WEBVTT - Will age verification work?

0:00:00.480 --> 0:00:05.640
<v Speaker 1>Already and this is the Daily This is the Daily OS. Oh,

0:00:05.800 --> 0:00:06.840
<v Speaker 1>now it makes sense.

0:00:14.680 --> 0:00:17.320
<v Speaker 2>Good morning and welcome to the Daily ODS. It's Tuesday,

0:00:17.360 --> 0:00:18.640
<v Speaker 2>the second of September.

0:00:18.840 --> 0:00:21.320
<v Speaker 1>I'm Harry Sekulic, I'm Emma Gillespie.

0:00:21.560 --> 0:00:24.599
<v Speaker 2>In fewer than one hundred days, under sixteens in Australia

0:00:24.680 --> 0:00:27.920
<v Speaker 2>will be banned from social media. Kids and teens won't

0:00:27.960 --> 0:00:31.280
<v Speaker 2>be able to make a YouTube, TikTok or Facebook account.

0:00:31.400 --> 0:00:35.120
<v Speaker 2>But a big question remains unanswered, how will it work.

0:00:35.560 --> 0:00:39.080
<v Speaker 2>Age verification trials have been taking place over the past year,

0:00:39.320 --> 0:00:42.920
<v Speaker 2>and the government has now released its findings. In today's

0:00:42.920 --> 0:00:45.160
<v Speaker 2>deep Dive, we'll take you through some of the findings

0:00:45.280 --> 0:00:46.800
<v Speaker 2>and look at what will happen next.

0:00:47.240 --> 0:00:49.320
<v Speaker 1>But before we get stuck into it, here's a quick

0:00:49.360 --> 0:00:57.480
<v Speaker 1>word from our sponsor, Harry. This social media band story

0:00:57.800 --> 0:01:01.800
<v Speaker 1>has been following us. We've been following it. It's felt

0:01:01.840 --> 0:01:05.120
<v Speaker 1>like a really long time in the making, from the

0:01:05.160 --> 0:01:07.959
<v Speaker 1>first time we ever heard about a potential social media

0:01:08.000 --> 0:01:11.760
<v Speaker 1>ban to the legislation passing. The ban itself is not

0:01:12.080 --> 0:01:15.120
<v Speaker 1>yet in place, but you've got a really interesting update

0:01:15.200 --> 0:01:19.199
<v Speaker 1>for us today on the age verification stuff that's been

0:01:19.400 --> 0:01:22.920
<v Speaker 1>kind of at the center of the questions around whether

0:01:23.000 --> 0:01:25.680
<v Speaker 1>or not this is going to work. But before we

0:01:25.720 --> 0:01:29.000
<v Speaker 1>talk about that, let's just rewind. Can you give us

0:01:29.160 --> 0:01:33.240
<v Speaker 1>a quick timeline on the big developments of late.

0:01:33.480 --> 0:01:35.920
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, this social media ban is one of those stories

0:01:35.959 --> 0:01:38.480
<v Speaker 2>where in the world of journalism you say that the

0:01:38.560 --> 0:01:42.280
<v Speaker 2>lead always updates, so the new headline comes through every

0:01:42.360 --> 0:01:45.040
<v Speaker 2>so often. You get a new top line with every

0:01:45.040 --> 0:01:47.840
<v Speaker 2>development in this story. And I guess, going back to

0:01:48.200 --> 0:01:51.680
<v Speaker 2>the very beginning's very origins, there was this really big

0:01:51.720 --> 0:01:55.400
<v Speaker 2>campaign to ban social media for under sixteen's, which was

0:01:55.920 --> 0:01:59.360
<v Speaker 2>mostly led by concerned parents who said that their kids

0:01:59.400 --> 0:02:03.560
<v Speaker 2>were being ex to some violent and sexually explicit content,

0:02:03.760 --> 0:02:07.440
<v Speaker 2>that social media was being used for bullying, that there

0:02:07.480 --> 0:02:10.480
<v Speaker 2>were just some harms online that they wanted to see

0:02:10.520 --> 0:02:14.000
<v Speaker 2>more protections against. And in November last year, the government

0:02:14.040 --> 0:02:17.720
<v Speaker 2>responded to some of these calls and banned social media

0:02:17.840 --> 0:02:22.480
<v Speaker 2>for under sixteen's, And initially there was an exemption for YouTube.

