,750 in 1980 or just 2.2 times what an average man earned. That would be $174,600 today if buying power hadn't changed. Queensland capital houses now cost $910,000 or 11.6 times the average salary. The major banks are unlikely to lend someone more than five times their pay before tax, which means many couples would now struggle to get a loan for a capital city house unless they moved to a far, outer suburb and had a big deposit. Housing affordability deteriorated following the introduction of the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount in 1999, just before annual immigration levels tripled during the 2000s. 'Since about 2000, you've seen home prices relative to incomes rise at a substantial amount - it's been the fact that we have been running high levels of population growth - so immigration, so more demand for housing,' Ms Mousina said. 'We have been running high migration targets, at the same time we haven't been building enough homes across the nation. 'We do have pretty favourable investment concessions for housing, including negative gearing, capital gains tax concession.' Mr Eslake said politicians from both sides of politics wanted house prices to rise, because more voters were home owners than renters trying to get into the market. 'For all the crocodile tears the politicians shed about the difficulties facing would-be first home buyers, they know that in any given year, there's only 110,000 of them,' he said. 'Even if you assume that for everyone who succeeds, in becoming a first home buyer, there are five or six who would like to but can't - that's at most around 750,000 votes for policies that would restrain the rate at which house prices go up. 'Whereas the politicians know that at any point in time, there are at least 11million Australians who own their own home; there are 2.5million Australians who own at least one investment property. 'Even the dumbest of our politicians - as the Americans say, "Do that math" which is why at every election, politicians on both sides of the divide - while bewailing the difficulties faced by first-home buyers - promise and implement policies that make it worse because they know that a vast majority of the Australian population do not want the problem to be solved.' Sydney was the first market to become seriously unaffordable as Australia's most expensive metropolitan housing market. PropTrack estimated Sydney's median house would cost $338,000 today, or just 4.3 times the average salary now for all Australian workers, if house prices had increased at the same pace as wages during the past 45 years (pictured is an auction at Homebush in the city's west) In 1990, the typical Sydney house cost $187,500 or $447,300 now if affordability had remained constant. A decade later 2000, shortly after the introduction of the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount, a typical Sydney house cost $284,950. That would translate into $544,000 today if affordability had remained constant. This would also be the point where a single, average-income earner could still get a loan at a stretch with a 20 per cent mortgage deposit. By 2010, Sydney's median house cost $600,000 or nine times the average, full-time salary, putting a home with a backyard beyond the reach of an average-income earner buying on their own. In addition, the housing affordability crisis has worsened as Australia's population has climbed from 14.5million in 1980 to 27.3million now. During the 2000s, annual net overseas migration doubled from 111,441 at the start of the decade to 315,700 by 2008 when the mining boom was driving population growth. After Australia was closed during Covid, immigration soared to a new record high of 548,800 in 2023, leading to house prices climbing even as the Reserve Bank was putting up interest rates. When it came to the stereotype of young people wasting their money on smashed avocado breakfasts instead of saving for a house deposit, Mr Eslake had a simple answer to that. 'At the very least, a highly visible rolling of the eyeballs,' he said.
