Social media age verification is possible, but no single solution exists
A landmark national study into social media age-gating technology has revealed that age assurance can be done, but warns there is no single solution that will work across all platforms.
The Age Assurance Technology Trial was commissioned by the Australian Government to investigate whether age verification can be technically implemented by social media platforms without compromising the privacy and security of Australian citizens. It comes in the lead up to a blanket social media ban for under 16s, which will come into effect in December.
The report lands after a week in which digital platforms — anxious to sink or stall the under-16s ban — received some hope in the form a Senate Inquiry into the privacy implications of the new legislation.
The Greens initiated the inquiry, which was supported by the Opposition. Submissions close September 22 and a report will be issued October 31.
The report into the feasability of the ban, conducted by UK firm Age Check, found it is possible to verify the age of social media users through the use of existing technology, but highlighted risks attached to all methods.
“We found a plethora of approaches that fit different use cases in different ways, but we did not find a single ubiquitous solution that would suit all use cases, nor did we find solutions that were guaranteed to be effective in all deployments,” the study warned.
(Midjourney)
It looked at 48 age assurance providers, and over “60 distinct technologies”, including age estimation via AI, facial age analysis, parental consent, and the use of ID verification. They were evaluated for their accuracy, usability, and ability to safeguard personal data in real-world applications.
The report noted a “rich and rapidly evolving range of services which can be tailored and effective depending on each specified context of use”, but warned that “the rapidly evolving threat environment means that these systems – while presently fairly robust – cannot be considered infallible.”
Among the concerns are the mishandling of government documents, unnecessary access to digital wallets, AI-generated forgeries, and the over-zealous hording of personal data by companies afraid of future legal action.
“We found some concerning evidence that in the absence of specific guidance, service providers were apparently over-anticipating the eventual needs of regulators about providing personal information for future investigations,” the report reads.
“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 due to unnecessary and disproportionate collection and retention of data.”
The report also found that any sweeping technology gate, such as app-store verification “depends on the willingness of a small number of dominant tech companies to enable or share control of processes”.
“Co-ordination among dominant providers is essential if any truly ecosystem-wide age assurance model is to succeed.”
Despite “an acknowledged deficit in training age analysis systems with data about Indigenous populations”, the trial found “no substantial difference” in the outcomes for First Nations, Torres Strait Islander Peoples, and other multi-cultural communities using the age assurance systems.
Although commissioned by the Australian Government, Age Check explained its findings are “not a set of policy recommendations or endorsements for certain types of age assurance technology.”
They are also “not intended to test if every individual product works as claimed but rather to consider if the technologies as a whole work.” To that end, the report explains, it did not provide “league tables” of the specific age-gating products and their usefulness.
“At the heart of the trial was one fundamental question: Can age assurance be done? The answer — based on thousands of data points, stakeholder interviews and international standards — is yes, it can.”
Keep up to date with the latest in media and marketing
Got a tip?
Nathan Jolly is the Features Editor at Mumbrella. He joined the team in July, 2023.
Linkedin
Have your say