0:02:22.680 --> 0:02:26.160
<v Speaker 2>That exemption's now been overturned and that's subject to a

0:02:26.440 --> 0:02:29.640
<v Speaker 2>legal challenge, which we could go into very separately in

0:02:29.720 --> 0:02:32.400
<v Speaker 2>its own podcast. And the ban itself is scheduled to

0:02:32.440 --> 0:02:34.960
<v Speaker 2>take place on the tenth of December later this year.

0:02:35.240 --> 0:02:39.600
<v Speaker 1>Okay, so that YouTube exemption that was reversed. We actually

0:02:39.639 --> 0:02:42.560
<v Speaker 1>did chat about that on the podcast. When that happened.

0:02:42.600 --> 0:02:44.160
<v Speaker 1>I think it was the end of June or the

0:02:44.200 --> 0:02:46.239
<v Speaker 1>start of July off the top of my head, but

0:02:46.400 --> 0:02:48.200
<v Speaker 1>will poppling to that in the show notes if you

0:02:48.240 --> 0:02:50.400
<v Speaker 1>want to get up to speed on all of that

0:02:50.600 --> 0:02:53.840
<v Speaker 1>debarcle and what unfolded there. But for now, Harry, we

0:02:53.960 --> 0:02:57.960
<v Speaker 1>know this ban is coming into effect regardless of how

0:02:58.000 --> 0:03:01.280
<v Speaker 1>the social media platforms feel about it. But there has

0:03:01.360 --> 0:03:05.520
<v Speaker 1>been a lot of confusion about the practicalities of this band.

0:03:05.600 --> 0:03:08.880
<v Speaker 1>It feels like there's been a collective understanding or agreement

0:03:09.040 --> 0:03:12.679
<v Speaker 1>that social media is bad for kids' mental health and

0:03:12.840 --> 0:03:16.280
<v Speaker 1>we need to do more to protect kids online. But

0:03:16.919 --> 0:03:19.440
<v Speaker 1>how's it going to work? Who will be responsible for

0:03:19.600 --> 0:03:20.280
<v Speaker 1>enforcing this?

0:03:20.720 --> 0:03:22.560
<v Speaker 2>When I first heard that there was going to be

0:03:22.560 --> 0:03:25.680
<v Speaker 2>a band for under sixteens, I was thinking that kids

0:03:25.720 --> 0:03:27.920
<v Speaker 2>were going to be slugged with a fine potentially for

0:03:28.440 --> 0:03:30.919
<v Speaker 2>creating an account when they're not meant to. But obviously

0:03:30.960 --> 0:03:33.280
<v Speaker 2>that's not how this is going to work, and the

0:03:33.320 --> 0:03:36.240
<v Speaker 2>government was pretty clear from the outset that it would

0:03:36.280 --> 0:03:39.160
<v Speaker 2>be on the social media companies. They would bear the

0:03:39.200 --> 0:03:43.800
<v Speaker 2>responsibility to enforce the ban. But on a practical level,

0:03:44.160 --> 0:03:47.200
<v Speaker 2>there is probably a few aspects to how the band

0:03:47.240 --> 0:03:50.400
<v Speaker 2>will work. So there'll be the deterrent effect. So parents

0:03:50.440 --> 0:03:52.200
<v Speaker 2>will be able to say to their kids, it's actually

0:03:52.280 --> 0:03:55.480
<v Speaker 2>illegal for you to have a social media account, and

0:03:56.120 --> 0:04:00.080
<v Speaker 2>that might have an effect of kids just not downloading

0:04:00.120 --> 0:04:02.120
<v Speaker 2>the app or whatever it might be. They just might

0:04:02.240 --> 0:04:05.160
<v Speaker 2>be dissuaded to do so. But obviously it goes beyond that,

0:04:05.400 --> 0:04:08.160
<v Speaker 2>and as I said, the owners will fall on the

0:04:08.200 --> 0:04:12.320
<v Speaker 2>social media companies the platforms themselves to enforce a ban,

0:04:12.600 --> 0:04:14.800
<v Speaker 2>or they would risk getting a fine, which is to

0:04:14.880 --> 0:04:18.440
<v Speaker 2>the tune of about fifty million dollars. So, for example,

0:04:18.640 --> 0:04:23.360
<v Speaker 2>if it was found that Meta was not taking enough

0:04:23.400 --> 0:04:26.600
<v Speaker 2>reasonable steps so that's the language in the legislation, reasonable

0:04:26.600 --> 0:04:30.479
<v Speaker 2>steps to prevent under sixteens from making an account on

0:04:30.520 --> 0:04:33.919
<v Speaker 2>their platform, they could be slugged with a fifty million

0:04:33.960 --> 0:04:37.080
<v Speaker 2>dollar fine. So the responsibility lies with them.

