The report says that a teenage social media ban can be “effective”

Australia can use a set of technologies to implement a social media ban for less than 16 years, but they all have risk or shortcomings.

The government says that its ban, which comes into effect in December, is designed to reduce the harmful effects of social media. This policy was described as first in the world and is closely seen by leaders worldwide.

Under the new laws, platforms must take “reasonable steps” to prevent Australian children from creating accounts on their sites, and cancel the activation of those existing.

Although this step is popular with many parents, experts have raised concerns about the privacy of data and the accuracy of age verification technology.

The federal government has commissioned the UK check -up certificate plan to test the roads that Australia could carry out the ban, and its final report was published on Sunday.

I looked at a variety of roads – including official verification using government documents or approval of parents or technologies to determine age based on the structure of the face, gestures or behaviors – and they were all technically possible.

“But we did not find a single solution everywhere that fits all cases of use, and we did not find guaranteed solutions to be effective in all publishing operations,” he said.

The verification was cited using identity documents as the most accurate method, but the report has determined the concerns that platforms may keep these data longer than what was required and expected to share it with the organizers, both of which will leave the privacy of users at risk.

Australia – like most of the world – has seen in recent years a series of prominent data violations, including many personal information sensitive information, selling or publishing it.

The facial evaluation technology was 92 % accurate for people between the ages of 18 years or more, but there is a “buffer zone” – about two to three years on both sides of 16 – which is less accurate. The report said that this will lead to false positives, and to cleanse children of accounts and wrong negatives, which prevents users who must be allowed.

She also said that there are concerns related to privacy and accuracy with the methods of approval of parents.

It was recommended that the “layer” methods be a stronger system, and highlighted that many technology service providers were looking for ways to treat fraud, through things such as document fraud and VPN (virtual private networks) that block the user’s country.

The Minister of Communications, Annika Wells, said that there was no single solution to everyone, “and the report showed that age tests may be” special, effective and effective. ”

“These are some of the richest companies in the world. They are at the forefront of Amnesty International. They use the data we provide them for commercial purposes. I think it is reasonable to ask them to use the same data and technology to maintain the safety of children on the Internet,” she told reporters on Monday.

“There is no excuse for social media platforms that there is no set of lifetime guarantee methods ready for December 10.”

Under the ban, technology companies can fining up to $ 50 million (32.5 million dollars; 25.7 million pounds) if they do not take “reasonable steps” to prevent those under the age of 16 years of holding accounts. These steps are still specific.

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

The polls indicate that most Australian adults support a social media ban for children under the age of 16.

However, some mental health defenders say that politics has the ability to cut children from communication, and others say it can push children under 16 to angles online.

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