Age rules for search engines should consider unique factors: Australian tech body

The Australian Information Industry Association (AIIA), the major trade body and advocacy group for Australia’s digital industries, has submitted its comments on the Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code, one of nine codes being rolled out by the office of the eSafety Commissioner.

The search code applies to “any features integrated within the search functionality and the user interface of an internet search engine service, whether enabled by artificial intelligence or otherwise.” That means if a minor searches for porn and a search engine shows it to them, the search is in violation.

The main thrust of the AIIA’s submission is the critical importance of context – and, by extension, “risk-based, proportionate age assurance requirements.”

“In practice, obtaining reliable information about a user’s age is valuable only insofar as it is used to tailor that user’s experience to what is age-appropriate and safe,” says the submission. It cites the final report from the Australian Age Assurance Technology Trial (AATT), which, it says, “demonstrated that a wide range of age assurance approaches exists, including official ID checks, AI-based age estimation, and inference from user behavior, each with different strengths, weaknesses, and use-case suitability.”

Educational material shouldn’t be ensnared in laws meant for porn

While no one all-encompassing solution exists, there is a healthy ecosystem of technology available to implement tailored age assurance tools for a wide variety of contexts. There is no reason for, as an example, an educational article about how bears copulate to require the same level of age assurance (if any) as a social media platform or a porn site. Indeed, it is important to understand the ease with which restrictions can creep into censorship, and apply them accordingly.

“We urge that any guidance or standards remain principles-based and flexible, allowing providers to use a range of age assurance tools (and combinations thereof) that best fit their service model and risk level. Importantly, this approach will encourage innovation and improvement in age assurance technologies over time, rather than locking industry into a narrow solution.”

Privacy is also paramount, and the AIIA says adherence to data minimization is a must, and that proof of age must be possible without disclosing any other personal information, biometric scans or other sensitive data. As such, “where possible, age assurance should be decoupled from identity verification.”

Relevant age assurance tech exists, but parents can also help

The question of search engines is prickly. In any instance of age restriction, someone has to make the call on what qualifies as harmful content. Who gets to decide what happens when a nine-year-old Googles the word “vagina”?

The AIIA has a healthy list of reasons why search is exceptional, and needs extra care when considering age verification. It’s “a gateway, not a destination” – search engines don’t host content, just point people to it. Search is “user-initiated and intent-driven,” and therefore less likely to accidentally lead kids to iffy content. It’s not social, and it’s always been (in theory) anonymous, in that anyone can hop onto a browser and Google to their heart’s content without ever having to create an account.

In keeping with most industry positions on age assurance of any kind, there is an emphasis on parental responsibility and digital literacy – the policy version of passing the hot potato up the line of liability. “Improving online safety requires more than regulatory measures; it also calls for investment in education and parental support that enables safer, more informed participation online.”

“Encouraging tools and approaches that promote open family dialogue about online behavior will further strengthen a values-based approach to safety.”

The AIIA sums up as follows: “effective protection of children requires not only regulatory oversight but also a nuanced understanding of how different online services function and the varying risks they present.” It calls for a principles-based, risk-proportionate approach to age assurance that draws on the AATT’s final report.

In July, when the search code came into effect, eCommissioner Julie Inman-Grant gave applicable online search services 6 months to implement tools and settings that, at minimum, filter out online pornography and high-impact violence material from results.

Article Topics

Australia  |  Australia age verification  |  biometric age estimation  |  biometrics  |  eSafety Commissioner  |  regulation