0:04:37.200 --> 0:04:41.440
<v Speaker 1>Okay, so the responsibilities on the platforms, not children or parents.

0:04:42.040 --> 0:04:46.960
<v Speaker 1>If we've got social media companies then regulating and enforcing this,

0:04:48.080 --> 0:04:50.719
<v Speaker 1>how will they and I know this is a million

0:04:50.760 --> 0:04:54.000
<v Speaker 1>dollar question, how will they verify the age of their users?

0:04:54.200 --> 0:04:56.359
<v Speaker 2>Well, Australia is a first country in the world to

0:04:56.480 --> 0:05:00.599
<v Speaker 2>have an age specific ban for social media. So this

0:05:00.760 --> 0:05:03.839
<v Speaker 2>is kind of a novel space. This is very much

0:05:03.920 --> 0:05:06.400
<v Speaker 2>new territory. And I think it's helpful to think of

0:05:06.520 --> 0:05:08.960
<v Speaker 2>a nightclub. When you go to a club, you need

0:05:09.000 --> 0:05:12.119
<v Speaker 2>to show proof that you are at least eighteen years old,

0:05:12.400 --> 0:05:14.919
<v Speaker 2>and I think that there are some steps being taken

0:05:15.400 --> 0:05:18.680
<v Speaker 2>to bring in a digital version of that for sixteen

0:05:18.720 --> 0:05:20.120
<v Speaker 2>year olds on social media.

0:05:20.200 --> 0:05:23.240
<v Speaker 1>Well, Harry, it's interesting you say that, because it's one

0:05:23.320 --> 0:05:27.160
<v Speaker 1>thing to be at a licensed venue in person and

0:05:27.600 --> 0:05:31.400
<v Speaker 1>be able to physically present your ID, to have a

0:05:31.440 --> 0:05:34.719
<v Speaker 1>bouncer or security person kind of check your ID, look

0:05:34.760 --> 0:05:37.440
<v Speaker 1>you up and down, decide yep, that's you. You are

0:05:37.480 --> 0:05:40.400
<v Speaker 1>free to pass. But in the digital world, in the

0:05:40.440 --> 0:05:43.120
<v Speaker 1>online environment, it's just a whole different story.

0:05:43.560 --> 0:05:46.279
<v Speaker 2>And that's where we get into this space of talking

0:05:46.320 --> 0:05:50.479
<v Speaker 2>about age assurance technology, which is basically verifying that you

0:05:50.600 --> 0:05:53.440
<v Speaker 2>are at least sixteen years old and able to use

0:05:53.720 --> 0:05:57.920
<v Speaker 2>social media. And so since the government announced its ban,

0:05:58.000 --> 0:06:00.160
<v Speaker 2>it said that it was going to trial so of

0:06:00.200 --> 0:06:02.960
<v Speaker 2>this technology, that it was going to get an independent

0:06:03.720 --> 0:06:06.839
<v Speaker 2>review into some of the tech that's available out there.

0:06:07.040 --> 0:06:10.320
<v Speaker 2>And what we have this week is the findings from

0:06:10.360 --> 0:06:14.839
<v Speaker 2>that review into existing technologies that are available. Was conducted

0:06:14.880 --> 0:06:18.160
<v Speaker 2>by British firm. It was independent of the government, and

0:06:18.640 --> 0:06:21.640
<v Speaker 2>it looked at forty eight different companies and the way

0:06:21.680 --> 0:06:24.960
<v Speaker 2>in which they detect age assurance and how they use

0:06:25.000 --> 0:06:25.720
<v Speaker 2>this technology.

0:06:25.800 --> 0:06:29.680
<v Speaker 1>Okay, so a pretty big pool I suppose of companies

0:06:30.000 --> 0:06:33.599
<v Speaker 1>doing the age verification staff or building this tech. But

0:06:33.720 --> 0:06:38.040
<v Speaker 1>I am really curious to know what this report found.

0:06:38.240 --> 0:06:40.960
<v Speaker 1>What were the types of tech that they looked into,

0:06:41.720 --> 0:06:43.240
<v Speaker 1>how did they work? Did they work?

