logo
Tech trial for Australia's social media ban ‘broadly on track' amid concerns under 16s could circumvent systems

Tech trial for Australia's social media ban ‘broadly on track' amid concerns under 16s could circumvent systems

The Guardian29-05-2025

The technology trial for Australia's social media ban is 'broadly on track', the government says, despite a month-long delay of a key report on the best ways to keep under 16s off the platforms.
It comes as the company behind the age assurance trial has revealed only one type of technology has been tested on children so far and some internal stakeholder concerns about how young people may circumvent the age ban systems.
The federal government has also been sitting on a separate report, costing more than $275,000, that it commissioned last year on Australians' attitudes to age assurance technology. It was delivered to the government on 2 January but has not yet been released.
The UK-based company recruited to run the trial, Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS), was due to publish its age assurance report in June.
The report will focus on what technology could be used to prevent under 16s gaining access to social media and under 18s accessing adult websites.
The federal communications department has confirmed the ACCS report would now be delivered in July, and the minister would decide when to publish it, a spokesperson said.
'The independent trial of age assurance technologies remains broadly on track, in line with project delivery timeframes,' the spokesperson said.
Briefing documents from Senate estimates in February, released under freedom of information laws, stated the final report 'is due in June 2025'. ACCS had previously stated the report was due 'at the end of June', and it would independently publish it.
One of the first tasks for the new communications minister, Labor's Anika Wells, will be to assess the outcome of the trial, to decide which technologies are applicable and to which platforms they will apply.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
Affected platforms must have age assurance systems in place by December. Wells must be satisfied that the platforms – expected to include Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat – are taking reasonable steps to stop under 16s accessing their services.
In an update on the age assurance trial from ACCS last week, it said the only type of technology trialed so far is facial age estimation tech, which examines a photo or video of a user to try to estimate the age based on their facial features.
A total of 1,580 tests have been conducted on 485 students, in years 7 to 12.
Aside from this testing, further work has been limited to interviews with dozens of potential vendors, and statements outlining how their age ban enforcement technology could work.
The trial will try to confirm those claims through 'a combination of practical testing and a vendor interview'. About half of the interviews have been completed.
Technologies deemed sufficiently mature to include in the final report will be tested by another company – the Australian-owned KJR – or through schools testing or mystery-shopper type testing.
Mystery-shopper testing is a 'real-world environment, where users will have a variety of equipment, light conditions and access to required resources, be that an ID document or a bank account'.
ACCS said there will only be 'enough testing' to confirm claims made by vendors 'and that may be achieved with a relatively modest level of practical experimentation'.
The March meeting minutes for the stakeholder advisory board overseeing the trial reported stakeholders had raised concerns about gaps in the testing, particularly around how children may circumvent the age ban systems.
A spokesperson for the department said a preliminary report, provided in April but not released publicly, gave the government 'anticipated findings in relation to age verification, age estimation, age inference, successive validation, parental control and parental consent methods'.
Sources close to the trial told Guardian Australia they believed it was unlikely the report on the trial would be finalised by the due date – or that if it was, it would have not been adequate to inform government decisionmaking on the best technology to use.
One concern raised was that other countries, including New Zealand and the United States, are looking to Australia's trial to guide their own plans. Those who supported the policy wanted it implemented correctly, rather than rushed through with technology that could later present privacy or other issues.
The Social Research Centre was commissioned in August, and paid $278,000, to research attitudes to age assurance. This included an online survey of 3,140 adults, and 870 people aged 8 to 17 years.
A spokesperson for the department said it was a matter for the minister on when that report, delivered to government in January, would be released.
A spokesperson for the Albanese government did not directly respond to questions on the timing of the tech trial report or the Social Research Centre report release.
'The government looks forward to receiving the age assurance report and progressing our reforms to protect children from social media harms,' the spokesperson said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Britain is ALREADY at war with Russia and ‘we are in pretty big trouble' admits defence expert in bombshell warning
Britain is ALREADY at war with Russia and ‘we are in pretty big trouble' admits defence expert in bombshell warning

Scottish Sun

timean hour ago

  • Scottish Sun

Britain is ALREADY at war with Russia and ‘we are in pretty big trouble' admits defence expert in bombshell warning

