Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Digital ID

The End of Online Anonymity? Australia’s New Law Pushes Digital ID for Everyone To Ban Kids From Social Media

Published

11 minute read

 By

Australia is gearing up to roll out some of the world’s strictest social media rules, with Parliament having pushed through legislation to bar anyone under 16 from creating accounts on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok. It’s a sweeping measure but, as the ink dries, the questions are piling up.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s Labor government and the opposition teamed up on Thursday to pass the new restrictions with bipartisan enthusiasm. And why not? Opinion polls show a whopping 77% of Australians are behind the idea. Protecting kids online is an easy sell which is why it’s often used to usher in the most draconian of laws. Still, the devil—as always—is in the details.

Proof of Age, But at What Cost?

Here’s the crux of the new law: to use social media, Australians will need to prove they’re old enough. That means showing ID, effectively ending the anonymity that’s long been a feature (or flaw, depending on your perspective) of the online experience. In theory, this makes sense—keeping kids out of online spaces designed for adults is hardly controversial. But in practice, it’s like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.

For one, there’s no clear blueprint for how this will work. Will social media platforms require passports and birth certificates at sign-up? Who’s going to handle and secure this flood of personal information? The government hasn’t offered much clarity and, until it does, the logistics look shaky.

And then there’s the matter of enforcement. Teenagers are famously tech-savvy, and history has shown that banning them from a platform is more of a speed bump than a roadblock. With VPNs, fake IDs, and alternate accounts already standard fare for navigating internet restrictions, how effective can this law really be?

The Hasty Debate

Critics on both sides of Parliament flagged concerns about the speed with which this legislation moved forward. But the Albanese government pressed ahead, arguing that urgent action was needed to protect young people. Their opponents in the Liberal-National coalition, not wanting to appear soft on tech regulation, fell in line. The result? A law that feels more like a political statement than a well-thought-out policy.

There’s no denying the appeal of bold action on Big Tech. Headlines about online predators and harmful content make it easy to rally public support. But there’s a fine line between decisive governance and reactionary policymaking.

Big Questions, Few Answers

The most glaring issue is privacy. Forcing users to hand over ID to access social media opens up a Pandora’s box of security concerns. Centralizing sensitive personal data creates a tempting target for hackers, and Australia’s track record with large-scale data breaches isn’t exactly reassuring.

There’s also the question of what happens when kids inevitably find workarounds. Locking them out of mainstream platforms doesn’t mean they’ll stop using the internet—it just pushes them into less regulated, potentially more harmful digital spaces. Is that really a win for online safety?

A Global Watch Party

Australia’s bold move is already drawing attention from abroad. Governments worldwide are grappling with how to regulate social media, and this legislation could set a precedent. But whether it becomes a model for others or a cautionary tale remains to be seen.

For now, the Albanese government has delivered a strong message: protecting children online is a priority. But the lack of clear answers about enforcement and privacy leaves the impression that this is a solution in search of a strategy.

All on the Platforms

Under the new social media law, the responsibility for enforcement doesn’t rest with the government, but with the very companies it targets. Platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram will be tasked with ensuring no Australian under 16 manages to slip through the digital gates. If they fail?

They’ll face fines of up to A$50 million (about $32.4 million USD). That’s a steep price for failing to solve a problem the government itself hasn’t figured out how to address.

The legislation offers little in the way of specifics, leaving tech giants to essentially guess how they’re supposed to pull off this feat. The law vaguely mentions taking “reasonable steps” to verify age but skips the critical part: defining what “reasonable” means.

The Industry Pushback

Tech companies, predictably, are not thrilled. Meta, in its submission to a Senate inquiry, called the law “rushed” and out of touch with the current limitations of age-verification technology. “The social media ban overlooks the practical reality of age assurance technology,” Meta argued. Translation? The tools to make this work either don’t exist or aren’t reliable enough to enforce at scale.

X didn’t hold back either. The platform warned of potential misuse of the sweeping powers the legislation grants to the minister for communications. X CEO Linda Yaccarino’s team even raised concerns that these powers could be used to curb free speech — another way of saying that regulating who gets to log on could quickly evolve into regulating what they’re allowed to say.

And it’s not just the tech companies pushing back. The Human Rights Law Centre questioned the lawfulness of the bill, highlighting how it opens the door to intrusive data collection while offering no safeguards against abuse.

Promises, Assurances, and Ambiguities

The government insists it won’t force people to hand over passports, licenses, or tap into the contentious new digital ID system to prove their age. But here’s the catch: there’s nothing in the current law explicitly preventing that, either. The government is effectively asking Australians to trust that these measures won’t lead to broader surveillance—even as the legislation creates the infrastructure to make it possible.

This uncertainty was laid bare during the bill’s rushed four-hour review. Liberal National Senator Matt Canavan pressed for clarity, and while the Coalition managed to extract a promise for amendments preventing platforms from demanding IDs outright, it still feels like a band-aid on an otherwise sprawling mess.

A Law in Search of a Strategy

Part of the problem is that the government itself doesn’t seem entirely sure how this law will work. A trial of age-assurance technology is planned for mid-2025—long after the law is expected to take effect. The communications minister, Michelle Rowland, will ultimately decide what enforcement methods apply to which platforms, wielding what critics describe as “expansive” and potentially unchecked authority.

It’s a power dynamic that brings to mind a comment from Rowland’s predecessor, Stephen Conroy, who once bragged about his ability to make telecommunications companies “wear red underpants on [their] head” if he so desired. Tech companies now face the unenviable task of interpreting a vague law while bracing for whatever decisions the minister might make in the future.