0:06:43.640 --> 0:06:48.400
<v Speaker 2>So there were broadly three different categories of age assurance tech.

0:06:48.560 --> 0:06:52.440
<v Speaker 2>So the first is called verification, and this is directly

0:06:52.480 --> 0:06:55.760
<v Speaker 2>proving how old you are through official identity documents. So

0:06:55.800 --> 0:06:59.799
<v Speaker 2>think of birth certificates, passports, those things that we already

0:07:00.240 --> 0:07:02.640
<v Speaker 2>use day to day in our lives.

0:07:02.839 --> 0:07:05.560
<v Speaker 1>Thinking of if you are applying for a new rental

0:07:05.640 --> 0:07:08.520
<v Speaker 1>and you need one hundred thousand points of IDs, that's right,

0:07:08.760 --> 0:07:10.960
<v Speaker 1>You've got to find every little document that proves who

0:07:11.040 --> 0:07:13.600
<v Speaker 1>you really are to get past the first hurdle on

0:07:13.640 --> 0:07:14.360
<v Speaker 1>your application.

0:07:14.680 --> 0:07:17.000
<v Speaker 2>And there are some platforms that already require you to

0:07:17.080 --> 0:07:20.200
<v Speaker 2>pose next to your passport photo and that way they

0:07:20.240 --> 0:07:23.760
<v Speaker 2>can determine whether your fatal fitches match up to the

0:07:23.840 --> 0:07:27.120
<v Speaker 2>passport itself. Okay, but also in Australia, the minimum age

0:07:27.120 --> 0:07:31.000
<v Speaker 2>to get a learner's license to drive is sixteen, so

0:07:31.040 --> 0:07:35.320
<v Speaker 2>that's also one way of verifying whether you are of

0:07:35.560 --> 0:07:39.200
<v Speaker 2>the social media ban age if you've cleared that threshold.

0:07:39.040 --> 0:07:41.720
<v Speaker 1>Because a lot of under sixteen year olds wouldn't have

0:07:42.080 --> 0:07:45.920
<v Speaker 1>on hand a lot of formal identification. Yeah, I don't

0:07:45.920 --> 0:07:48.400
<v Speaker 1>know if school library cards are going to pass the test.

0:07:48.600 --> 0:07:51.679
<v Speaker 2>Well, that actually taps into some of the other areas

0:07:51.680 --> 0:07:54.400
<v Speaker 2>where you can actually go through age assurance. If you've

0:07:54.400 --> 0:07:56.560
<v Speaker 2>only got a school card, then some of this tech

0:07:56.640 --> 0:08:00.280
<v Speaker 2>might actually think that you are of school age, maybe

0:08:00.360 --> 0:08:02.840
<v Speaker 2>thirteen or fourteen years old as well, So that's one

0:08:02.840 --> 0:08:05.720
<v Speaker 2>way of rooting it out. The second main age dessurance

0:08:05.800 --> 0:08:08.560
<v Speaker 2>tech is called estimation, and that's where we're getting into

0:08:08.760 --> 0:08:11.480
<v Speaker 2>using things like face ID to prove that you're at

0:08:11.560 --> 0:08:15.240
<v Speaker 2>least sixteen years old. So this is scanning technology that

0:08:15.760 --> 0:08:19.960
<v Speaker 2>determines whether, based on your biometric analysis, whether you are

0:08:20.120 --> 0:08:23.840
<v Speaker 2>at least sixteen. And the final area is called inference

0:08:23.920 --> 0:08:27.400
<v Speaker 2>and this is a little bit more tricky. This is

0:08:27.840 --> 0:08:31.440
<v Speaker 2>technology that uses your metadata or looks at your online

0:08:31.720 --> 0:08:34.400
<v Speaker 2>digital footprint to get a sense of how old you are.

0:08:34.640 --> 0:08:38.240
<v Speaker 2>This is basically taking a big overall look at how

0:08:38.360 --> 0:08:42.400
<v Speaker 2>you've been conducting yourself online and whether you fall within

0:08:42.440 --> 0:08:44.920
<v Speaker 2>a likely age range. So it might just be your

0:08:45.000 --> 0:08:47.720
<v Speaker 2>email domain, if you have like a work email address,

0:08:48.240 --> 0:08:50.720
<v Speaker 2>that would assume that you are a little bit older.