Moscow has been 'menacing the UK in various different ways' for years GONE TO WAR Britain is ALREADY at war with Russia and 'we are in pretty big trouble' admits defence expert in bombshell warning RUSSIA is already at war with Britain, an author of the Government's defence review has warned. Fiona Hill, who was the White House's chief Russia adviser during Donald Trump's first term, delivered the stark warning of the threat posed by Vladimir Putin. 4 An author of the Government's defence review has warned that Britain is already at war with Russia Credit: EPA 4 Kharkiv, in Eastern Ukraine, was blitz by Russian missiles in retaliation for last week's Spider Web attack Credit: East2West 4 Fiona Hill, an author of the Government's defence review Credit: Getty She said: 'We are in pretty big trouble. "Russia has hardened as an adversary in ways that we probably hadn't anticipated.' Ms Hill said Moscow has been 'menacing the UK in various different ways' for years, including ­poisonings and assassinations on British soil, ­carrying out cyber attacks and cutting sea cables. In her grim alert, the Kremlin expert said: 'Russia is at war with us.' read more on russia WHITE VAN WHAM Army bosses to buy drones that can be fired from VANS after Ukraine op And she warned that Britain can no longer rely on US military might to protect itself from enemy states. Ms Hill co-wrote the Strategic Defence Review, which warned the UK is facing its biggest threats since the Cold War — and set out plans to urgently build more bombs and guns to arm ourselves. Her comments came as Russian missiles blitzed Kharkiv, killing three people and injuring at least 22, including a six-week-old baby and a 14-year-old girl. The eastern Ukrainian city was struck by 48 drones, two missiles and five glider bombs as part of a huge, countrywide bombardment by Putin in retaliation for last week's Spider Web attack on his nuclear bombers. PM Sir Keir Starmer used an article in last week's Sun on Sunday to deliver his starkest warning yet of the danger of war. Putting the nation on a war footing, he said Britain must prepare to 'sight and win' against our enemies. New footage of Op Spiderweb shows drone blitzing Putin's burning aircraft

Dawn French apologises after ‘mocking tone' in video about Israel-Hamas conflict
Dawn French apologises after ‘mocking tone' in video about Israel-Hamas conflict

BreakingNews.ie

time2 hours ago

  • BreakingNews.ie

Dawn French apologises after ‘mocking tone' in video about Israel-Hamas conflict

Comedian Dawn French has apologised after posting a video online about the Israel-Hamas conflict, saying she 'clumsily used a mocking tone' and it 'appeared one-sided'. The Vicar Of Dibley actress posted a video on social media this week in which she switched between her normal voice and a higher pitched voice. Advertisement In the video about the conflict, she said: 'Complicated, no, but nuanced', adding: 'Bottom line is, no.' — Dawn French 💙🔴🏳️‍🌈🇺🇦🇵🇸 (@Dawn_French) June 7, 2025 Then at one point she said in the higher pitched voice: 'Yeah, but you know they did a bad thing to us.' French has now posted a statement on X saying she has taken down the video and apologised, saying her intention was never 'to mock, or dismiss, or diminish the horror of what happened' on October 7th, 2023. The statement, posted on Saturday, says: 'Ok, it's important to address this. Advertisement 'I posted a video in the style I've been using for social media in an effort to convey an important point. I clumsily used a mocking tone. 'My intention was NEVER to mock, or dismiss, or diminish the horror of what happened on 7 October 2023 and what continues to unfold from that brutal unthinkable, unforgivable, savage attack. 'My heart broke for the many innocent people and their families that were killed, tortured, r@ped and kidnapped. The fact that hostages are still held is utterly appalling. 'My intention was to mock and point the finger of shame at the behaviour of the cruel leaders on ALL sides of this atrocious war, who have continued to behave like the worst, dangerous, sickening bullies and seem to relish the tyrannical and childish oneupmanship of the violence. THEY were my target, but clearly I failed to do that, and that's on me. I apologise unreservedly. I'm particularly sorry that my disgust at Hamas didn't figure. It appeared one-sided, and that is wrong. Advertisement 'I am a person, who like many others, is feeling increasingly helpless and hopeless as we witness the carnage and destruction worsen. The images of starving and wounded children have haunted me day and night. History has taught us never to stand by and allow this kind of inhumane violence to be wrought on anyone, especially innocent children. 'I have felt my silence is complicit or even somehow sanctioning. So in my small way I wanted to voice my desire to say NO – to BOTH sides – to any further violence. 'I hope you will understand my intention was not to offend, but clearly I have. For which I'm sorry and I have removed the video.'

