Australia’s age assurance plan prompts privacy, online harms debate

Now that the tender for Australia’s age assurance trial has been awarded to the Age Check Certification Scheme, the task at hand is revealing its complexity, as various stakeholders weigh in on what age assurance means for kids, parents, social media firms and governments. Does banning young people from social media help or hinder the long-term goal of keeping kids safe online while not curtailing their right to digital access?

Academics want regulation, not ban

The Associated Press reports that, while the push to restrict social media users to those over 16 is a winner politically and state governments are on board, “practically the solution could be far more difficult.” A group of more than 140 experts in the fields of technology and child welfare, acting under the moniker of the Australian Child Rights Taskforce (ACRT), penned an open letter to the Albanese government in October, arguing that a ban on social media for young kids is “too blunt an instrument” given the issues at play.

“The online world is a place where children and young people access information, build social and technical skills, connect with family and friends, learn about the world around them and relax and play,” says the letter. “These opportunities are important for children, advancing children’s rights and strengthening development and the transition to adulthood.”

The group says that in addition to robbing kids of the right to a robust online life, a ban would put undue pressure on parents and be ineffective in keeping kids safe. However, it falls victim to a common error in claiming that “there are not yet effective techniques for age assurance.” Testing has shown that age assurance can be effective. Furthermore, the argument neglects to distinguish between age verification and age estimation technologies.

ACRT proposes “systemic regulation” as a solution. “Digital platforms are just like other products, and can have safety standards imposed. We welcome the commitment to the development of a Children’s Privacy Code and the review of the enforceability of the Basic Online Safety Expectations.”

From some kids’ perspectives, adults just don’t understand. AP quotes Leo Puglisi, a 17-year-old Melbourne student and entrepreneur who founded the streaming service 6 News Australia when he was eleven years old. “With respect to the government and prime minister,” Puglisi says, “they didn’t grow up in the social media age, they’re not growing up in the social media age, and what a lot of people are failing to understand here is that, like it or not, social media is a part of people’s daily lives.”

Toxicity of social media not news

The statement, while true, brings with it a whiff of existential horror. A piece in The Conversation aims to quash the debate over whether social media really causes that much harm to kids.

“Focusing on debates between researchers is a misdirection and makes us complacent,” writes Macquarie University’s Danielle Einstein. “There is enough evidence to demonstrate excessive social media use can be harmful to young people.”

Multiple studies examining the impact of algorithms, influencers, extreme content, and the growth in cyberbullying have found that “social media activates envy, comparisons and fear of missing out, or FOMO. Many teens use social media while procrastinating. It is through these mechanisms that the links to depression, anxiety, low self esteem and self harm are clear.”

Some of the evidence is tragic. The AP cites the case of teenager Carly Ryan, who was murdered in 2007 by a 50-year-old pedophile pretending to be a teenager online – making the 15-year-old the first person in Australia to die at the hands of an online predator.

Ryan’s mother, Sonya, is in favor of the 16-year age threshold. She says “we have to make sure that there are mechanisms in place to deal with what we already have, which is an anxious generation and an addicted generation of children to social media.”

Increased ‘datafication’ of kids lives

While age assurance debates tend to focus on kids, an article in Crikey notes that the social media use case is only one aspect of the larger national age assurance scheme: “the teen social media ban isn’t just a policy about children using the internet – it’s about how we all use it.”

In other words, if age verification measures are put in place, it won’t just be teens who have to prove they’re over 16.

That said, it will mean that young people are subject to “increased monitoring and datafication.” The world already collects data starting before birth, and adding a mandatory submission of personal biometric data into the mix intensifies an already vigorous surveillance ecosystem. Writer Veronica Lenard asks if “it’s worth considering whether the surveillance of children has become normalized,” and what that means for the future.

A particular point of contention is who will ultimately be responsible for holding and processing personal data. The government has said the responsibility is on platforms to make sure digital age restrictions are working.

But according to Tamar Leaver, professor of internet studies at Curtin University, “the worst possible outcome seems to be the one that the government may be inadvertently pushing towards, which would be that the social media platforms themselves would end up being the identity arbiter. They would be the holder of identity documents which would be absolutely terrible because they have a fairly poor track record so far of holding on to personal data well.”

Article Topics

age verification  |  Australia  |  biometrics  |  children  |  data privacy  |  digital identity  |  face biometrics  |  selfie biometrics  |  social media