0:08:50.960 --> 0:08:53.120
<v Speaker 2>If you're on the electoral roll, you have to be

0:08:53.160 --> 0:08:56.120
<v Speaker 2>at least eighteen to vote, so they will cross reference

0:08:56.120 --> 0:08:59.880
<v Speaker 2>your details against that. Yeah, and there's also questions of

0:09:00.000 --> 0:09:03.080
<v Speaker 2>whether they can get data from school enrollments to determine

0:09:03.080 --> 0:09:07.320
<v Speaker 2>whether someone's in your ten or elevens, you know over sixteen.

0:09:07.080 --> 0:09:10.520
<v Speaker 1>So official channels because in my head, I'm thinking, if

0:09:10.520 --> 0:09:14.360
<v Speaker 1>you've got someone whose browser history contains like a lot

0:09:14.400 --> 0:09:18.400
<v Speaker 1>of homewares and couch options versus someone whose browser history

0:09:18.600 --> 0:09:22.600
<v Speaker 1>is streaming a lot of scivity toilet, we're probably able

0:09:22.640 --> 0:09:24.560
<v Speaker 1>to make a detection on their age from that.

0:09:24.720 --> 0:09:28.000
<v Speaker 2>It would be a really humbling experience with me being

0:09:28.040 --> 0:09:30.959
<v Speaker 2>in my late twenties was confused for being thirteen years

0:09:31.000 --> 0:09:33.199
<v Speaker 2>old on my browser You history.

0:09:33.120 --> 0:09:37.400
<v Speaker 1>That inference side is really interesting, But you mentioned estimation,

0:09:37.920 --> 0:09:39.719
<v Speaker 1>and I know that this is something that had come

0:09:39.800 --> 0:09:43.840
<v Speaker 1>up during the trial about you know, what is the

0:09:43.880 --> 0:09:47.120
<v Speaker 1>difference between a fifteen year old's face and a sixteen

0:09:47.200 --> 0:09:51.240
<v Speaker 1>year old's face. Are these kind of different categories all

0:09:51.360 --> 0:09:55.440
<v Speaker 1>about working together with each other to form a more

0:09:55.480 --> 0:09:58.320
<v Speaker 1>thorough picture of age verification or will platforms kind of

0:09:58.320 --> 0:09:59.360
<v Speaker 1>pick and choose one.

0:09:59.360 --> 0:10:04.000
<v Speaker 2>Each Well, it's all part of what is being thrashed

0:10:04.000 --> 0:10:06.920
<v Speaker 2>out at the moment, and this goes to what the

0:10:07.000 --> 0:10:10.240
<v Speaker 2>legislation requires, which is the reasonable step. So they might

0:10:10.360 --> 0:10:14.160
<v Speaker 2>go to these third party platforms which verify or estimate

0:10:14.200 --> 0:10:18.440
<v Speaker 2>someone's age as a way of blocking anyone who's under

0:10:18.480 --> 0:10:21.559
<v Speaker 2>sixteen from making an account. But also some of these

0:10:21.600 --> 0:10:25.880
<v Speaker 2>platforms already use this type of verification. Meta already uses it,

0:10:26.440 --> 0:10:30.520
<v Speaker 2>so if they're harnessing it to stop people under sixteen

0:10:30.559 --> 0:10:33.600
<v Speaker 2>from getting into that platforms, that might be considered a

0:10:33.600 --> 0:10:37.320
<v Speaker 2>reasonable step. It depends what the E Safety Commissioner determines

0:10:37.400 --> 0:10:39.199
<v Speaker 2>before the December deadline.

0:10:39.480 --> 0:10:42.640
<v Speaker 1>So, Harry, there's a big recurring question here around privacy

0:10:42.679 --> 0:10:45.800
<v Speaker 1>whenever we think about the social media platforms. Privacy is

0:10:45.840 --> 0:10:49.600
<v Speaker 1>obviously something that matters to users, but it's especially delicate

0:10:49.640 --> 0:10:52.720
<v Speaker 1>here because we're talking about under eighteen year olds and children.

0:10:53.040 --> 0:10:55.040
<v Speaker 1>Did the report say anything about that.

