What alternatives or amendments are privacy advocates demanding for Australia’s internet ID plan?
Executive summary
Privacy advocates want limits and alternatives to Australia’s incoming age‑verification and Digital ID measures, demanding less invasive checks, strict data minimisation, and opt‑outs for nonessential services; critics warn that proposals like facial age‑estimation, photo ID scans or credit‑card checks risk broad surveillance and exclusion (examples of measures reported include face scans, bank‑card checks and driver’s licence checks) [1] [2] [3]. The government’s rules and industry codes roll out in tranches from December 2025 and intersect with a new national Digital ID system that is being piloted and expanded [1] [4].
1. What privacy advocates are asking for — less biometrics, more choices
Privacy groups say age‑verification must not force people into biometric systems; they prefer privacy‑preserving alternatives and voluntary Digital ID uptake. Reporting flags concern over mandatory facial age‑estimation and photo‑ID scans and suggests advocates want options that avoid handing over face images or scanned identity documents wherever possible [2] [1]. Available sources do not list a single unified privacy‑advocate manifesto, but commentary and reporting repeatedly identify opposition to biometric or document‑based checks as central [2] [1].
2. Practical alternatives being proposed
Journalists and commentators point to technical alternatives: anonymous age‑tokens, third‑party attestation or attribute‑based verification that confirm “over 16” without sharing full identity details, and non‑biometric proofs such as certified attestations from schools or parents rather than photo IDs or bank cards [2]. The sources note that platforms have latitude to choose “reasonable steps” to prevent under‑16s creating accounts, so non‑identifying methods are technically possible under the law [5].
3. Data‑minimisation and strict limits advocates demand
Advocates press for legal constraints that limit what data platforms can collect, retain and link to user browsing. Reporting shows worries that search engines or hosts could tie age checks to account histories, creating permanent identity‑linked logs; privacy calls therefore focus on data minimisation, short retention windows and prohibitions on cross‑service profiling [1] [2]. Available sources do not provide the exact draft clauses privacy groups want; they report the demand for stronger statutory privacy protections rather than the precise legislative text [2].
4. Opt‑outs, inclusion safeguards and “digital slow lane” concerns
Critics argue any rigid ID requirement will exclude vulnerable and marginalised people. Commentators highlight fears that people who refuse or cannot complete checks will be pushed offline or into “darker corners” of the internet; industry and civil‑society voices call for meaningful opt‑outs and low‑friction alternatives so access and inclusion are preserved [3] [2]. Some reporting suggests refusing a Digital ID may not fully block access to services but could create friction and delays — an outcome advocates see as coercive [6].
5. Oversight, accreditation and redress proposals
Advocates want independent oversight, transparent accreditation for identity‑service providers and clear redress mechanisms if verification systems fail or are misused. Government consultation documents and Digital ID rules under development mention accreditation, incident notification and restoration steps, which are areas privacy groups seek to strengthen with enforceable rights and remedies [7] [4]. Sources note proposed accreditation rules and redress frameworks will take effect around the end of 2025, signalling where safeguards could be codified [7].
6. Two competing agendas: child safety versus surveillance risk
The policy tension is explicit in reporting: proponents frame age checks as protecting children from harmful content; opponents warn the same measures create a surveillance infrastructure and privacy hazards. Media coverage records public anxiety about face‑scan or credit‑card verification methods even where survey support for child protections exists — showing citizens back child safety in principle but fear intrusive means [2] [1].
7. Where the debate matters next — codes, pilots and legal challenges
Industry codes enforced by the eSafety commissioner and the rollout of the national Digital ID system will determine technical detail and compliance burden; those codes take effect in stages from December 2025 and Digital ID pilots are under way with possible broader roll‑out in 2025 [1] [4]. Reporting also records legal and political pushback — including threats of lawsuits and advocacy challenges — so the final shape of safeguards could change through court cases and regulatory amendments [8] [2].
Limitations: available sources provide reporting and commentary on the demands of privacy advocates and technical options but do not publish a single, comprehensive list of every amendment sought by every group; specifics of proposed statutory wording or detailed technical designs are not in the cited material [2] [7].