Scott Morrison sought advice to obstruct Nauru asylum seekers from accessing abortions, documents reveal
Scott Morrison sought advice to obstruct Nauru asylum seekers from accessing abortions, documents reveal

The Guardian

time2 hours ago

  • The Guardian

Scott Morrison sought advice to obstruct Nauru asylum seekers from accessing abortions, documents reveal

Scott Morrison overrode medical advice in the case of an asylum seeker in offshore detention trying to access an abortion, and had previously sought advice that would effectively prevent access to terminations entirely, ministerial advice reveals. Documents released under freedom of information laws show Morrison, in 2014 as immigration minister, had sought advice to deny the transfer of women to a hospital on the Australian mainland to access termination services before 20 weeks' gestation. Abortion is illegal on Nauru, except to save the mother's life, and carries a prison term of up to 14 years. Termination laws differ across Australian states, but if pregnant women in offshore detention were prohibited from accessing abortion services in Australia until after 20 weeks, it would be far more difficult to access those services at all. A handwritten note by Morrison, on a document dated June 2014, stated: 'I would also like advice on denying transfer pre 20 weeks for pregnant women.' In the same document, Morrison specified that women should only be transferred to Brisbane, not South Australia, the Northern Territory or Victoria for abortion services. Morrison did not respond to requests for comment, and Guardian Australia cannot confirm what advice he received. In the case of a woman, who was not identified in the redacted documents, medical advice recommended she be transferred to Victoria for an abortion, over Brisbane where she would have had to have waited a week for a hospital ethics panel to consider her case. That policy was in place in Queensland for women seeking a termination after 20 weeks' gestation. In Victoria, a woman could seek a termination without approval of a hospital ethics board until 24 weeks. Guardian Australia understands the woman was taken to Brisbane, rather than Melbourne, where the panel deliberated on her case. One senior source, who spoke to Guardian Australia on the condition of anonymity, said Morrison did not specifically target abortion access. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email David Manne, a prominent refugee advocate and lawyer, said in his view the broader immigration policy at the time was part of an 'extreme deterrence agenda'. 'Inherent in the [broader] policy was conscious, calculated cruelty,' he said. 'Clearly, [the policy] was far more than reckless indifference, it was deliberate. '[It was] part of a system that was underpinned by the extreme deterrence agenda … the basic rights and dignity of people subject to the policy were essentially irrelevant.' Jana Favero, the deputy CEO of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC), who was an advocate for the centre at the time, said the documents were 'outrageous' and 'consistent' with the ASRC's experience trying to help asylum seekers get medical transfers. 'It was extremely challenging and difficult for the medical transfer from people offshore, in particular women who were pregnant,' she said. Manne claimed the Abbott government was concerned asylum seekers and refugees were using medical transfers as a back door to get into Australia. Once in Australia, and in the Australian onshore detention system, an asylum seeker could go to the court to seek an injunction to prevent being sent back to offshore detention. '[They] could plead their case under law to resist being sent back to Nauru, to further dangers of the kinds that they'd already faced,' Manne said. This wasn't the only concern held by the government. Manne said the policy was based on deterrence, to stop others seeking asylum arriving by boat. 'If we make some exception, if there's a perceived crack of light in this policy, this could see the resumption of boat arrivals, that was clearly the thinking.' Later, in 2019, Peter Dutton, by then the home affairs minister in the Morrison government, accused women in Nauru refugee centres of using rape and abortion claims as a ploy to get to Australia. Over the 18 months from 1 January 2013 to 20 June 2014, IHMS, the government contracted healthcare provider for Nauru, said there were six pregnant transferees who were taken to the mainland for a termination. In June 2014, there were 289 women in detention on Nauru, according to data collated by the Refugee Council of Australia. Numerous internal and external reviews of offshore detention centres found instances of violence and traumatic living conditions, amid allegations and reports of rape, sexual assaults. An independent investigation, by the former integrity commissioner Philip Moss, commissioned by Morrison in October 2014, found evidence of rapes and sexual violence on Nauru and Manus Island, and said incidents were often under-reported. In 2016, Guardian Australia released the Nauru files, a collection of 2,000 leaked incident reports detailing harrowing instances of abuse on the island between May 2013 and October 2015. More than half of the reports (51.3%) involved children, even though children made up only about 18% of those in detention on Nauru during the time covered by the reports. Favero said the ASRC had performed its own audit on medical transfers at the time, and said it sometimes took up to 18 months for an asylum seeker to get help on the mainland. 'From the point where there was a [doctor's] recommendation for a medical transfer, sometimes it took up to 12 to 18 months for that to happen, and it only happened as a result of a huge amount of pressure including legal action,' Favero said. In February 2019, five years later, after Morrison became prime minister, Labor and the crossbench passed the medevac bill, against the Coalition government, that established a medical panel to oversee medical transfers of people from offshore detention. That law lasted less than 10 months, before it was repealed by the Morrison government in December that year. 'The decision [to transfer a patient] should have been in doctors' hands not in bureaucrats and politicians hands which is what that legislation was,' Favero said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store