0:10:55.520 --> 0:10:58.160
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, it looked into some of the pretty genuine concerns

0:10:58.200 --> 0:11:02.560
<v Speaker 2>about privacy breaches that could occur, especially when we're thinking

0:11:02.559 --> 0:11:07.280
<v Speaker 2>about the inference technology. So that's using the online footprint

0:11:07.320 --> 0:11:09.800
<v Speaker 2>to sort of build an estimation of someone's age. And

0:11:10.200 --> 0:11:15.040
<v Speaker 2>the report actually warned that some continuous behavioral monitoring online

0:11:15.480 --> 0:11:19.160
<v Speaker 2>could lead to overstepping an ethical mark. So it said

0:11:19.160 --> 0:11:21.840
<v Speaker 2>that there needed to be some ground rules and regulation

0:11:21.960 --> 0:11:24.840
<v Speaker 2>to make sure that if the inference technology was to

0:11:24.840 --> 0:11:27.560
<v Speaker 2>be used, that it is safe and that it doesn't

0:11:27.640 --> 0:11:29.160
<v Speaker 2>lead to this ongoing effect.

0:11:29.400 --> 0:11:29.640
<v Speaker 1>Okay.

0:11:29.840 --> 0:11:31.480
<v Speaker 2>The other main issue that was brought up in the

0:11:31.520 --> 0:11:36.120
<v Speaker 2>report was accuracy. So what if the technology accidentally starts

0:11:36.160 --> 0:11:39.600
<v Speaker 2>locking people out who are over sixteen and actually able

0:11:39.640 --> 0:11:41.319
<v Speaker 2>to use social media under the law.

0:11:41.320 --> 0:11:44.679
<v Speaker 1>Or similarly approves people who are under sixteen because it

0:11:44.760 --> 0:11:46.040
<v Speaker 1>might think they look eighteen.

0:11:46.400 --> 0:11:49.240
<v Speaker 2>So the trials found that some of the tech could

0:11:49.240 --> 0:11:51.800
<v Speaker 2>mismatch someone's age and what it called a buffer zone,

0:11:51.800 --> 0:11:54.959
<v Speaker 2>and that's about two to three years. So that means

0:11:54.960 --> 0:11:57.840
<v Speaker 2>that someone who's seventeen might be confused for a fourteen

0:11:57.920 --> 0:12:00.360
<v Speaker 2>year old or vice versa.

0:12:00.000 --> 0:12:03.240
<v Speaker 1>Okay, so this report is acknowledging some of the shortcomings

0:12:03.280 --> 0:12:06.800
<v Speaker 1>of this tech, and it's saying that there is a

0:12:06.800 --> 0:12:10.160
<v Speaker 1>bit of a buffer zone. That feels kind of difficult

0:12:10.200 --> 0:12:12.400
<v Speaker 1>because if it's a buffer zone of two to three years,

0:12:12.440 --> 0:12:14.720
<v Speaker 1>you know, the experts are telling us that that's a

0:12:14.760 --> 0:12:17.480
<v Speaker 1>critical age, those two to three years between you know,

0:12:17.600 --> 0:12:21.240
<v Speaker 1>fourteen to eighteen. So I'm sure there'll be people watching

0:12:21.280 --> 0:12:21.960
<v Speaker 1>that one closely.

0:12:22.160 --> 0:12:24.640
<v Speaker 2>And the language and the report says that based on

0:12:24.679 --> 0:12:28.680
<v Speaker 2>its trials, the way in which the estimations have occurred

0:12:28.679 --> 0:12:31.480
<v Speaker 2>are within what they call the acceptable range. Okay, so

0:12:31.520 --> 0:12:35.760
<v Speaker 2>that means that there aren't enough inaccurate estimations of someone's

0:12:35.800 --> 0:12:40.480
<v Speaker 2>age to cause too much alarm based on the report's findings,

0:12:41.000 --> 0:12:43.400
<v Speaker 2>but it is still you know, once you roll this

0:12:43.480 --> 0:12:48.120
<v Speaker 2>out on mass to every teenager and child in Australia,

0:12:48.280 --> 0:12:51.200
<v Speaker 2>like that does become a bit more of a pressing

0:12:51.240 --> 0:12:54.040
<v Speaker 2>issue lasting I just note on accuracy. There was this

0:12:54.120 --> 0:12:57.920
<v Speaker 2>really interesting note in the report as well about some

0:12:58.000 --> 0:13:02.840
<v Speaker 2>issues with non Caucasian user is, including that First Nations

0:13:02.880 --> 0:13:08.040
<v Speaker 2>peoples are underrepresented when training this data, so there could

0:13:08.080 --> 0:13:12.120
<v Speaker 2>actually be an inbuilt bias to the system, which is

0:13:12.160 --> 0:13:15.679
<v Speaker 2>something that we've heard about with face ID scanning technology

0:13:16.000 --> 0:13:18.959
<v Speaker 2>before as well, and so the report said that there

0:13:19.040 --> 0:13:22.239
<v Speaker 2>was a bit of awareness among the age assurance companies

0:13:22.280 --> 0:13:25.160
<v Speaker 2>as well that this is a shortcoming and that this

0:13:25.320 --> 0:13:28.320
<v Speaker 2>is something that they need to look further into as well.