The list of platforms affected by the law is another moving target. Government officials have dropped hints in interviews—YouTube, for example, might not make the cut—but these decisions will ultimately be left to the minister. This pick-and-choose approach adds another layer of uncertainty, leaving tech companies and users alike guessing at what’s coming next.

The Bigger Picture

The debate around this legislation is as much about philosophy as it is about enforcement. On one hand, the government is trying to address legitimate concerns about children’s safety online. On the other, it’s doing so in a way that raises serious questions about privacy, free speech, and the limits of state power over the digital realm.

Australia’s experiment could become a model for other countries grappling with the same challenges—or a cautionary tale of what happens when governments legislate without a clear plan. For now, the only certainty is uncertainty. In a year’s time, Australians might find themselves proving their age every time they try to log in—or watching the system collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Digital ID

Wales Becomes First UK Testbed for Citywide AI-Powered Facial Recognition Surveillance

Published on

Wales is that part of the UK the authorities have picked as the testbed for the first citywide deployment of what some consider to currently be the most radical form of mass biometric surveillance in public places – “AI”-powered live facial recognition.
What is likely to be the reason behind the “trial,” privacy campaigners are warning, is the eventual permanent deployment of this type of biometric surveillance throughout the country.
South Wales Police said that Cardiff will be covered by a network of CCTV cameras with facial recognition tech embedded in them, while the excuse is providing security during the international Six Nations rugby event. But the police also characterized the move as “semi-permanent.”
This appears to be a distinction between what the police in the UK have used thus far to carry out surveillance based on live facial recognition: vans with one camera.
The decision to move to position a host of cameras in the central zone of Cardiff makes this a significant expansion of the technique.
And while the police are reassuring citizens that expanding live facial recognition “really enhances” law enforcement’s ability to do their job –  the Big Brother Watch privacy group slammed the move as a “shocking” development and the creation of an “Orwellian biometric surveillance zone.”
And while capturing everyone’s biometric data, and in that way, according to Big Brother Watch’s Senior Advocacy Officer Madeleine Stone, turning Brits into “walking barcodes” and “a nation of suspects” – in terms of solving crime, this is proving to be a waste of public money.
“This network of facial recognition cameras will make it impossible for Cardiff residents and visitors to opt out of a biometric police identity check,” Stone underlined.
And yet, over the three years that live facial recognition has been in use at sporting venues (only) – the use of the technology has not led to any arrests.
“No other democracy in the world spies on its population with live facial recognition in this cavalier and chilling way,” Stone warned, adding, “South Wales Police must immediately stop this dystopian trial.”
The technology works by capturing the faces of every person passing through an area covered, in real time, to then compare them to a database of those described in reports as “wanted criminals.”
However, when South Wales Police spoke about who is on their “watchlist,” it also included people “banned from the area” and those “who pose a risk to the public.”
Continue Reading

Carbon Tax

Mark Carney has history of supporting CBDCs, endorsed Freedom Convoy crackdown

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Carney also said last week that he is willing to use all government powers, including “emergency powers,” to enforce his energy plan if elected prime minister.   

World Economic Forum-linked Liberal Party leadership frontrunner Mark Carney has a history of supporting central bank digital currencies, and in 2022 supported “choking off the money” donated to the Freedom Convoy.

In his 2021 book Value(s), Carney said that the “future of money” is a “central bank stablecoin, known as a central bank digital currency or CBDC.” 

He noted in his book that such a currency would be similar to current cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, but without the private nature afforded to it by its decentralization.   

“It is simply untenable in democracies that the core of the monetary system could be based on forms of electronic private money whose creators control large blocks of the currency, like Bitcoin,” he wrote. “Cryptocurrencies are not the future of money.”

Carney noted that a CBDC, if “properly designed,” could serve “all the functions to which private cryptocurrencies and stablecoins aspire while addressing the fundamental legal and governance issues that will, in time, undermine those alternatives.” 

Expanding on his worldview in relation to CBDCs, Carney suggested that “fear” can be taken advantage of to shape the future of money.

“With fear on the march, people were willing to surrender to Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan’ such basic rights as the freedom to leave their homes,” he wrote. “And so it is with money. People will support the delegation to independent central banks of the tough decisions that are necessary to maintain the value of money provided the authorities deliver monetary and financial stability.” 

Some Canadians are alarmed by the prospect of CBDCs, a fear that only worsened after the Liberals under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau froze hundreds of bank accounts it deemed were importantly linked to the 2022 Freedom Convoy. 

During the Freedom Convoy, Carney wrote in an op-ed for the Globe and Mail, “Those who are still helping to extend this occupation must be identified and punished to the full force of the law,” adding that “Drawing the line means choking off the money that financed this occupation.” 

In addition to his comments on CBDCs, Carney has a history of promoting anti-life and anti-family agendas, including abortion and LGBT-related  efforts. He has also previously endorsed the carbon tax and even criticized Trudeau when the tax was exempted from home heating oil to reduce costs for some Canadians.  

Carney also said last week that he is willing to use all government powers, including “emergency powers,” to enforce his energy plan if elected prime minister.   

The Liberal Party of Canada will choose its next leader, who will automatically become prime minister, on March 9, after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that he plans to step down as Liberal Party leader once a new leader has been chosen.     

In contrast to Carney, Poilievre has promised that if he is elected prime minister, he would stop any implementation of a “digital currency” or a compulsory “digital ID” system.   

When it comes to a digital Canadian dollar, the Bank of Canada found that Canadians are very wary of a government-backed digital currency, concluding that a “significant number” of citizens would resist the implementation of such a system.  

Continue Reading

Trending

X