The Prohibition of Social Media in Australia can be “effective”, says

Australia can use a number of technologies to implement its social media ban for under 16, but all have risks or disadvantages, a report has found.

The government says its ban, which comes into force in December, is intended to limit the harmful effects of social media. The policy is advertised as a worldwide and is closely monitored by leaders worldwide.

Under new laws, platforms must take “reasonable steps” to prevent Australian children from creating accounts on their sites and disable existing ones.

Although this move is popular with many parents, experts have expressed concerns about the confidentiality of data and accuracy of the technology for age verification.

The Federal Government has instructed the UK -based age -based certification scheme to test the way Australia may impose a ban and its final report was published on Sunday.

He examined different methods – including official inspection using government documents, parental approval or age -determining technologies based on the structure of the person, gestures or behavior – and found that all were technically possible.

“But we did not find any ubiquitous solution that corresponds to all cases of use, nor did we find solutions that were guaranteed to be effective in all implements,” the statement said.

The inspection using identity documents was cited as the most accurate method, but the report identified fears that platforms could maintain this data longer than the need and expected to share it with regulators, both leaving the confidentiality of users at risk.

Australia – as a large part of the world – in recent years there has been a series of data violations with high -profile data, including several, where sensitive personal information has been stolen and sold or published.

The technology for the assessment of the face was 92% accurate for people over 18 years of age, but there is a “buffer zone” – about two to three years on both sides of 16 – in which it is less accurate. The report states that this will lead to false positives, clearing children for accounts and false negatives, prohibiting users who need to be resolved.

There are also concerns about confidentiality and accuracy in the methods of parents’ approval methods, the statement said.

He recommends that the methods be “layered” to create the most healthy system and emphasized that many technology providers are looking for ways to deal with circumvention, through things such as counterfeits of documents and VPN (virtual private networks) that darken the user’s country.

Communication Minister Annika Wales said “there is no solution for one size for all” that the report shows that age checks can be “private, effective and effective”.

“These are some of the largest companies in the world. They are at the forefront of AI. They use the data we give them for many commercial purposes. I think it is wise to ask them to use the same data and technologies to keep children safe online,” she told reporters on Monday.

“There is no excuse for social media platforms that they have no combination of methods for providing age on their platforms ready for December 10th.”

According to the ban, technology companies can fine up to $ 50 million ($ 32.5 million; £ 25.7 million) if they do not take “reasonable steps” to prohibit those under the age of 16 to hold bills. These steps are yet to be defined.

Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube are among the affected platforms.

The poll shows that most adults in Australia support the ban on social media for children under 16 years of age.

However, some mental health advocates say that policy has the potential to detach children from the relationship, while others say that this can push children under 16 to the unprofitted angles of the Internet.

They suggest that the government should instead focus on the better police content of harmful content on social media platforms and the preparation of children for the reality of life on the web.