0:13:28.520 --> 0:13:33.800
<v Speaker 1>Fascinating so having more diversity across the trials to understand

0:13:33.880 --> 0:13:36.319
<v Speaker 1>the data better on a more diverse range of users.

0:13:37.040 --> 0:13:42.079
<v Speaker 1>We are talking, though, Harry, about a generation that's grown

0:13:42.160 --> 0:13:46.560
<v Speaker 1>up online, right, We're also talking about teenagers. When you

0:13:46.600 --> 0:13:50.520
<v Speaker 1>consider those two things together, you can't help but wonder

0:13:51.120 --> 0:13:55.120
<v Speaker 1>is this generation that will find its way around age

0:13:55.240 --> 0:13:59.640
<v Speaker 1>verification technology. Did the research consider that?

0:14:00.120 --> 0:14:03.680
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, And the standout thing to me was the use

0:14:03.720 --> 0:14:06.920
<v Speaker 2>of virtual private networks which are also known as VPNs

0:14:07.679 --> 0:14:10.400
<v Speaker 2>to dodge the rules. And the reason it sort of

0:14:10.440 --> 0:14:12.840
<v Speaker 2>picked up my interest is because recently in the UK

0:14:13.280 --> 0:14:17.320
<v Speaker 2>there was a ban on pornography websites for under eighteen's

0:14:17.360 --> 0:14:20.960
<v Speaker 2>and so they rolled out this age deshurance technology and

0:14:21.200 --> 0:14:24.000
<v Speaker 2>all of a sudden there was just an uptick in

0:14:24.120 --> 0:14:27.040
<v Speaker 2>the number of people downloading VPNs.

0:14:27.080 --> 0:14:30.720
<v Speaker 1>And so there's a learning there for Australia exactly.

0:14:30.800 --> 0:14:34.880
<v Speaker 2>So the report basically recommended to get around the issue

0:14:34.880 --> 0:14:38.320
<v Speaker 2>of VPNs, which basically makes you appear as though you're

0:14:38.320 --> 0:14:42.040
<v Speaker 2>in another country where the rules don't apply, and that's

0:14:42.240 --> 0:14:44.880
<v Speaker 2>where you change what's known as your IP address. But

0:14:45.200 --> 0:14:50.120
<v Speaker 2>there's geolocation technology that can detect an inconsistency. So if

0:14:50.160 --> 0:14:53.880
<v Speaker 2>your IP address and your regional patterns are not lined up,

0:14:54.160 --> 0:14:57.720
<v Speaker 2>then this type of technology could pick up on that, okay,

0:14:57.800 --> 0:15:00.480
<v Speaker 2>And it's already been used in some context as well,

0:15:00.600 --> 0:15:01.200
<v Speaker 2>so it.

0:15:01.120 --> 0:15:05.920
<v Speaker 1>Is possible to identify if someone changes their VPN in

0:15:05.960 --> 0:15:09.800
<v Speaker 1>Australia but has an Australian IP address. I think that

0:15:09.800 --> 0:15:13.800
<v Speaker 1>that's really interesting and will probably be some relief for

0:15:14.400 --> 0:15:17.920
<v Speaker 1>policymakers and parents alike to know that that exists, because

0:15:18.640 --> 0:15:22.480
<v Speaker 1>if a workaround exists, we can expect teenagers to find it.

0:15:22.720 --> 0:15:27.160
<v Speaker 2>That's right. Overall, the government says that it's quite reassured

0:15:27.200 --> 0:15:31.640
<v Speaker 2>by the findings that it's workable, it's scalable, and there

0:15:31.720 --> 0:15:33.880
<v Speaker 2>is going to be a bit of a trial and

0:15:34.000 --> 0:15:37.480
<v Speaker 2>error when rolling out the technology, but it's acknowledged there's

0:15:37.520 --> 0:15:40.120
<v Speaker 2>not really a one size fits all approach that is

0:15:40.440 --> 0:15:45.240
<v Speaker 2>appropriate when considering getting kids off social media. But the

0:15:45.320 --> 0:15:47.120
<v Speaker 2>report does give a bit of a rundown of what

0:15:47.160 --> 0:15:50.040
<v Speaker 2>we can expect from the tenth of December. You might

0:15:50.040 --> 0:15:52.240
<v Speaker 2>need to show your passport, you might need to scan

0:15:52.320 --> 0:15:55.280
<v Speaker 2>your face to see if this technology picks up that

0:15:55.320 --> 0:15:57.760
<v Speaker 2>you're over sixteen, or there might be an app that

0:15:57.880 --> 0:16:02.160
<v Speaker 2>scans your search history, your online footprint to see how

0:16:02.160 --> 0:16:04.480
<v Speaker 2>old it thinks you are. And the fact that they're

0:16:04.560 --> 0:16:07.720
<v Speaker 2>still not fully sure how the technology is going to

0:16:07.760 --> 0:16:10.960
<v Speaker 2>work has been picked up this week by the opposition.

0:16:11.240 --> 0:16:15.600
<v Speaker 2>So the Shadow Communications Minister, Melissa Macintosh said that the

0:16:15.640 --> 0:16:18.560
<v Speaker 2>report has come ten seconds to midnight, adding that the

0:16:18.640 --> 0:16:20.920
<v Speaker 2>report is not the final step by any means. The

0:16:21.120 --> 0:16:23.680
<v Speaker 2>Safety Commissioner now needs to have a look at the

0:16:23.680 --> 0:16:27.040
<v Speaker 2>findings and then advise the social media companies on what

0:16:27.280 --> 0:16:30.400
<v Speaker 2>will form the best practice for them, and all the

0:16:30.400 --> 0:16:33.280
<v Speaker 2>while the bean is just under one hundred days away.

0:16:33.360 --> 0:16:35.320
<v Speaker 2>So TikTok punintended.

0:16:35.680 --> 0:16:39.000
<v Speaker 1>Sure was Thank you so much, Harry. It's so interesting

0:16:39.040 --> 0:16:41.040
<v Speaker 1>because I think, you know, we hear about this ban

0:16:41.160 --> 0:16:43.640
<v Speaker 1>and it might feel far away for some of us,

0:16:43.720 --> 0:16:46.800
<v Speaker 1>you know, for those of us who are shockingly over sixteen.

0:16:47.480 --> 0:16:50.760
<v Speaker 1>That's my secret. I'll never tell. But you know, anyone

0:16:50.920 --> 0:16:54.400
<v Speaker 1>who has a log in across these platforms is hypothetically

0:16:54.440 --> 0:16:56.840
<v Speaker 1>going to be affected. Right, we will, I imagine on the

0:16:56.840 --> 0:17:00.320
<v Speaker 1>tenth of December, all have to verify in some way

0:17:00.600 --> 0:17:01.960
<v Speaker 1>at our place on these apps.

0:17:02.240 --> 0:17:04.399
<v Speaker 2>Unless we've been on there for as long as I have,

0:17:04.520 --> 0:17:08.040
<v Speaker 2>then I hope they just know that I'm well and truly.

0:17:08.880 --> 0:17:12.600
<v Speaker 1>Is not maths sing. This guy's over sixteen. Harry, thank

0:17:12.640 --> 0:17:16.800
<v Speaker 1>you as always for that breakdown. We really appreciate your guidance.

0:17:16.840 --> 0:17:18.440
<v Speaker 2>Thanks Sam, I appreciate it.

0:17:18.280 --> 0:17:21.080
<v Speaker 1>And thank you for listening to today's episode. We'll be

0:17:21.119 --> 0:17:23.440
<v Speaker 1>back a little later on with your evening news headlines,

0:17:23.480 --> 0:17:29.119
<v Speaker 1>but until then, have a great day.

0:17:29.520 --> 0:17:31.800
<v Speaker 2>My name is Lily Madden and I'm a proud Adunda

0:17:32.040 --> 0:17:36.840
<v Speaker 2>Bungelung Calcuttin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz acknowledges

0:17:36.920 --> 0:17:39.080
<v Speaker 2>that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the

0:17:39.080 --> 0:17:42.640
<v Speaker 2>Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torres

0:17:42.680 --> 0:17:45.600
<v Speaker 2>Strait Island and nations. We pay our respects to the

0:17:45.600 --> 0:17:48.400
<v Speaker 2>first peoples of these countries, both past and present.